Oo, the army eh?

By the way, there's like 3 dozen clearances above top secret.

I know because I know someone that had a clearance 14 levels above top secret.

Very well could be.

Nope.  The Remulaks bought some with their intergalactic morzorks.

You got me.  No really.  You did. 

Here's what I know about quantum computing.  Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Whereas in classical computing you start from the ground up and essentially try to add more bit processors to compute information faster, in quantum computing you're essentially starting with the sum of all information and trying to devise a method to find the specific information you're looking for.  In other words, classical computing is like starting with questions and trying to find the answers; quantum computing is like starting with ALL answers and trying to find the right question or set of questions which will give you the specific answer you're looking for.

A quantum computer is like starting with a library containing all books that have ever been written and will ever be written.  A single qubit can contain an infinite amount of information.   This in and of itself doesn't make for a useful library.  How do you know where to find the book you're looking for?  Moreover, when you begin to look (thus, you are trying to make calculated observations to find the book you want), the calculation you make on one piece of observed information changes the configuration of all the other information due to entanglement.  In a way, I think of it as almost like a giant, entangled rubix cube.  I would presume that adding more and more cubits allows you to process these calculated observations faster and allow you to retrieve the information you're looking for more quickly.

So, my guess is that a quantum computer with a single qubit could theoretically crack every key in the blockchain, but it would just take longer than if you had multiple qubits, and the more qubits you have, the faster it could be done.

Dude, nobody's saying anything about proof.  I never said anything about proof, and I flat out denied that I was asserting a fact of any kind.  One post you're talking about plausibility of belief, then you're talking about proof, then plausibility of belief, then proof.  Don't ask me why my beliefs are plausible, and then when I tell you why they're plausible, come at me with "it's not proof!"

I said it's a belief, so I'm going to assume that that's what you're still focused on.  Your contention in your last post to me is that you don't believe my assertion, nor do you believe it's opposite.

You're essentially saying "Maybe, maybe not," and that you need evidence before you can make an informed decision about belief.

By your very failure to make a decision to believe or not believe,you are allowing my belief plausibility in which case I don't even need to answer.

I think you should look at what you're saying, and not what I'm saying, if you really want to understand why my belief is plausible.  You've admitted it and don't even know it.

Why is your belief plausible? I.e. that there is not technology more advanced than what is searchable in Google and accessible in peer-reviewed journals?

Now, maybe you'd concede to the general term 'technology' rather than the specific term 'quantum computing.  Maybe you think, "Well, maybe there's some other kind of technological advances that are out there that I haven't heard about yet, but not in the field quantum computing.  I've heard about quantum-computing and I can look it up, so that must mean that's all the information out there."  But, given that quantum computing does exist in the public knowledge base in rudimentary form, then my assertion isn't so far-fetched after all.  We know quantum computing exists.  Don't give me the flying spaghetti monster crap.

It's honestly shocking to me that someone like you would assume that the assertion I am making is something akin to the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "giant teacup" or any other ridiculous analogy.  I believe in extraterrestrials, I believe in intergalactic civilizations, I believe in teleportation (which has also been demonstrated by scientists at the atomic level, and that was years ago), I believe in cold fusion, I believe in technologies that would solve the entire energy crisis the world is currently facing, I believe in all kinds of shit.  Do I have proof of it?  No.  Does that make me a "nut?"  No.

What I do have knowledge of, however, is that mankind has consistently and repeatedly made faulty and arrogant assumptions about their presumed level of knowledge for thousands of years.  And then someone like you comes along and thinks, "Wow, this guy's a nutcase.  He actually believes there's shit out there that I, a powerful Internet user, don't know about."  Get real dude.  That attitude has been the source of the humiliation of humanity for millenniums.  So, maybe it's not that shocking that you're spitting the same, familiar arrogance.  Don't forget, a lot of people in Korea think their leader is a fucking deity.  Why do they think that?  Multiplied propaganda.  Think for yourself, not what you're told or what you read.

My brother told me a story about how his friend went onto Wikipedia one day and made up a town in Kansas, proceeding to write a history about this imaginary town and its people.  He maintained his entry for over a year, and then one day, he went to take it down from the website.

To his surprise, after he took it down, someone put it back up!  He tried to take it down again, but to no avail.  People kept believing the town actually existed, so much so that they adamantly scrutinized my brother's friend when he tried to tell them that he was the one that had put up the entry, and that he had fabricated the entire thing.

This only shows the power of what's posted on the Internet.  While the story about the imaginary town in Kansas is dissimilar to quantum computing in the sense that we know quantum computing exists, the point is that people are apt to believe what they can find on the Internet or in a published source.  Multiplied propaganda is a very powerful thing.  The fact that you can look up quantum computing and receive a buttload of Internet searches leads to confirmation bias.  "Yep, these all say pretty much the same thing.  That must be all there is out there."  But the mentality is similar to those who believe in the imaginary Kansas town, and are unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.  The thought didn't even occur to them that they might not be getting the whole picture.

