How dare you speak such ghastly truths C-F-B. Speculation: Don't ya know "we" (Bitcoin core developers) are supposed to be pretending to be working on pruning the UXTO but never release that. And we must keep these weaknesses in Bitcoin, because you can clearly see "we" attend our CIA and CFR appointments. An "No" "we" are not under an NSA gag order ourselves which prevents us from telling you this. Message From Anonymous. |
|
|
|
What would Satoshi say when he comes back into public view... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=504771.msg5563694#msg5563694"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those formative years. But, the world is more sophisticated and has accepted the all seeing ledger. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
|
|
|
|
|
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those formative years. But, the world is more sophisticated and has accepted the all seeing ledger. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
|
|
|
|
|
Hahaha, he made a fool of himself because he thought ECDSA was subject only the Grover's algorithm (thus his claim of only a reduction from 128 to 64 bit security). Now he pretends he didn't read my rebuttal, so he doesn't have to face his egregious technical mistake.
(apparently he conflated the security of the hash of ECDSA which is only subject to Grover's, with the ECDSA public key inside the hash which is revealed on spending, and which is subject to Shor's not Grover's)
Btw, my private message to him was "your turn dufus" with a link to my rebuttal above.
Any more pesky nincompoops want to take their turn at being skewed on the logic tree?
|
|
|
|
We are safe from Guacamolegeddon people! Back to Defcon 4
Hahaha Stick a fork in that AGW turkey, all d'juice done oozed outta her... Causes and implications of the pauseDan's comments are always satirical: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297&cpage=1#comment-426394I would say “shadenfreude!” but what we’re witnessing isn’t really ‘misfortune’ as much as it is a predictable slo-mo head-on collision trainwreck full of drunk Irishmen boldly predicting that the other train will swerve first. |
|
|
|
I've exchanged some discussion with James A. Donald in his blog (and actually he seems like a reasonable man and amicable with me). It appears to me his hate derives from the bad outcomes he sees from the state supporting females and minorities, thus causing great ruin (as explained in my prior post). Yet this is irrational. Hating individuals for their choices when the causes are macro-economic (socialism) and technological (i.e. lack of anonymity to destroy the state), is irrational...
ESR makes the same point and articulates it better: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-425929...
I don’t interpret the experience ais JAD would; he needs these incidents to be evidence of black and female inferiority, which I don’t. No, the problem was that as an unintended consequence of civil rights law this woman had power and immunity without responsibility. That can make anybody stupid and arrogant, no matter what their skin color or the shape of their genitalia.
... |
|
|
|
The "Lifetime Foundation" members continue to try to spread propaganda and lies. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=500994.msg5562217#msg5562217No one has provided any argument against my upthread point about Zerocoin (if it were added to Bitcoin or an altcoin): - If we adopt something like Zerocoin to add more anonymity to the tracing of trail of ownership of a coin, these signatures can't be retroactively hardened later, thus all that history of anonymity is suddenly lost once the adversary gains a quantum computer.
If you aren't interested in looking up any of the many, many threads on QC, but still want to know about it, I'll give you the very short version. QC is hard to scale up. At the moment, it looks like QC devices will not be following Moore's law because the difficulty of retaining coherence appears to scale close to linearly with the number of gates, rather than inversely with the feature size like in classical devices. Even in the worst case, we should have years of warning before devices capable of breaking ECDSA are created, with decades much more likely.*
And he still hasn't refuted what I asserted upthread as re-quoted as follows. - How do we know when the adversary has a quantum computer, given the capability of the NSA to issue national security letter gag orders? They had differential analysis to break cryptography in the 1970s and 80s and the public was unaware.
