It's because their product is "adiabatic" and does not necessarily work like a true quantum superposition-based computer would. There isn't even necessarily evidence that the universe even really works in such a way as to allow the theoretical conception of what a quantum computer would really be like to exist in the first place.

If you look at how COMPLETELY LEGAL cannabis businesses in Colorado are being treated by banks, it's very apparent that the ol' Greenback is already the Mark of the Beast.

Just to throw this out there, here's something immediately slimy about this guy that puts off anybody with a good sense of intuition --

On this forum he says something early on that suggests he came here disparaging having tried reddit first, and on reddit he says that he tried here first.

That's very much in the wheelhouse of scammy manipulative con artist pandering techniques.

Also soliciting roughly $25 million in Bitcoin capital without having a clue where to start? Really?

Breaking news!

Some butthurt zilch who produces quotes for some inconsequential internet publication that caters to people with sub-100 IQ's regurgitates the same ignorant talking points as everybody else with zero direct knowledge of the subject.

Thanks for chiming in Byron Wien, and congrats on socially-engineering yourself to become one of the lucky monkeys flipping a coin that run hedge funds.

Localbitcoins is a much better solution than anything that can possibly be accomplished in this thread.

The D-Wave is not really a "quantum computer" in the conventional sense, it uses quantum annealing.

The practical problems related to actually implementing computational entanglement are absolutely ridiculous in scope, and at the end of the day, we really don't even know if the universe actually works in such a way to allow for this technology to exist as we envision it in the first place.

No, ASICs are hard-coded to a specific mining sha256d implementation.

FPGA's however could become relevant again.

Why is it obvious this is a raging scam?

Because no one with the sense to actually construct a legit scheme like this would ever let 250 BTC accumulate on BTC-e without doing something about it. If 250 BTC was too much for this person to comfortably keep in BTC-e he would've already done something about it, and if 250 BTC is just a small fraction of his total BTC holdings, then he wouldn't be soliciting this kind of arrangement in the first place.

So basically the OP is soliciting funds to perform a transaction that, in the absolute best possible case scenario, is only happening because he's a moron!

All possible systems in a game like this eventually converge on zero.

All possible systems.

This entire statement is based on a complete misunderstanding of what confirmation actually means. For the purposes of a point of sale situation, simply seeing the transaction broadcast on the network is good enough.

The real long-term question might actually turn out to be "How will the IRS survive Bitcoin".

I get it now, this is all trolling!

These are all completely made-up fictitious internet terms and concepts.

Quark's "unique algorithm" basically consists of throwing as much feces as you can at the wall and seeing what sticks!

Seriously, 9 rounds of hashing 6 different algorithms may sound impressive on paper, but it does not solve either of the two stated design goals in reality. For example, the supposed resistance to FPGA / ASIC implementations is a complete fairytale, because nothing about the proof of work imposes a tradeoff due to memory bandwidth constraints whatsoever. The FPGA / ASIC resistance basically comes from the fact that nobody actually cares about Quark!

Are you suggesting that there are blocks on the main network consensus blockchain that don't have a valid nonce for the target difficulty?

Spending any non-trivial amount of money on any altcoin except Litecoin is absolutely certifiably insane.

That's not technically possible, because each node independently verifies the blockchain. There is nothing that a botnet could possibly do that would force your node to accept an invalid blockchain.


Hashrate is central to consensus because it determines the probability of any given miner finding valid proof-of-work for any given block. Nodes achieve consensus by accepting the longest chain with valid proof-of-work. The node function and mining function are not the same thing.

ASIC has not made Bitcoin mining centralized at all, it's just that so many people actually know about mining now that the competition makes it impossible to mine as a get rich quick scheme.

Putting together a good GPU rig back when difficulty justified it cost just as much if not more than an ASIC unit today.

Outright banning Bitcoin forces governments to show their hand in a way that crushes the pretension that we are not in a completely totalitarian world, which is socially-desirable because it would encourage the overthrow of such regimes.

The coins that artificially encourage early adoption are just a scammy way of re-creating what happened with Bitcoin naturally.

Bitcoin was completely fair, Satoshi publicized it with the whitepaper well ahead of time, and anybody who wanted to could participate from day 1. Since Bitcoin was the first example of the kind of technology that could actually solve the Byzantine Generals problem, practically everybody just laughed at him and very few people took it seriously until years later.

Now that we actually know that a blockchain / proof-of-work actually works, we have a bunch of opportunists who either didn't take Satoshi seriously when they could've actually mined a ton of Bitcoins easily or just didn't know about it. Sorry, this ship has sailed!