Does this thread really deserve the attention it has got? (It's a good job this is already in the 'meta' section.)

Honestly, this is post #129 now. If people have merit to share, then just let them. So long as people aren't buying or selling it, then what does it matter? Let's move on.

Just to let you know there are some of us here, like you, who have considered the evidence and find it absolutely overwhelming. The fact that human-caused climate change is happening is really established fact now; it's ludicrous that in some spheres it is treated as a theory (like how evolution is treated as a theory to go alongside unscientific unsusbtantiated bible nonsense creationism).

The consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing the planet to heat up has now passed 99%.

You can always find 'evidence' to back up any crazy ideas, but if <1% of scientists are in agreement, the likelihood is it's nonsense... and if >99% of scientists are in agreement, then you should really give what they're saying some serious consideration. They are the experts in this field, they are the highly trained and highly skilled professionals who know what they are talking about.

What's quantum cryptography?

Hello again! We've discussed this on another thread, so I won't go into it in depth again, but I'll mention China's Micius satellite as an example of quantum cryptography in action. Micius is already enabling a (small) quantum internet. A pair of entangled photons is generated using an interferometer, and one photon is sent to each party in the communication. The quantum entanglement is the vital part of the encryption, the use of the laws of quantum mechanics to create the exchange of information: Quantum Key Distribution.

I will concede that whilst QKD removes some classical vulnerabilities, it does not remove them all: man-in-the-middle as an example.
But Micius is only the start. Other variants of quantum cryptography are also being advanced. Kak's 3 stage protocol for example (a quantum version of double-lock), a multi-photon variant of which is being developed to protect precisely against man-in-the-middle.

I am certainly not saying that post-quantum cryptography (classical cryptography used as a defence against quantum attack) is useless, it's not, it's extremely important.
But quantum cryptography (using the laws of quantum mechanics to implement cryptography) is important too.

Here's a time-lapse photo of Micius in action. https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/the-quantum-internet-is-already-being-built

This only happens if crypto has absolutely no use-case, which we know is not true. Prices fluctuate, they fall as well as rise, but I can't see that some new as yet unheard of technology will suddenly render all of crypto obsolete.
The reason we may worry that prices will drop to zero is that the markets are so speculative and so dependent on consumer confidence, but that doesn't mean it's 100% speculative. Crypto fulfils many real needs, and has many genuine reasons to exist.

There has been some indication of an alt surge, as the latest price rises started with alts then went to bitcoin. It is this move to bitcoin that makes me skeptical that alts can rise significantly right now - shortly after the alt rises started, the money went back to bitcoin and alts dropped a bit again.
I can't see a huge alt surge unless the markets in general get a lot more bullish, which is likely to manifest first in a bitcoin rise. Alts don't look strong enough to sustain a rise by themselves.

A quantum internet (with its unhackable absolute security) isn't a complete replacement for the internet we have now, in the same way that quantum computers aren't a replacement for classical computers.

The team at Delft whom I've referenced before have devised a six-stage roadmap (below). A quantum internet can be built incrementally on top of what we already have, with different levels of functionality at each stage.


So stage 0 is kind of a pre-cursor to a quantum internet, where the only quantum activity is undertaken by the ISP. The quantum cryptographic key is created, but the ISP is like a trusted node. This stage is already live in parts of China.

In stage 1 the quantum key is generated by the sender, so it is truly encrypted, with no middle-man. This has already been tested successfully as I mentioned above with Micius (China again).

I am happy to concede that there is a huge amount of work required to progress to the end of the roadmap, quantum repeaters being just one example, but the direction of travel is encouraging.

A functioning and useful quantum internet won't need a massive expensive multi-qubit quantum computer in every home at all, but simply a means of transmitting and receiving quantum information. IBM has already had a simple quantum computer in the cloud since 2016.

Don't include images in quotes! You'll annoy Jet Cash.

Quite apart from the fact that we already know this cat has fleas, and so by duplicating the cat you are effectively copy/pasting the fleas as well, and just making the problem worse.