He is speculating on what science knows now and what it can do in the future (and I don't even agree with his speculation but any way speculation is speculation, not fact). Due to National Security gag orders we can't even be sure we know what the current science is. The USA's covert agencies including the NSA have a $52 billion ANNUAL budget. And this doesn't include the black budget which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted the day before 9/11 on national TV was $3 trillion unaccounted for in the defense budget (over the years), then the relevant records were conveniently destroyed when the Pentagon was hit by an "airplane" the next day. No backup copies of the records.  And his is ignoring the fact of history of what happened in the 1970s and 1980s (see what I wrote before as quoted above) which is an example that we can't always know. Don't forget that Edward Snowden leaked (Washington Post) that the NSA is actively attempting to build a quantum computer. Why risk it? Why not switch to Lamport signatures so no more risk at all. The reason is because Bitcoin's blockchain is design in a way that switching to Lamport probably won't scale well. But an altcoin can fix this. Bitcoin probably can't, although maybe if they get off their lazy arse and finish the UXTO pruning, they might be able to do it. Here is an excellent article on this quantum computing topic and also explains how Bitcoin's three encryption methods are combined, so it is relevant to this thread's title as well: http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/bitcoin-vs-the-nsas-quantum-computer/There are two things I dispute from the article. Let’s consider the type attack most people think of when hear of quantum computers―a brute force attack. Nonsense. Shor's algorithm is not a brute force attack. The author inserted this disinformation into his otherwise good article, because most users don't understand that Shor's algorithm doesn't require a brute force capability. The good news is that ECDSA should be relatively easy to swap out if/when it becomes compromised. I already refuted that upthread:
And Shor's does not magically provide instant answers to questions posed, it allows a reduction in the search space, to the square root. sqrt(xy) = xy/2, so it will reduce the strength of our keys from 2128 to 264**. Note that 264 is still a huge number, and it is not at all a given that a real world system can accomplish it in 10 minutes.***
http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/2642A security level of about 64 bits can be broken by a determined attacker, and a level of 32 bits can be trivially broken on a single home computer. Also I think you are wrong. Grover's algorithm is what halves the effective bit length, i.e. square root of the solution space. As I explained upthread, Grover's algorithm applies (in theory) to cryptographic hashes, but for ECDSA and RSA the much more powerful Shor's algorithm applies. Shor's algorithm reduces to polynomial time as I explained upthread. If I am not mistaken, you've just shown yourself to be incompetent and not worth listening to. http://security.stackexchange.com/a/37638http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size#Effect_of_quantum_computing_attacks_on_key_strengthhttp://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/9940
Also note I wrote upthread that in addition to the quantum computing threat, we can't be sure that the curve chosen for ECDSA isn't backdoored or that some mathematical algorithm couldn't be discovered secretly by the NSA, as they did with differential cryptographic analysis in the 1970s and 1980s and they could crack everyone, but no one knew. Cryptographic hashes are much less likely than mathematical group algorithms (e.g. RSA and ECDSA) to fall to mathematical cryptographic analysis if they are designed correctly to break algebraic linearity over all mathematical groups. So, hardly the end of the world. And that isn't even considering non-technical solutions, like a mining service that cultivates a reputation for safely embedding transactions into the blockchain in exchange for fees****.
Here we go again depending on miners which are now becoming very centralized.  * It is not clear whether or not it is possible to apply Grover's algorithm to hashing in reality. Grover's works on quantum circuits, and we can't even design a classical circuit for single SHA-256, much less double, and vastly much less for a quantum version. Note that I said circuit. The distinction is important, it isn't that I'm unaware of FPGAs and ASICS.
If anything that is argument for using cryptographic hashes such as Lamport for public key cryptography. You are reinforcing my point. ** ECDSA has a work factor of 1/2, so 256 bit ECDSA is as strong as an ideal 128 bit crypto system.
*** Incidentally, 264 falling down to the hour-or-two range is likely to trigger a crypto upgrade, in my opinion. Assuming, of course, that we haven't done so already for aesthetic reasons.
You are talking about conventional computers. My point above is we might not know the progress of quantum computers or mathematical attacks not released to the public. **** The service would solicit transactions spending from old keys into new keys and would only accept transactions that met their fee structure. They would then mine internally, without revealing the pubkey to the rest of the network. Presumably for large enough transactions, they could even be convinced to mine at a loss by discarding blocks until they had two that they could publish at once. I leave the rest of the details as an exercise for the reader.
