|
Returning to the issue of address re-use, it all comes down to exposed public keys. In which case, we need to consider the fact that back in the mists of time, block rewards were paid to a public key. All of these early coins, if they're still there, are vulnerable to quantum Shor. This is why the threat of QCs should be taken seriously. Whilst there are huge technical and engineering challenges to overcome, such as preventing decoherence in a sufficiently-scaled multi-qubit set-up, the fact remains that the advance of QCs is steady and remorseless. And it can't be solved trivially by simply forking bitcoin to a quantum-resistant chain, because everyone will need to move their coins to the new, Q-safe addresses, which wouldn't be possible even if everyone agreed to it... because the millions of 'lost' coins couldn't be moved, and would just sit there to be picked up by a QC that can derive the private key.
|
|
|
|
The quantum Shor algorithm is a much more powerful approach than Grover, and can be used to destroy public-key cryptography.
~snip
This only works on RSA keypairs (and any other cryptosystem that uses prime factoring) and it is inapplicable to the elliptic curve cryptography that Bitcoin uses. Elliptic curves take their private key as an extremely large number and multiply that by a curve point to get the public key. It's completely different from getting two primes and multiplying together to derive the private key, public key and other parameters, which is what Shor's algorithm applies to. I think address re-use is the important point. If you are using a one-time address, then the QC needs to derive the private key in the time between the transaction being sent and it being accepted. But if you are re-using an address, then Shor on a sufficiently powerful QC can derive the private key in 128^3=2,097,152 steps, compared with 2^128=340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 steps on a classical computer. ECC is vulnerable to Shor, and the best defence is narrowing that window of opportunity by not re-using addresses. |
|
|
|
There were a couple of years where the Ferrari package was right up there with Mercedes, but Ferrari didn't have the drivers to beat Hamilton.
Did they? Merc always had the best car since the switch to the V6. I mean imagine switching Vettel and Hamilton during that time when ‘Ferrari had the package’... I think Vettel would be winning the championship by a mile cos really Ferrari is kinda behind in F1 auto development for more than a decade now. Ferrari never had the best car but more could have been done with the car they had. Imagine if Alonso had been kept instead of Vettel, I'm sure they would have more wins, maybe even a championship. Certainly for a lot of the V6 period Mercedes have had the best car, and sometimes by a significant margin. However that hasn't been the case the whole time. Considering 2018 as an example, the Ferrari package was certainly equal to Mercedes and even ahead of them for some of the season. I'd agree with aesma on the Alonso angle. If Ferrari had Alonso instead of Vettel in 2018, it could well have been a Ferrari championship win. If Hamilton has the best car, he wins. If Hamilton in a Merc is competing with Vettel in a just-as-good Ferrari, Hamilton wins. But put Alonso or maybe Verstappen in that just-as-good Ferrari, and whilst I'd still favour Hamilton, the question is certainly a lot more open. |
|
|
|
But, IMO, unfortunately QC wouldn't work for any task other than generating enormous amounts of noise.
If you had a viable and sufficiently powerful QC, then mining isn't your best angle of attack. As others have suggested, the QC attack on mining would use Grover's algorithm, which makes mining only slightly easier. QCs are vastly better than classical computers at certain types of task, specifically where the combination of quantum state superposition (in a single qubit) and quantum entanglement (multiple 'linked' qubits) can be exploited. A classical bit can be 0 or 1, either/or. A qubit, because of quantum superposition, is in a sense partially both values, a probability smear across the two, until it is measured, when it resolves to a definite classical 0 or 1 outcome. In a system with multiple entangled qubits, the number of values covered increases 2^n. Two entangled qubits cover 2^2=4 possibilities, 00, 01, 10, 11. Three entangled qubits cover 2^3=8, 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. And so on. A QC will assess the probabilities associated with all possible classical values, and will do so simultaneously. The number of outcomes it can assess simultaneously (2^n) being limited by the total number of qubits (n). Whereas a classical computer, no matter how fast, still proceeds one step at a time. The quantum Shor algorithm is a much more powerful approach than Grover, and can be used to destroy public-key cryptography. And the easiest target here is reused addresses, as below: Mining can potentially be much quicker with QCs.The current PoW difficulty system can be exploited by a Quantum Computer using Grover’s algorithm to drastically reduce the number of computational steps required to solve the problem. The theorised advantage that a quantum computer (or parallelised QCs) have over classical computers is a couple of orders of magnitude, so ~x100 easier to mine. This isn’t necessarily a game-changer, as this QC speed advantage is likely to be some years away, by which time classical computers will surely have increased