If you spot fleas on your bitcoin, then you need to treat it quickly, because they can give your bitcoin tapeworms and other afflictions. Whilst you are treating for fleas, it is probably sensible to worm your bitcoin as well. If some satoshis drop out of the back-end then don't worry, this is normal and a sign that the worming treatment is working.

It is also important to remember that fleas can survive without a host bitcoin for a considerable length of time. With this in mind, it would be prudent to clean your bitcoin's bedding regularly.

Honestly physical bitcoins are an absolute nightmare to look after. This is why most of us prefer to keep them virtual.

I feel we ought to move this thread to 'serious discussion'.

I use the Guardian a lot. It is financially and editorially independent, and owned by a Trust whose purpose is to ensure that this remains the case. Of course everything has inherent biases, but I think the Guardian is trying hard to be impartial. They have a solid track record on breaking big stories that make uncomfortable reading for the establishment, most notably in recent years the NSA/ Edward Snowden stuff.

That said, an echo chamber is an echo chamber, and its not healthy to immerse yourself in only one viewpoint. If there is any particular contentious international event that I'm interested in, I tend to have a look at how news is presented from both sides, so I'll check out BBC, Russia Today, Al Jazeera etc... but not to rely solely on any of them, more to get as close to a balanced perspective as is possible.

Plus of course I come on here, which is a good melting pot of varied views. There are some intelligent, well-informed people on here, as well as some absolute lunatics "characters". And I love you all!

I think they can take on America. Not in a straight, all-out US vs Iran war of course, but then that's not Iran's style. The history of US foreign interventions since WW2 gives context and lessons. Iran doesn't have to have tanks arranged on the White House lawn in order to win. There are other avenues. They are already causing oil prices to rise...

Very unlikely I think to see an overt conflict between China/Russia and the US, but it's no secret that Iran is allied with both China and Russia. For example, they conducted a joint naval drill in December.
Despite China's ever-growing role in world affairs, they have somehow managed to stay quite neutral so far in the chaos of the Middle East. I would imagine this is intentional rather than inadvertent. One concern I suppose is that the US/Iran thing might cause China to take a side, although again, whilst that is far more likely than an outright China/US conflict, I would still say it is unlikely overall.
Most likely I think is proxy attacks around the world against US interests, probably involving Hezbollah, and maybe involving covertly channeled Russian funding. Just speculation though, I'm no expert.

Just sell them all for a stablecoin, and buy back later. That's the easiest, and you can do it anywhere.
If there isn't a pair with a stablecoin for your particular alt, then sell it for BTC instead and then sell that for a stablecoin.

I would say though that it is a brave move to sell at this time, when evidence is mounting that the tide is starting to turn and things are starting to look more bullish than they have for a while.

I posted about this too, but no responses - probably because it's being talked about here


But not limitless. The exponential scaling nature of qubits makes certain problems (e.g. prime factoring) trivial, but QC isn't a one-stop-shop solution to everything. It's not always faster than classical in all circumstances for all problems.


I had a go last year at summarising Bitcoin's vulnerabilities to quantum computers (Grover/Shaw etc), as well as outlining a few solutions. Please have a read if you're interested. I'd really value further discussion, as there are only a few different contributors to that thread!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@franky1:


I'm sure we've discussed this in the ivory tower previously, and I still maintain that this 0-3 thing absolutely isn't true. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I'm sure there is a misunderstanding here.

A qubit is a superposition of two states, and so is analogous to the classical 0/1 'bit'. A qubit still resolves to 0 or 1, there aren't any additional final results. The power of QCs is in the superposition.

When you talk about 4 states, this is no longer qubits, it's qudits, which means a more complex system - a qubit is the superposition of 2 classical states, a qudit is the extension of this to any number of superposed states 'd' that is higher than 2 (qudits = quantum 'd'igits).

I suspect you are talking about a d=4 system as a superposition of 4 states (a system with 4 inputs), but there's no reason that d has to be 4.