Here we go again depending on miners which are now becoming very centralized. I thought we were supposed to have a decentralized paradigm in play yet the Bitwards always fall back to centralization when ever they lose the technical argument... |
|
|
|
No one has provided any argument against my upthread point about Zerocoin (if it were added to Bitcoin or an altcoin): - If we adopt something like Zerocoin to add more anonymity to the tracing of trail of ownership of a coin, these signatures can't be retroactively hardened later, thus all that history of anonymity is suddenly lost once the adversary gains a quantum computer.
If you aren't interested in looking up any of the many, many threads on QC, but still want to know about it, I'll give you the very short version. QC is hard to scale up. At the moment, it looks like QC devices will not be following Moore's law because the difficulty of retaining coherence appears to scale close to linearly with the number of gates, rather than inversely with the feature size like in classical devices. Even in the worst case, we should have years of warning before devices capable of breaking ECDSA are created, with decades much more likely.*
And he still hasn't refuted what I asserted upthread as re-quoted as follows. - How do we know when the adversary has a quantum computer, given the capability of the NSA to issue national security letter gag orders? They had differential analysis to break cryptography in the 1970s and 80s and the public was unaware.
He is speculating on what science knows now and what it can do in the future (and I don't even agree with his speculation but any way speculation is speculation, not fact). Due to National Security gag orders we can't even be sure we know what the current science is. The USA's covert agencies including the NSA have a $52 billion ANNUAL budget. And this doesn't include the black budget which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted the day before 9/11 on national TV was $3 trillion unaccounted for in the defense budget (over the years), then the relevant records were conveniently destroyed when the Pentagon was hit by an "airplane" the next day. No backup copies of the records. And his is ignoring the fact of history of what happened in the 1970s and 1980s (see what I wrote before as quoted above) which is an example that we can't always know. Don't forget that Edward Snowden leaked (Washington Post) that the NSA is actively attempting to build a quantum computer. Why risk it? Why not switch to Lamport signatures so no more risk at all. The reason is because Bitcoin's blockchain is design in a way that switching to Lamport probably won't scale well. But an altcoin can fix this. Bitcoin probably can't, although maybe if they get off their lazy arse and finish the UXTO pruning, they might be able to do it. Here is an excellent article on this quantum computing topic and also explains how Bitcoin's three encryption methods are combined, so it is relevant to this thread's title as well: http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/bitcoin-vs-the-nsas-quantum-computer/There are two things I dispute from the article. Let’s consider the type attack most people think of when hear of quantum computers―a brute force attack. Nonsense. Shor's algorithm is not a brute force attack. The author inserted this disinformation into his otherwise good article, because most users don't understand that Shor's algorithm doesn't require a brute force capability. The good news is that ECDSA should be relatively easy to swap out if/when it becomes compromised. I already refuted that upthread:
And Shor's does not magically provide instant answers to questions posed, it allows a reduction in the search space, to the square root. sqrt(xy) = xy/2, so it will reduce the strength of our keys from 2128 to 264**. Note that 264 is still a huge number, and it is not at all a given that a real world system can accomplish it in 10 minutes.***
http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/2642A security level of about 64 bits can be broken by a determined attacker, and a level of 32 bits can be trivially broken on a single home computer. Also I think you are wrong. Grover's algorithm is what halves the effective bit length, i.e. square root of the solution space. As I explained upthread, Grover's algorithm applies (in theory) to cryptographic hashes, but for ECDSA and RSA the much more powerful Shor's algorithm applies. Shor's algorithm reduces to polynomial time as I explained upthread. If I am not mistaken, you've just shown yourself to be incompetent and not worth listening to. http://security.stackexchange.com/a/37638http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_size#Effect_of_quantum_computing_attacks_on_key_strengthhttp://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/9940
Also note I wrote upthread that in addition to the quantum computing threat, we can't be sure that the curve chosen for ECDSA isn't backdoored or that some mathematical algorithm couldn't be discovered secretly by the NSA, as they did with differential cryptographic analysis in the 1970s and 1980s and they could crack everyone, but no one knew. Cryptographic hashes are much less likely than mathematical group algorithms (e.g. RSA and ECDSA) to fall to mathematical cryptographic analysis if they are designed correctly to break algebraic linearity over all mathematical groups. So, hardly the end of the world. And that isn't even considering non-technical solutions, like a mining service that cultivates a reputation for safely embedding transactions into the blockchain in exchange for fees****.