speed to reduce the QC advantage significantly. It is worth remembering that QCs aren’t going up against run-of-the-mill standard equipment here, but rather against the very fast ASICs that have been set up specifically for mining. Re-used BTC addresses are 100% vulnerable to QCs.Address Re-Use. Simply, any address that is re-used is 100% vulnerable because a QC can use Shor’s algorithm to break public-key cryptography. This is a quantum algorithm designed specifically to solve for prime factors. As with Grover’s algorithm, the key is in dramatically reducing the number of computational steps required to solve the problem. The upshot is that for any known public key, a QC can use Shor’s approach to derive the private key. The vulnerability cannot be overstated here. Any re-used address is utterly insecure.Processed (accepted) transactions are theoretically somewhat vulnerable to QCs.Theoretically possible because the QC can derive private keys from used addresses. In practice however processed transactions are likely to be quite secure as QCs would need to out-hash the network to double spend. Unprocessed (pending) transactions are extremely vulnerable to QCs.As above, a QC can derive a private key from a public key. So for any unprocessed transaction, a QC attacker can obtain the private key and then create their own transaction whilst offering a much higher fee, so that the attacker’s transaction gets onto the blockchain first, ahead of the genuine transaction. So block interval and QC speed are both crucial here – it all depends on whether or not the a QC can hack the key more quickly than the block is processed. |
|
|
|
They say Bitcoin is a waste of electricity
As long as mining is profitable, the difficulty will increase. As long as difficulty increases there will be more mining. This means that periodically, mining will damage the environment increasingly. Not necessarily. Use of renewables is considerable, and is growing. The 'waste of electricity' argument will become less relevant over time. A Cambridge University study last year into use of renewables in crypto mining found that 'the majority of identified mining facilities use some share of renewable energy sources as part of their energy mix', and that the average contribution of renewables is around 28%.  From page 84 of the report (my bold): Less than a quarter of identified miners do not use any forms of renewable energy sources at all, although the energy mix of one quarter of facilities could not be identified. Certain regions such as Xinjiang Province in China rely almost entirely on coal. Nevertheless, weighing the farms by identified megawatts results in a similar picture and shows that cryptoasset mining is much less dependent on fossil fuels than anticipated. Identified facilities draw on average 28% of their energy requirements from renewables. However, the share of renewables varies considerably from one facility to another: while some only use a marginal proportion, others run almost exclusively on renewables. On average, roughly 28% of the total energy supply for both small and large facilities is generated through renewable sources. Among renewables, hydroelectric power is the most frequently used energy source. Nearly half of the identified megawatt capacity featured in the cryptoasset mining map is generated through hydropower. It is worth noting that the mining map identifies 30% of the lower-bound total energy consumption estimate. An interesting pattern emerges when comparing the energy mix with the location of the respective mining facilities. Regions with substantial green power sources seem to become attractive targets for miners, since these locations tend to overlap with places where there is an abundance of low-cost hydroelectric power that is unused and stranded. Energy in these locations is often cheap because demand cannot compensate the oversupply. |
|
|
|
We both lost the bet  . Flamengo have scored two goal and won the match. BTW, chance of happening tie was 1% while I placed the bet. With the lowest chance I was able to place bet of 0.001 mBTC. That winning percentage changed after my bet. As a result the outcome odds become lower. And you had to place your bet on higher winning chance than me. Moreover, minimum winning amount is 0.1 mBTC at every bet. In that case, minimum 0.003 mBTC bet was required to have 0.1 mBTC winning outcome. Even though you lost, I think you made a great bet there. The trick I think is to find anything where you think the odds that are offered are unrealistic, and then bet accordingly. If you keep betting on events that say 1% chance but the actual chance is more like maybe 5%, then after some time you should make a considerable profit. It's like bitcoin price movements, really. There will be considerable fluctuations from one moment to the next, one event to the next... but over time it should average out in your favour. I've taken your route with my bet today. The odds for a tie in Leipzig vs Augsburg is 1%. Ausgburg have been quite poor recently, but Leipzig have been patchy too. Got to be worth a go. You mentioned about odds changing - this also happens as you scale your bet up. I bet 1 with potential winnings of 466. If I'd gone to the maximum of betting 100, the potential winnings are only 1000... so bet 100x more for chance of 2x reward. In this case, the lower bet makes more sense.  |
|
|
|
if given a public key, how would you use AI to tackle the algorithm and solve for the appropriate private key?
