Peter Schiff is an anagram of Perfect Fish. It's probably the 3 second memory thing that caused him to forget the password.

I'll reluctantly concede the point.

It is provably unpredictable though, which is not the case for any classical (non-quantum) approach. And if this is the case, then it does make a perfect 'random' number generator. I'll stand my ground from a practical perspective: we can prove something to be fundamentally unpredictable, but from the overall philosophical perspective, yes, you're right. It's a deterministic universe (as far as we know). Perhaps one day, delving further into the counter-intuitive workings of quantum mechanics, we may uncover evidence to the contrary... or perhaps not.

I don't think we'll see 9k by the end of the month, no. The market sentiment has changed a bit and we are now trying to hold onto support levels. We only have a week left before the end of Jan, and it would take a dramatic unexpected swing to see the trend reverse and bitcoin hit that 9k level.
I do think that 2020 will be a good year and we will see improving sentiment, but in the shorter term we are just trying to hold onto support.

No, I read the article through a couple of times. It's an OTP approach, and I maintain that it is similar to BB84 QKD. It's a classical version of QKD.
I know it's not quantum cryptography, I'm saying it's a classical version of it. It's cleverly done, yes, but I think it has drawbacks...

But the Vernam cipher method still needs that original authentication to start things off, right? I'll concede it may be me not understanding it properly, but the paper seems to skim over that a bit. If you have that initial 100% secure channel for authentication, then just use that for everything, you don't need anything else.

Quantum cryptography is early in development. Yes, there are some huge technical hurdles, and likely we are decades away from full implementation for everyday users. Which is why post-quantum cryptography is also important.

I remain skeptical of the OTP method though, for the reason given above.

Basically, I meant the separation of the initial conditions from the result, with the separation being such that no information can travel between the two unless it moves faster than the speed of light. The experiment I linked to uses quantum entanglement to achieve this. This differs from the classical 'random' coin toss in that with the coin toss the initial choice of how hard to flip the coin, at what angle, etc, are right there with you and create an essentially predetermined (although phenomenally difficult to calculate) result.

For the quantum experiment, I wasn't suggesting that if you put every atom in the same place, same energy level etc., and then made the same measurement choices you would get a different experimental result - although on reading it back I appreciate I wasn't clear enough, sorry. What I meant was that you can repeat the experiment and always get random (and different) results, the classical analogy being a coin toss in which the speed and angle of the coin toss, air resistance, temperature, humidity etc have no bearing on the result.

On a side note, the question of time as an initial condition is a difficult one, and we start to edge into metaphysics. (I'm trying to not sound pompous and pretentious here, but it's a struggle!) Time isn't something that is or can be measured directly. What we do is to measure things - e.g. clock hands - as they move through time. Time itself (along with spatial position) is a part of the measurement framework itself, rather than something that sits within it.

It's not really a question of resources; it's a physical law that there's a limit to precision in this sort of two-variable system.

The more precisely position is known, the less precisely we can measure the momentum. This is because, in a wave function, position and momentum are conjugate variables. A simplistic classical analogy that is often used is frequency and time - if we play a musical note, then the longer we play it for the more accurately we can determine its frequency, but the time at which the note occurs becomes longer, i.e. smeared out and impossible to identify as a point. If instead we play the note extremely briefly, then it has a much more definite time, but we can't pin down its frequency with much precision.

As for provably random - what do you think about my point above? (and diagram below)

Arguably true randomness can never be obtained in a classical system, but an entirely quantum system is a different matter. Quantum entanglement is a fascinating subject; in addition to being a source of true random numbers, it is the basic principle that allows the processing power of quantum computers to scale up exponentially (2ⁿ) as new qubits are added.


_{https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0019-0}

Bounties always look worse than they did back in the good old days of mid 2017 when I started. I think they were probably much better before 2017, too, although I wasn't around to see it.

This is partly a consequence of market conditions; we don't have that hugely bullish sentiment any more. It is also partly because crypto adoption has increased, so initial prices are much higher now, and the chances of a random bounty coin going x100 are quite remote. Partly also I'd imagine there are more participants now, so everyone gets a smaller share of whatever is available.