Here we go again depending on miners which are now becoming very centralized. * It is not clear whether or not it is possible to apply Grover's algorithm to hashing in reality. Grover's works on quantum circuits, and we can't even design a classical circuit for single SHA-256, much less double, and vastly much less for a quantum version. Note that I said circuit. The distinction is important, it isn't that I'm unaware of FPGAs and ASICS.
If anything that is argument for using cryptographic hashes such as Lamport for public key cryptography. You are reinforcing my point. ** ECDSA has a work factor of 1/2, so 256 bit ECDSA is as strong as an ideal 128 bit crypto system.
*** Incidentally, 264 falling down to the hour-or-two range is likely to trigger a crypto upgrade, in my opinion. Assuming, of course, that we haven't done so already for aesthetic reasons.
You are talking about conventional computers. My point above is we might not know the progress of quantum computers or mathematical attacks not released to the public. **** The service would solicit transactions spending from old keys into new keys and would only accept transactions that met their fee structure. They would then mine internally, without revealing the pubkey to the rest of the network. Presumably for large enough transactions, they could even be convinced to mine at a loss by discarding blocks until they had two that they could publish at once. I leave the rest of the details as an exercise for the reader.
Here we go again depending on miners which are now becoming very centralized. I thought we were supposed to have a decentralized paradigm in play yet the Bitwards always fall back to centralization when ever they lose the technical argument... |
|
|
|
It would be important to get Dorian off the hook, because in the USA at least we are now guilty until proven innocent and the government can force you to give up your private keys or throw you in a Supermax torture dungeon if you can't (even if you really can't!): http://www.nestmann.com/could-the-government-force-you-to-tell-your-deepest-darkest-secretsHas anyone clarified if this supposed message from Satoshi is a cryptographically signed one that is cryptographically connected to his prior cryptographically signed messages, or if it is just a website account that posted the message? |
|
|
|
It would be important to get Dorian off the hook, because in the USA at least we are now guilty until proven innocent and the government can force you to give up your private keys or throw you in a Supermax torture dungeon if you can't (even if you really can't!): http://www.nestmann.com/could-the-government-force-you-to-tell-your-deepest-darkest-secretsHas anyone clarified if this supposed message from Satoshi is a cryptographically signed one that is cryptographically connected to his prior cryptographically signed messages, or if it is just a website account that posted the message? |
|
|
|
Many computational biologists would agree that (and I'm sure Anonymint would have to, albeit begrudgingly, concur) , had it not been for lambda calculus, the understanding of spreadsheets might never have occurred. An essential challenge in artificial intelligence is the understanding of probabilistic information.
What does this statement have to do with the Dark Enlightenment? I believe practicaldreamer may be trying to demonstrate that true statements may also possibly have no relevant implication. On a similar note, given the current status of optimal symmetries, hackers worldwide daringly desire the emulation of object-oriented languages.
I have no idea that means. Nevertheless, context-free grammar alone is able to fulfill the need for the construction of context-free grammar especially with special reference to ECDSA and its existential threat to the farthing.
I don't understand how ECDSA is related to CFGs in any relevant way? |
|
|
|
About the racial equality:
It takes half a brain to realize people are different. Not much more to understand different races have characteristic features other than the looks. "The Cathedrals" "lying" and "bad-policies" are imho misinterpretations of the actual noble cause to provide an environment where all the different people may flourish and feel equally respected, which is the right thing to do.