You wouldn't. You'd use a quantum computer running Shor's algorithm. AI might help you to derive a more efficient algorithm, and improve your solution time slightly, but it does next to nothing to address the fundamental issue, which is the sheer number of potential solutions. Whereas a quantum computer does address this, because its processing power scales differently. A conventional computer can solve a problem 'x' in 'y' seconds, taking 'z' number of steps. If you use AI to improve your algorithm, then perhaps it can solve problem 'x' in 'y/2' seconds, so twice as fast - but it will still take 'z' number of computational steps to do so. The advantage of a quantum computer is that it can drastically reduce 'z', the number of steps required. This is why they are 'faster'. Where a classical computer with 'n' bits can represent 'n' states, a quantum computer can represent 2^n states. This is because the potential outcomes are superposed. So as we increase complexity, the number of states that can be represented are as follows: Classical: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 etc. Quantum: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128 etc. The upshot is that whilst a classical computer takes an unimaginably huge 2^128 operations to derive the bitcoin private key, a QC running Shor takes a mere 128^3. It doesn't matter how great your algorithm is, there is always the limit that a classical computer still faces that huge number of processing steps. |
|
|
|
The best Biden memes are from those crazy VP years. Everyone knows he's a dangerous maverick who doesn't play by the rules. Here's another example... Biden To Honor Fallen Soldiers By Jumping Motorcycle Over Vietnam MemorialBiden, who called an emergency press conference at the White House Saturday, said members of the U.S. armed forces who sacrificed their lives in the service of their country deserved a death-defying stunt that involves clearing the 246-foot-long monument on a "souped-up" Harley-Davidson XR-750.
"There's no better way to pay homage to our fallen brothers than by letting it rip, hitting that ramp at full fucking blast, and flying through the sky high above the Vietnam Memorial," said Biden, noting that he also plans to execute a midair salute by placing his fingers around his mouth in a V shape and rapidly flicking his tongue. "If I grease the landing and ragdoll across the Constitution Gardens, so be it. I've had my share of spills."
"Ain't like I haven't broken a few bones or fractured my skull a couple times, either," the vice president added.
Biden told reporters he has spent all his free time over the past two weeks preparing for the perilous feat by tuning up his bike, overseeing construction of the plywood ramps, and personally installing a "bitchin'" sound system that will blast a to-be-determined John Mellencamp song from 20 different speakers during the jump.
The vice president said that to properly commemorate the bravery of America's fallen service members, he will also ride the motorcycle through a massive banner reading "All gave some, some gave all," which will be held in place by "a couple of hot numbers in bikinis" whom the vice president reportedly met during a recent trip to a D.C.-area Texas Roadhouse location.
After urging members of the media not to miss out because the performance is going to be "the shit," Biden spoke at length about modifications he has made to the bike to ensure he gets "big-time air.""  |
|
|
|
Biden isn't president
Yes he is. No, he isn't. Yes, he is. Lets get BADecker to settle this. Tash can be referee. I'm sure we can arrive at a logical outcome..... I'm happy to step in as an impartial arbiter, as I never disagree with BADecker on anything, so can't be accused of bias. Yes, he is. |
|
|
|
@Cnut237 I honestly don’t understand was it’s Vettle’s over confidence, or arrogance or lack of faith, in himself which led him to give poor performances for Ferrari despite his vast talents. Lastly I don’t think that Hamilton will be beaten this year too, as I see no driver available that can beat Hamilton and win the title.
I think Vettel is a good driver but not a great driver. Perhaps the Red Bull car suited him better, or the specific regulations and car builds for those years suited his driving style, I don't know. But at Ferrari he's gone from great to good. I think this hit his confidence, and he's been into a downward spiral ever since. Plenty of drivers can drive well from the front, and Vettel can. But it's harder to drive near the front amongst challengers. I don't think Vettel can do that. Low confidence and not having the undisputed #1 car means he's trying too hard, which leads to mistakes, which means trying harder and having lower confidence, etc. And then for 2020, after he was told his contract wouldn't be renewed, I think he just lost motivation. Hamilton 2021. Yes, I don't think anyone will beat him. Remember the reason that other cars were getting close to the Mercs at the end of 2020 was because Mercedes were so dominant in the first part of the season that they just stopped developing their 2020 car altogether and switched to working on the 2021 version. So Mercedes already have a significant development headstart on other teams, in what was already the best car anyway. And Hamilton is the best driver, this can't be disputed. Others (Verstappen etc) may have talent but don't have the racecraft or the maturity to eke out a result when things are going against them. |
|
|
|
How your bets turned out? Can you share that to us? How much is your ROI for 3 of your best bets (if we just say, you are able to join the contest). I am hoping that Futuur will launch another contest like that soon, I'm eager to participate on it! Update us Futuur!  Results are here  |
|
|
|
there are many questions relating to politics where there are only very few bettors. I am referring to the Bitcoin market. I think Futuur has yet to really hit the mainstream. It is still growing. But I think it has already began to attract attention.