I'm a little unsure about the future of privacy coins. Crypto is moving slowly towards the mainstream, which means increased government oversight, which we are already seeing with KYC requirements for a lot of new projects. If crypto does complete its journey to the mainstream, I can't see how privacy coins can complete that journey - surely they will by their nature remain more niche and underground.
Not saying they're not useful, of course they are, just that I'm not sure if this will translate into huge price gains.

True for a coin toss, but not for all physics - certainly not for quantum mechanics. Have a look at the article I linked to above if you're interested. It's not just 100% random, it's provably so using the speed of light as a limiter. Fascinating stuff.

I think it can be counter-productive, and can certainly lead to people buying in only to sell later as soon as they can. But I don't think this is the reason for price drops.

We have to consider how price is ultimately determined - supply and demand.

By definition, if a coin fails to hit hard cap then there is more supply than there is demand, so immediately you have that downwards pressure on price.

There is an added effect from 'bonus' buyers wanting to sell and the same from some bounty hunters, but ultimately lack of demand is why the price tanks every time.

There are relationships here.

#4 is a consequence of #2. Iran shot down that plane because they were (are) on high alert following the US assassination of Soleimani. Iranian Foreign Minister: “Human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster [...] Our profound regrets, apologies and condolences to our people, to the families of all victims, and to other affected nations."

#1, #3 and #6 are caused by (or at least exacerbated by) human-caused climate change. Indeed the increase in Amazon wildfires has been linked directly to deforestation.

#5 is perhaps the only one that is a 'natural' event.



I absolutely agree with all of this. Our pursuit of money (actually our pursuit of power, money is just the medium) is leading to all sorts of problems. We have rampant and increasing wealth inequality, which is stoking social tensions, which is having an effect across the globe with the rise to power of nationalist, populist strongman politicians, Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi, Duterte, Xi Jinping and of course Putin just to name a few. These rulers create severely oppositional, angry and violent societies. We are seeing old international alliances torn down, the EU is on the brink of collapse, and there are secessionist movements everywhere. Human solidarity between and even within countries is at breaking point.

Human caused climate change is the other big factor. Again it comes back to grasping for money (power) as well as the fatal short-termism that plagues our politics. Make money today, the problems of tomorrow will be someone else's problem.

Can we see this getting worse or getting better?

Well, if we don't fix climate change we will soon be faced with huge numbers of climate refugees, there have been various estimates of numbers, but universally huge - global thinktank UNU suggests 1 billion people by 2050.

Climate change also obviously causes death and destruction as evidenced by the links that started this thread, and the incidence and severity of these are increasing rapidly.

What else? Well, I would argue that the febrile political environment coupled with the climate crisis could well lead to scenarios such as international wars over water sources. Take Egypt for example, the whole country relies on the Nile, and tensions are already high over an Ethiopian dam upstream, which will be Africa's biggest hydroelectric plant, and could severely impact flow to Egypt as well as bringing Sudan into the conflict.

So what will happen? Will we take action in time, or will it be too little too late?

You have the right attitude, as I'm sure you know. These two are absolutely linked, and a lot of people fail to understand it.

Yes, a few people do need supplements and vitamins to help with very specific health issues, but for the majority of people this isn't the case.

So many people see vitamins and supplements as a quick fix alternative to healthy eating, exercise, no smoking, low alcohol... and this is really stupid. If you want to take care of yourself, then diet, exercise etc are the important things. Vitamins and supplements are not a magic quick-fix alternative. A McDonalds plus a vitamin pill does not equal healthy. You can get all the nutrients you need from a balanced diet.

A balanced diet plus exercise, plus cutting back on obvious harms such as smoking and alcohol, and valuing moderation instead of excess - this is all you need. The magic pill doesn't fix things, it's not really magic at all.

I try to have a healthy diet, too. I drink a bit more than I should, but I don't smoke and I do exercise - and I'm someone else who doesn't gets colds or flu.

Basically if you want to be healthy, you have to put a bit of effort into it.

That's an interesting and valid point. I'm going to end up meriting every damn post in this thread.