The comments below are about sexism (masquerading as the realities of differences between sexes), but can be similarly applied to racism (masquerading as the realities of differences between races). If I am correct at representing the thinking of the D.E., we can't "provide an environment..." because there is a natural order to such matters. There is no natural order. To assume such order you'd have to incorrectly assume that 1. Individuals within each group do not differ from each other. 2. Environment for every group is the same. You have argued that the only order that could possibly exist would be the uniform distribution, which of course is dead thus can't exist. http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuumThe non-uniform distribution of mass is mutually causal with oscillation. A uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing could exist, especially knowledge creation. The knowledge creation process is opaque to a single top-down perspective of the universe because to be omniscient would require that the transmission of change in the universe would propagate instantly to the top-down observer, i.e. the speed-of-light would need to be infinite. But an infinite speed-of-light would collapse past and future into an infinitesimal point in spacetime— omniscient is the antithesis of existential. In order for anything to exist in the universe, there must be friction-in-time so change must propagate through resistance to change— mass. The non-uniform mass distribution of the universe is mutually causal with oscillation, which is why the universe emerges from the frequency domain. Uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing would exist. Taleb's antifragility can be conceptualized as lack of breaking resistance to variance amplification. Btw, famous mathematician and author Nicolas Taleb reviewed what I wrote above and replied that he understood the concept. It is competition that creates the order. If there was infinite disorder in the universe, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics would cease to exist, because it says that the entropy (disorder) in the universe trends to maximum. In other words, the universe would be flattened to a blackhole. So there is always a contention between perfect order (the uniform distribution) and perfect disorder (a blackhole). Otherwise without oscillation(s) a.k.a. frequency and phase, nothing could exist i.e. no equivalent spacetime, as I explained in the above blog article on the The Universe in great detail about why the speed-of-light can't be infinite otherwise past and present collapse into one, and without oscillation there can't be mass for I clarified what mass really is. If you work through the math I showed, it is irrefutable. What I am saying is that it is fine-grained, bottom-up competition is an order in itself. If a top-down entity could anneal fitness as optimally, then the top-down entity would need an infinite speed-of-light in order to know all situations (far from him) in real-time in order to anneal as optimally with the same information set. Thus it is a mathematical fact that we can't top-down provide an environment, rather we push on the environment and see how it anneals (this is effectively what government does, although it may wish it was actually setting the environment). If you don't understand the math, then take some time to read and learn what I have elucidated. Otherwise please STFU if you can't comment intelligently on the math (because I don't have time to respond to non-analytical diarrhea). Note CoinCube and I have recently added the theory of Contentionism, which explains there must be an oscillation between order and disorder, because the environment is dynamic. He and I explained that upthread with links off to discussion we did previously in other threads. If the above two points were true, evolution would have already come up with the superior race and wiped out all the others.
Illogical. If your assertion were true that we can top-down create an environment, then evolution wouldn't exist. You claim there is no order, but then why did evolution give females an accelerated fertility curve as compared to males, which has numerous serious ramifications. Why did evolution give women a different strategy for hypergamy and short-term time preference. Because this strategy was the most optimally fit for the survival of the human race. The government wants to turn women into men (and men into women, and here is more on that), and does its damn best to destroy the marriage economics by funding all the needs of women, but this is just pushing on the natural order in the environment and the environment annealed by producing a failed society with insufficient youth to support the elderly and a $150 trillion global debt bomb that will soon explode and then we go back to the natural order again. In fact, evolution would preserve wide diversity (within the group) even if the environment was set, so as to allow survival of the species in a future change of the environment. When we observe evolution, "Survival of the fittest" is not exactly accurate. "Elimination of worst losers" fits much better.
That is not a refutation of my logic. Where D.E. stands on this is still not exacly clear to me, and it doesn't seem to be very clear to you either.
It is mathematically and precisely clear to me as explained above. If your premise was to acknownledge and appreciate the differences between peoples I'd agree, but right now it looks to me like you're more set on assuming and finding a "natural order" to put people in.
As I explained above, there must be a contention between order and disorder. And top-down order is the antithesis of degrees-of-freeom and fitness, because the speed-of-light isn't infinite and if it was past and present would collapse into one and nothing would exist. Not only do I disagree on the existence of any definitive order, but I also think it's a very dangerous premise to build an ideology on. It will be used as an excuse for discrimination or something much worse.