If you are talking about qubit resolution to 4 outcomes, then this just means a 2-qubit system, 2² outcomes. Throw in an extra qubit, and you have 2³=8 outcomes.

An example might help to illustrate the point:

Take a classical 2-bit computer. It can be in 4 states, 00, 01, 10, or 11. But it can only be in one of these states at any one time. The classical computer can only process one input at a time. When trying to find a computational solution, this is analogous to trying one path through a maze. If it's not the correct route, then you go back to the start and try another path. One at a time.

In a quantum computer, two qubits also represent the same 4 states of 00, 01, 10, and 11. The difference here is that because of quantum superposition, the qubits can represent all four states at the same time. This means you can try 4 different paths through the maze simultaneously. If none of these is the correct route, you go back and start again and try another 4 simultaneously. If you want to try more paths, you scale it up. Add a third qubit, now you can try 8 paths. Add a 4th qubit, you can now try 16 paths simultaneously. So with a 4-qubit quantum computer, we are essentially running 16 classical computers at the same time.

This is where the extra power comes from, not the outputs, but the quantum superposition of the states. You still have the same number of outputs as with a classical computer, it's just that with quantum mechanics you can find a quicker route to the solution of certain problems, such as prime factoring (not all problems).

One of the major obstacles to workable quantum computing is the problem of decoherence. A discovery has been reported that could pave the way for a solution...

A brief overview for those not familiar with QC: the advantage of quantum computers (for solving certain types of problem) is that the information is held in 'qubits' rather than the 'bits' used by classical computers. A bit can be 0 or 1, whereas a qubit employs quantum indeterminacy to be in a superposition of the states, a mix of 0 and 1 simultaneously. This has an important effect on scaling - the processing power of a classical computer scales linearly with the number of bits, whereas the power of a quantum computer scales exponentially (2ⁿ) with the number of qubits (1,2,4,8,16,32 etc rather than 1,2,3,4,5,6).

Perhaps the most significant obstacle to achieving a workable quantum computer is the fact that these qubits aren't stable. Their superposed quantum 'part 0 part 1' state tends to collapse extremely easily to the classical 0 or 1 values. Heat, light, sound, vibrations, magnets, any interaction with the external physical environment, can collapse the system and we lose the quantum data.



The problem is exacerbated as the complexity of the system (the number of qubits) increases. This means that it is extremely difficult to hold information in a quantum system for any length of time. The world record (as far as I'm aware) is from Nov 2019 at 75 seconds.

However research by a team from Munich has revealed a possible solution to the problem. They have identified a form of quantum quasiparticle that reforms after it decays, and so essentially can persist forever and retain that quantum data.

The discovery has only recently been made*, so a lot of work needs to be done to exploit this in a working model, but still, there is the tantalising possibility that the decoherence problem may have a solution, and we are moving ever closer to workable quantum computers.

(I wanted to append this post to the main QC thread, but I am the latest contributor there and didn't want to be accused of bumping - hope it's okay as a new thread)

_{*June, but flew under the radar a bit and is only really making the news this week.}

As technology advances - in any sphere, not just drones - the level of abstraction also increases.

We used to hand-wash our clothes, now we throw them in a machine and press a button and the washing machine does it.
We used to calculate our accounts by mental arithmetic, now we press a button and the computer does it.
We used to kill people by being physically there and stabbing the knife or pulling the trigger, now we can sit in an office thousands of miles away, eating a McDonalds and watching video screens, and just press a button and the drone does it.

With each level of abstraction we lose a connection to the act itself.

Washing clothes used to take a long time, we used to know how it felt to soak garments, how to knead the dirt out of them, how to squeeze them dry. Now we put dirty clothes in a machine and they come out clean. If you want them dry, put them in another machine and press a button and they can be dried for us too, with no human involvement in the actual process itself.

This is fine for clothes, but maybe not fine when we are talking about human lives being at stake.