I would argue that monetary wealth is only a barometer of success because consumerism is so embedded in our society. We are conditioned to believe that the accumulation of monetary wealth is the primary goal in life. Further I would argue that the people who currently pursue money as the ultimate aim are not really pursuing money at all, they are pursuing power... it's just that in our societies, money equates to power. We don't live in democracies, we live in plutocracies where money rules and is the ultimate arbiter of success. Money is not the goal though, it is the route to the goal, which is power. The word 'obey' in your post is correct and helps to reveal what lies beneath money.

There will probably always be people who want power and prestige, but money doesn't have to be the path that leads to it. I'm not suggesting some unworkable communist utopia, merely that money is only powerful because we give it power; it has no inherent power of its own. Realistically there has to be a degree of inequality in order to give people something to strive for, but the inequality doesn't have to be so huge, and it certainly doesn't have to manifest as money or as the means to actually be able to get food and shelter and medicine and to survive. We can and should move beyond that.

As to what an achievable alternative could be, who knows? It is difficult to envisage something different because the current system has become so entrenched. As you say, the whole structure of things would have to change, including mindsets. It may be difficult, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

CraigWright

Not true. Back in 2017 we reached the point where the 1% have more than half of global wealth.

A back of the envelope calculation just of US net worth, where the top 1% in the US own 40% of $100 trillion... so that's $40 trillion, then divide that amongst the 7 billion people in the world... that's more than $5k each.

But the human story beneath all this is masked by what we commonly think of as 'the 1%'.

Do you know the threshold for the global top 1% ? $32,400 pa.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Most of us here if we live in developed countries are lucky enough to find ourselves in the global 1%. There is huge outrage in the US, the UK and elsewhere about the wealth inequality within our societies, between the multi-billionaires and those who 'merely' earn tens of thousands per year... and far less attention is given to the global problem. We are insulated within our wealthy little cocoon economies and direct so much rage at those who are wealthiier than us, whilst comparatively little attention to those who are so much poorer.

$32,400 is wealthy in global terms. It costs $2 to donate a malaria net and save a life... and yet most of us will happily put that $2 towards a cup of coffee on the way to work instead. And we think we're poor because we're not millionaires and we have to go to work...

I am no angel myself. I give to charity but I feel like a bit of a hypocrite because I only give 1% of what I earn. The 'good' people are those out there who are doing the right thing: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/

The extent of global wealth inequality is an absolute outrage, it is incumbent on us all to give. We can't as individuals topple governments and close tax havens and close accountancy loopholes and bring the billionaires to heel, but we can each do our little bit. Even a lazy hypocrite like me who likes a coffee can still help a small amount.

Do what you can. If you don't want to do that or it feels like too much, then just do a bit.

Excellent! Finally our discussion across multiple threads reaches a consensus

Damn it.



Aha, yes, one-time pad stuff... which brings us back to quantum cryptography and QKD.



It's an inventive approach, but I'm not convinced of how this is better than the quantum alternative, BB84 QKD. I don't think OTPs are the answer here. An OTP by itself and used properly is secure, but the key needs to be shared in a 100% safe way. And if you have a means to share the key 100% safely, then you just use that method and there is no need for the OTP. Quantum entanglement is the 100% safe method (sorry, I wanted to focus on PQC and not return to quantum cryptography again!).
But we still have vulnerabilities so long as we have external classical dependencies.


Yes, agreed. AES256 looks secure against a Grover attack, so is likely safe in the medium-term, but longer term, who knows? Longer term the solution I still contend is likely to use some quantum mechanical mechanism such as entanglement to create fundamental 100% security, the big caveat here being that our understanding of quantum mechanics may change, and new possibilities and challenges in physics may present themselves...

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman knew what he was talking about. The maths is one thing, but it's an abstraction, it only helps us so far in understanding QM from a human perspective.

Have a look here: FAQ: Everything you need to know about forum 'activity, account ranks and merit

I've described the activity bit below (from that link).

The other thing that determines your rank is merit. You see the link in the top right of each post? When someone thinks you've written a good post, they can award you merit. For each 2 points of merit you receive, you get 1 point of sendable merit 'sMerit' that you can then use to merit other people's posts.

You need to get both your merit and your activity above the threshold in order to rank up. That's it, nothing more than that.