Your irrational emotions aside, the mathematical facts are irrefutable. |
|
|
|
said that even if a quantum computer were to be invented, that the other equipment would still not be able to process all the information needed to crack BTC..., or words to that effect.
Please do post the paper if you find it. Probably that is referring to the fact that all ECDSA public keys are hashed before sent to the blockchain, thus quantum computing can only apply Grover's algorithm to those hashes (as I wrote upthread only effectively halves the bit length of the hashes) thus probably can't "crack" (actually invert) them to reveal the ECSDA "inside" of the hash. But as I wrote upthread, that might be an irrelevant point, because the ECDSA public key is revealed when one of those hashed addresses is spent: It is argued this won't matter because the public key addresses are hashed on the blockchain until the balances are spent. (that is if you follow best practices and don't resend the change back to same public key address spent from) And that everyone can spend their balances to a new quantum-proof encryption method (e.g. Lamport) if ever quantum computers are known to be created. However that erroneous argument has at least 4 flaws. Also those hashes do not nothing to protect Zerocoin. - How do we know when the adversary has a quantum computer, given the capability of the NSA to issue national security letter gag orders? They had differential analysis to break cryptography in the 1970s and 80s and the public was unaware.
- If we adopt something like Zerocoin to add more anonymity to the tracing of trail of ownership of a coin, these signatures can't be retroactively hardened later, thus all that history of anonymity is suddenly lost once the adversary gains a quantum computer.
P.S. I generalized that improvement (I mentioned upthread) to Lamport signatures and showed that Lamport is a degenerate case. |
|
|
|
Sorry to say I was expecting the videos to be much funnier. I didn't bust a gut.
Probably because it isn't about trolls posting here and there..  +1 There is Zoloft medication for your irrational personalizing your anxiety and lashing out at someone who is rational. I am just expressing a preference for something funny enough to make me fall on the floor laughing, e.g. Homer Simpson, Richard Pryor, Rodney Dangerfield, Jim Carey, SNL, Beavis and Butthead, or my best friend snorting out peanut butter through his nose, etc. Even the old Wendy's commercials were funnier than that bland snot in the OP videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CaMUfxVJVQOr some Dancing Baby or dancing dog is more entertaining than seeing his yuppie twat face: http://bluefishway.com/2012/08/26/the-dancing-dog-video/Even guilty dog with cute little girl is more entertaining: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u5I33rEhCQI am reasonably obsessed with fixing Bitcoin, but you guys are beyond pale obsessed if you think those OP videos were above a 2 on the 1 to 10 comedy metric. Sorry no offense intended to the lady who posted them, nor her bf. They could have exaggerated the ideas much more to a much greater effect. Great comedy is about exaggeration. |
|
|
|
Anything that needs cheerleaders is always the property of the government. Don't forget that fact.
Evidence is the internet didn't need cheerleaders. It grew viral without any well organized central point of promotion. |
|
|
|
0.00000001 BTC = Satoshi
Can't remember where I read someone else post that everything should be quoted in Satoshis for consistency and eliminate confusion. I agree. Thus all 1 BTC holders already sBTC billionaires. So my suggestion is:
0.00000001 BTC = 1 sBTC = 1 sBTC = 1 Satoshi (bit) or 1 sbit
Throw away all the other denominations except 1 BTC = 1 BTC = 1 Bitcoin. Alternatively you could call them "cents":
0.00000001 BTC = 1 cBTC = 1 cBTC or 1 BTCent = 1 Bitcoin cent
|
|
|
|
OK, that is what I thought.
I wonder how much of the volume reported at exchanges is real, and how much is just them trading with themselves to make themselves look more respectable? With all the shit that went down from MtGox, can we really trust the numbers they self-reported?
Indeed not. "We" now know Gox mostly traded with itself, and MP sez the price signal is pretty much RIP these days. So the transactions to price growth ratio is even worse than we thought or was this all internal trades not on blockchain? The chart is in my archives at the Ponzi thread. Don't feel like digging it up. |
|
|
|
|
mdotstrange, I want more change than Bitcoin offers, not less.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