I would argue that it is profoundly immoral to dissociate ourselves from the act of killing. If someone's life is going to be ended, it is far better, far more human, to actually be involved in the act, however distasteful or repugnant it may be. If we treat the ending of a human life as an abstraction, then we erode the value of all human life.

The first question I suppose is why is bitcoin worth anything at all. First it can have value as a medium of exchange, and second it can itself be a store of value.

I may be seeing things simplistically (I am seeing things simplistically - if there's one thing I know, it's that I don't know much) - but where are we right now? Bitcoin is not widely accepted in society as a medium of exchange. What can you buy with bitcoin? Not much. I can't go to the corner shop and buy a newspaper with it. This severely restricts the velocity, or how quickly bitcoin is circulating in the economy. It's not that bitcoin is accepted everywhere but no-one is using it, it's rather that society itself at the moment has a huge effect by enforcing a limit on what can be spent and where.

So bitcoin is not widely used as a medium of exchange. But people are still buying it. Why? Because they think it will be a medium of exchange in the future? Or because they think it will continue to rise in value? I would argue the rise in value is by far the major driver.

My amateurish conclusion then is that the velocity is not that relevant yet, as the opportunity just isn't there. We are still in the early days of crypto, before mass-adoption, we are buying bitcoin in order to hold it rather than to spend it, and velocity is relevant more as an indicator of the limits that society enforces on crypto rather than as an indicator of the performance of bitcoin itself.

Apologies if I've completely misunderstood what is being talked about - shoot me down if so!

The move to an ultra-consumerist society has had major consequences on the way we think and act, and the way in which we treat other people. Acquisition of wealth has become the barometer of success, and the purchase of goods has become at least in part a means of displaying that wealth. We no longer buy what we need so much as what we want - or what we are told we want. Desire for new goods is instilled in us through pervasive advertising. Society has become ultra-individualist, and the focus has switched inwards towards personal gain. Other people are often framed as competitors. This is to the detriment of society.

Ethical consumerism is one response to this, as is charitable giving. I've mentioned them before, but GiveWell is an excellent (and impartial) online charity evaluator that works with (and, for transparency, provides) huge amounts of data to determine which methods of giving are most effective.

There is in fact a gathering body of evidence (such as this experiment) to suggest that we experience more pleasure from helping others than we do from helping ourselves. Perhaps consumerism is just a phase, and the future is brighter and more altruistic than we think. 

Let me correct that for you:

The US has assassinated Iran's top general and this act is an open declaration of war in my opinion, though the US has not termed it as a war yet but they’re openly challenging Iran into starting one.

You're welcome.

The interesting thing for me about this latest mini-rally is that it was alts that started it.

ETH and particularly XRP rose significantly, before Bitcoin eventually started to rise too, whereupon BTC sucked money from alts, which as a consequence have now slowed their rises significantly as BTC pulls money from the rest of the market.

The fact that alts started the rise suggests to me that market confidence is increasing and alts are underpriced right now.

My goals are I think firstly to give out more merits, I am kind of lazy about it. I need to be more active in this regard.

Secondly I hit Senior last year, and I need to try to hit Hero this year. It's a big ask as I currently need 227 more merit. In December I managed 60+, so 227 in a year is achievable, I just need to make sure I post good quality, informative stuff and avoid getting sucked into low quality discussions - a constant battle!

I think we can only really get some serious perspective by looking at long-term price charts on a log scale.

Linear is no good, it just reduces old price movements to an inconsequential smear. For Bitcoin on a linear scale, anything before early 2017 seems irrelevant... but it's really not. We need to see these earlier movements to get a fuller appreciation of how bitcoin price behaves.

On a log scale ('all time' on CMC, from 2013 to now), the cycle of bulls and bears resolves into a general upwards movement. I don't know about anyone else, but to me the historical pattern seems quite clear, and shows that $8k is not a huge deal. The upwards movement of recent days is of course encouraging, but in a wider context it means little. If in the short-term we drop to $5-6k or rise to $10k, it's not a big deal, the trend remains upwards.