Let me try again.

For the laymen, most public key cryptography (e.g. RSA and Bitcoin's ECDSA and Zerocoin) is based on number theoretic assumptions such as the difficulty in factoring certain difficult to factor algebraic expressions (e.g. discrete logarithms) which makes them impossible to crack (if the key bit lengths are long enough) with current computers. However, quantum computing would (in theory) enable Shor's algorithm which reduces these factoring problems from exponential to polynomial time, i.e. reduced from O(2^N) to O(N^k) so for example if N = 128 and k = 3, then reduced from 3.4e+38 (number with 38 trailing zeros) to 2,097,152. Thus what would have required a zillion years to crack can be cracked in reasonable time to make it practical.

However, cryptographic hash functions do not rely on number theoretic assumptions, and instead of being closed-form algrebraic expressions are a chaotic mix of confusion and diffusion (that breaks the ability to express algebraically over all number groups). They instead rely on the assumption of asymptotically perfect random distribution of the input to the output, which can be somewhat verified like this. Thus they can't be cracked with Shor's algorithm and only Grover's algorithm can be applied with a quantum computer. Thus they remain exponential time, and only the bit lengths (exponents) get effectively halved.


Note a specific numerical example for time complexity as I've shown above is not formally the correct way to think about it, but this is for a non-mathematical audience.

Could you re-read my post upthread. I am not concerned about your personal decisions.


There you naive Bitards (Bitnaives doesn't sound as good) go getting fooled by the Hegelian dialectic. You know when you enter the car dealer (at least in USA), one saleman pretends to be your friend and is the "wolf in sheepskin" and the other pretends to be the bad guy who wants to rip you off. They create a conflict to make you think the good guy is fighting for you against the bad guy, but in reality they're both ripping you off. After you've signed the loan documents, you later realize you've like fucking overpaid by $3000 after all the shit is included that you naively agreed to.

Stop this USA vs Europe crap. This Democrats vs. Republicans crap. The Pirate Party vs Social Democrats, etc.. These are heads of the same monster.


There is a theory that it could also be used to create a world-wide slavery system where all cash is gone.


And what is wrong with that? You need groupthink?

Anything that needs cheerleaders is always the property of the government. Don't forget that fact.

Also I see the BTC price is going up not down.

And they will always come back. The lure of Bitcoin is too irresistible.


This is ignorant of the facts.

Mining is already controlled by a few pools. Exchanges are controlled by a few players. Most of the coins are controlled by a few big players beholden to the government. Etc.

Sorry. Wouldn't it be better if when someone pointed out such things they had a "solution" to point to. For that reason, I do feel somewhat shitty (about writing that).

Any way decentralization (or source code, efforts, coins, etc) is very powerful and there are a lot of smart people in our community. It should all work out (hopefully).

Sorry to say I was expecting the videos to be much funnier. I didn't bust a gut.


Gentlemen you are expressing the philosophy of the Dark Enlightenment. See also this.

Yes I think I am thinking of Switerzland. Thanks for the correction. Also I think France has placed some limits on the size of a cash transaction. My memory is a bit vague on the specifics just noted the trend.

Because we (I) see that as wonderful as the ideal is, Bitcoin's flaws could mean it can be much worse than cash and put all of us (no choice for anyone any more) into a very severe slavery system.


Agreed.


This community is the Bitcoin ecosystem which includes all altcoins, not just Bitcoin's protocol. We have a right to be here too.

The discourse adds more veracity to the truth.

Since our ideal is all about truth, then what are you afraid of?


Who is angry? Seems like it is the Bitards who don't like our arguments and logic.

He better be careful what he proposes, or maybe he is a "wolf in sheepskin" pretending to be your friend just like Satoshi.

The governments are slowly phasing out cash. EuropeSwitzerland eliminated the 1000 EU bill and ATM daily limits continue declining in all countries.

Government (and banksters) would love for a pseudonymous digitally tracked public ledger to replace the very anonymous physical cash.

There are many longstanding words in the dictionary which I use that Chrome doesn't have in its dictionary, e.g. tsuris.

And worse earthquakes with tsunamis. It also has the climate range similar to Baja, Mexico all the way to Canada. And the water swirls the opposite direction down the toilet bowl.

One positive about Argentina and Chile is the snakes are not poisonous, but other things are such as this crazy tiny spider (or perhaps I am thinking of Brazil) that can kill you. Then again there is a tree frog here in the Philippines that spits in your eye and blinds, but I've been lucky to avoid them thus far (although I almost went looking at one when someone grabbed me and informed me of the danger).

The most important thing is the cultural adaptation to a new country is not easy for most people. Most highly underestimate this. I speak from decades of experience of adjusting to another country from my birth place USA.

Edit: be wary about land rights outside of the metropolitan areas especially south of Santiago, as there are many areas where the natives still dispute land rights and you can end up in a mess. For the same reason, never buy land in Patagonia, Argentina.

In short, if something is cheap, there is probably a good reason. The again, I punted on a $25,000 acre size property on the beach near La Paz, Baja, Mexico in 2001 and you can't get anything there now for 10X that price. But I believe the bubble is coming near to its collapse.

The copper doesn't fall from the sky, but their economy is something like 50% dependent on the price of copper. Mono-economies are very unstable. Don't let the current $150 trillion global debt balloon lull you into a false sense of stability.

Chile's political stability has been historically dependent on the price of copper.