I for example have 882 activity, which is enough for Hero (or maybe even Legendary). However I only have 288 merit, so this is why I am a Senior Member. You will likely find that whilst it is easy to increase your activity, it can be quite difficult to accumulate merit. It is frowned upon to ask for merit, but if you can make some well thought out, informative and helpful posts, then merit should start to accrue naturally. The best advice I can offer is don't go looking for merit, just concentrate on post quality, and don't get disheartened if it takes a while to build up - we have all experienced that.

Please also check out the Beginners and Help board, where you'll find a huge amount of useful information.

We have as close to a universal consensus among scientists as is realistically possible, given that there will always be some who are paid off by the climate-hoax lobby, mega-rich oil firms etc. Climate change is real and ongoing and caused by human activity. There is a mountain of evidence as linked to previously.


Remember how the entire continent of Australia used to not be on fire?

Always consider what someone's motivation could be. If you work for a cigarette company, or if you're a doctor conducting a study that is funded by a cigarette company, the likelihood is you'll find cigarettes are safe. If you're independent and have no covert interests, you'll find they are dangerous. Same with climate change. Same with everything.


_{https://time.com/5753584/bushfires-australia-catastrophic-fire-alert/}

I definitely agree that the accepted term 'quantum cryptography' is a bit of a misnomer. In general it refers to quantum key distribution, so it's less about cryptography and more about using the laws of quantum mechanics to establish secure communication.


Sure. It's a way to generate a shared key that due to the underlying laws of physics cannot be hacked.


I absolutely agree. From a quantum attack perspective, classical asymmetric cryptography is hugely vulnerable to Shor's algorithm.
But classical symmetric cryptography is vulnerable to Grover. Not to the same extent, but still there is a vulnerability.


It depends how it's implemented, and what the external dependencies are, for example how the quantum channel is itself established. Work is ongoing and suggests that QKD can be secure, but the standard implementation isn't necessarily so, as assumptions of security are made. A variant of Kak's 3 stage model looks like it might be secure, but this needs to be confirmed. My point about MITM is really that whilst a quantum approach can in theory be 100% secure in a way that a classical approach cannot, it is still dangerous to assume that there are no vulnerable external dependencies.


True at the moment. Grover reduces the time to crack it, but not significantly.

Post-quantum cryptography is very important, I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. My basic point is that a purely cryptographic defence can never be as absolutely and fundamentally secure as a defence that is based on the laws of physics.

Given the huge technical obstacles to creating a workable quantum cryptography that can be used by everyone, I agree with you that in the short- and medium-term, PQC is definitely the answer.

Long-term though? I would argue that using a quantum mechanical defence may provide a better solution.

I did read it all, actually, the whole thing. I'm well aware of the unmasking of the devil (despite his phenomenal typing speed)! I do however appreciate that my reply did not convey that, so I understand your annoyance with me; it is warranted on the basis of my post. I should have given more of an explanation of what I meant.

All I am saying is that I don't think TMAN should be vilified for handing out merit. It's led to an investigation that has unmasked the recipient, which is obviously a good thing, but I can't see that TMAN did anything wrong here. And he has apologised profusely and repeatedly, starting as soon as questions were raised about the recipient, for example:


I may be an uninformed relative noob, but people don't become merit sources for no reason. If Theymos thinks that TMAN deserves to be a merit source, and further has offered guidance that it's okay to dump a load of merit in certain circumstances, then surely that's good enough? What's the problem with TMAN in this particular instance? At worst he has been a bit lazy (as he himself has conceded), but I can't see this deserves such vitriol. Shouldn't we just move on now? Yes, okay, it turns out it was a mistake to merit that particular user, but mistakes happen. Why are we all so caught up on a merit source handing out merit? If you are a merit source you are justified by definition, you have been deemed responsible by the ultimate authority, and you can do whatever the f**k you like with the merit. Come on.


Yes, I know that. I'm done now. Apologies again for not being sufficiently clear in my first post.

---

Edit: And I'm meriting your post above. Not because I agree with it - I don't - it's on the basis of your other posts And also because I have a load of sMerit and I can award it however I please. And also because, after all, this is the 'meta' section.