I'm saying the assertion I made is what I believe, and that's why I believe that you're a fool who's wasting his time trying to 'logically' disassemble my belief with your belief (i.e. that my assertion is false). 

Although, I also think you're a fool for not believing in the realistic plausibility of my belief which would include any of the 3 scenarios I outlined in the previous page of this thread.

If you're not clever enough to tell the difference between a belief and an assertion of absolute fact, you're not clever enough to be lecturing me on logic.

I'm fully expecting some dumb reply about how hypotheticals are logical fallacies, too.  

Lol you guys are idiots.

First, a straw-man does not make an argument invalid or implausible.  It just doesn't make it sound.  I think your logic needs a bit of ship-shaping since claiming a straw-man does nothing to defeat the assertion.

Second, I think you missed the post by the ex-NASA/Boeing employee who asserted that there are, in fact, classified projects going on all the time that don't make it to peer-reviewed journals or researchers for a number of reasons.

Third, burden of proof?  Are you kidding me?  Speak for yourselves.  You have two choices in this scenario: 
1)  Make a counter assertion, i.e. that I am wrong, and place the burden of proof equally upon yourselves (good luck with that one, by the way)
or
2) Say "I don't know" in which case you are allowing my assertion plausibility.

Don't give me lectures on logic.

Bingo.


No, I think it's nutty to assume the opposite.  And by the way, your assumption that "there is no evidence of working quantum computers" is dead wrong since scientists have already laid claim to the existence of working quantum computers the size of a handful of qubits, though they claim they aren't very useful in their current state and can only use them to solve extremely basic and not very useful problems.  I'm simply giving three plausible scenarios (there are others, of course) and one of them is likely true:

1)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, but they don't know of others who have built vastly more complex ones.
OR
2)  There are scientists that have built extremely complex quantum computers, but they are minimizing their results to the public.
OR
3)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, are aware that others have built vastly more complex ones and are trying to replicate this complexity, but are restricting this information to the public.


You and others are taking the position that it sounds nutty based on the arrogant assumption that you think you're somehow privileged enough as another human being to know exactly what's going on.  I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials exist because you/we haven't seen them despite clear evidence of a hierarchy of life and intelligence, and to assume that that hierarchy stops at planet Earth is one of the dumbest, most egocentric conclusions a person can reach.  It's hardly different than the assumption proven false long ago that the sun revolves around the Earth.

 

9% eh?

I think everyone should have a look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86795.0 in its entirety before doing anything with coinexchanger.

BTW, Maria's profile photo is literally scattered all over the web:   http://www.tineye.com/search/186f6e9b336c02fc43513f8c19f14596b43fc49c/

 
 

Common sense.  Like I said, if I was at the top, I would restrict all kinds of information from being leaked.  Its natural that others would do the same.

"Hey!  We invented a device the size of a cubic foot that literally contains and can compute an infinite amount of information!"  (And, btw, a single qubit can, in fact, store an infinite amount of information, but some infinities are larger than other infinities)  "Here everybody!  Here's how to build one!"

Or

"Hm...why don't we just keep this little secret to ourselves...and profit like f*cking crazy and gain a competitive edge over every country in the world while they all scramble to figure this out on their own."  Either that, or they know we'd all kill ourselves if we had access to that kind of technology.

Gee, I wonder which is more likely.

Seriously, if you think that you can look up the most advanced technology through a Google search, or hear it from a buddy with a PhD, you must be a fool.

In Bitcoin's current state, yes, it absolutely is.

Give it 10-20 years.

BTW, if you think that the current publicity on quantum computing is 'up-to-date,' you're kidding yourself.  How do I know this?  Simple.  If I (or you) was in a position of ultimate authority, would I restrict the amount of information that actually reaches the public regarding technological advances?  Fuck yes I would.

tl;dr

Quantum computing is far more advanced than any publication will lead you to believe.

Proof-of-stake.

Also, when quantum computing becomes a commercial reality, that will change the Bitcoin-game quite a bit.

By the way, did you know that if you simply look inside a quantum computer, it crashes?

I'd recommend you don't mine at all.  Like I said, you're probably paying more for electricity to run the card than what you get back from mining.  You're making ~30 cents USD per day from mining.  Then you need to subtract the electrical cost to run the thing 24/7.

Ever call them?

816-226-6966 if you're in the states.

NothingG is correct.

If you pay for electricity, you're likely losing money.

I believe the OP tried to make the analogy between math and god, and if there is something more fundamental than math, then math isn't god.  Besides, would god 'only' have form and thus 'only' have definition (i.e. limitations, boundaries, etc.)?  This would negate the omnipotence theory...