If copper doesn't collapse in a global economic implosion.

I wouldn't invest now. Wait.

Most humans think that political discussion will make any difference in the outcome.

In the burgeoning Knowledge age, the outcomes will be increasingly decided by technology and the macro-economics.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=503258.msg5540510#msg5540510


It is amusing that he takes my "Bitard" comments as inability to refute. I've refuted every challenge presented to me without exception. (or in the case of PoS, I made strong arguments in a cordial discussion upthread) That is why I feel entitled to insult those who are incapable of or obstinately unwilling to comprehend what they supposedly read, especially when they push that sort of political insanity above.

As a technical dolt (fact not ad hominem), he can't discern a genuine expert from a pretender.

In short, let them go ahead. I should go quiet. Action will speak loudest now.

Vlad, I wrote an explanation for you and others.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=500994.msg5540305#msg5540305

For the laymen, most public key cryptography (e.g. RSA and Bitcoin's ECDSA and Zerocoin) is based on number theoretic assumptions such as the difficulty in factoring discrete logarithms which makes them impossible to crack (at sufficient bit lengths) with current computers. However, quantum computing would (in theory) enable Shor's algorithm which reduces these factoring problems from exponential to polynomial time. Thus what would have required a zillion years to crack can be cracked in reasonable time to make it practical.

However, cryptographic hash functions do not rely on number theoretic assumptions. Instead they rely on the assumption of asymptotically perfect random distribution of the input to the output, which can be somewhat verified like this. Thus they can't be cracked with Shor's algorithm and only Grover's algorithm can be applied with a quantum computer. Thus they remain exponential time, and only the bit lengths (exponents) get effectively halved.

Lamport signatures use only cryptographic hashes. One of the problem with employing them in a blockchain has been they take up much space (either for the public key or the signature or both), but I just published a discovery in my prior post which enables making them smaller in exchange for more computation.

This discovery makes Lamport signatures more practical for blockchains than they were before, but still they are not as small as number theoretic public key cryptography.

Unfortunately I don't think this will work for Bitcoin, at least not until they implement pruning of the UXTO, but it can work in an altcoin.

I currently see no way to make Zerocoin resistant to Shor's algorithm, but I am still researching this. But Zerocoin is mostly useless any way because of pattern analysis on coin amounts.

Vlad this is for you bro.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=500994.msg5539769#msg5539769

I think the community has grown tired of hearing me say I know solutions but haven't released them yet. I will give a small tidbit gift (giving away my secrets before I can implement them) to the community now, so they will realize I am not all talk and no action.

I added the following partial "solution" to Wikipedia yesterday:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature#Short_keys_and_signature

Now I go quiet if I can.

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. In my opinion, he would be better served to direct his energy towards technological solutions, rather than riding the political trend back towards for example lynching. With anonymity, I won't be affected if the minorities want to live in a cesspool of Detroit. Let everyone have their outcome in the economics, for as long as they can't hinder me, why should I care?

Jim binds himself to the outcome of the weak. That is his big mistake and it makes him an angry racist and sexist.

I have no problem with women and minorities who can do what ever they want to do, even milking the state. More power to everyone to play their best strategy in their life. I will destroy the state with technology and then they have to deal with their choices.

Even I didn't get accepted to UC Berkeley in 1984 because of minority favoritism (which is much worse now), but that is actually the best thing that could have occurred. I shiver to think what liberal habits I would have learned there.

I will be enjoying myself far removed from those who I don't want to be around (and close to those who I do).

In short, we are headed into an autonomous world.

The OP has a link to the thread where we discussed that article and tore it to shreds.

Any altcoin can be converted to Bitcoin instantly upon payment if there are liquid exchanges, as Bitpay does for converting Bitcoin to fiat at checkout time. The OP mentions the fallacy of the lockout network effect in this case and explains why it is different than the inertia of a network protocol that requires changing every server on the internet. However there is a post upthread wherein I admitted that the market size is an inertia in terms of brand recognition, confidence, economies-of-scale, etc.. So yes there does come a point where Bitcoin can not likely be surmounted and we are almost there, with the userbase some where in the range of 1 million already and growing very very fast.

However, one of my other points is if Bitcoin can't adopt anonymity (which I am very confident can't be done, because CoinJoin doesn't scale, Tor isn't a good choice to build-in, and Zerocoins is insoluble as all mixers are because the coin amounts can't all be the same thus pattern analysis eliminates the anonymity), then a bifurcated future is likely where there is an altcoin which is highly anonymous (can't be DarkCoin their CoinJoin technology can't scale), even if Bitcoin remains the most popular the anonymous coin will also have transaction volume. Because the world is headed into a debt collapse and governments will confiscate and hunt down wealth. Thus there will be a demand for anonymity, regardless how popular Bitcoin is. I've also explained that anonymity must be built-in to the coin, otherwise the commerce with the coin is tainted and can't be anonymously used by anyone.

And there is a technical reason Bitcoin can't adopt my anonymity solution, but if I tell you, then you will know what my solution is. And I am not ready to reveal it quite yet. Soon.


I am conflicted on that. Certainly I would rather shut up. But also I wanted to give his buried point more eyeballs and weight, so that people won't lose hope on the ideal of what we thought Bitcoin was going to be. It is not so impossible as it might seem to be.


Keeping the thread less noisy, but that terse link is fine.

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=471355.msg5518181#msg5518181