Yes, some of the markets are quite thin on the bitcoin side, but there are some great opportunities (you can even pick up a few sats on Jeff Bezos / Amazon CEO, although the odds are closing rapidly). I have 8 open BTC bets at the moment. Like you, I think this will grow. It's something new, with a good UI, and it really stands out from traditional betting sites. More than anything else, it's fun.  |
|
|
|
do you think that this is going to lead to him going to prison? I personally highly doubt it. Guy still has a massive amount of influence with the GOP and is going to use that to skirt any potential problems.
Plus the fact that the Biden admin will (IMO) avoid prosecuting Trump because they’re going for the whole unity thing. Trump will most likely be found not guility in his upcoming Senate trial as well.
The question of whether he is or is not guilty of any crimes is moot in terms of a near-term prosecution. There's next to zero chance of him going to prison any time soon. It's not just or even primarily that he has GOP influence... the main obstacle to any prosecution is his huge influence amongst the electorate, and particularly the freedom-lovin', gun-totin' element of the electorate. A Trump prosecution would lead to huge civil unrest, and I'm sure will be judged a price not worth paying. Same result for the impeachment, too. He won't be convicted ( and I've put bitcoin on it). A few GOP senators came out against him after Jan 6th, but voters are fickle and have short memories. Jan 6th is not in the headlines as much now, and the GOP are closing ranks behind Trump. If any conviction and prison time does happen, it won't be until Trump has lost all support amongst the electorate. Given that he's likely going to remain in the public eye for the foreseeable future, and that he's already in his mid-70s and (probably) quite unhealthy, a prison sentence seems very unlikely. |
|
|
|
seems like my Luck in January don't fit for BTC betting , i Hope this February my future will change in opposite side  Me too. I bet across a few different markets, and it was the football results that really went against my predictions. There were some strange results. Not sure if I will stick to other markets in Feb and avoid football for the moment. I seem to do better on politics... the only issue is most of the options there are quite long term, e.g. resolve at end of 2021, whereas sports betting is of course more immediate. |
|
|
|
Ferrari really made him bald in my opinion with all the stress that he endured for all this season.
I think it goes both ways, and Vettel's performance (or lack of) probably caused some baldness amongst Ferrari officials, too It has to be said he really underperformed in the red car, and not just last season. There were a couple of years where the Ferrari package was right up there with Mercedes, but Ferrari didn't have the drivers to beat Hamilton. |
|
|
|
Manchester United 9-0 Southampton
Did Southampton get a team of high schoolboys to play against Manchester United? It was incredible the low team's performance.
No, they were unlucky. They had a player sent off in the second minute, so had to play until 86 minutes with 10 men, at which point they were 6-0 down. Then they had another player sent off and went down to 9 men, and conceded a further 3 goals in the final few minutes. Also relevant is that Southampton are in the midst of a huge injury crisis. Of course Man U are the better team and likely would have won even against 11 men with no Southampton injuries. But there is a lot more to this scoreline than the result, a lot of extenuating factors. The big question now I suppose is how Southampton respond in their next match. Losing 9-0, however it happened, is not going to be great for morale. |
|
|
|
The military does not need to attempt a coup
Arguably in Myanmar the military were always in power anyway. It's questionable how much power Aung San Suu Kyi actually had in the first place. Most of the top government positions were held by representatives of the military - the same military that had her under house arrest for the better part of two decades. I think she always worked within quite severe constraints, and was never free to govern as she pleased. I don't think the military taking control is a huge surprise, as they largely had control anyway. The bit that did surprise me was that exercise video that caught the coup live!  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/exercise-instructor-appears-to-unwittingly-capture-myanmar-coup-in-dance-video |
|
|
|
Atletico are getting closer to the championship. I wonder what will happen in the next Atletico-Real and Barcelona-Atletico games. If the things go like this, Atletico won't have difficulty in being the champions even they lose to Real and Barcelona though.
Yes. The league table is quite revealing. Atletico have played half their games, 19/38, and they've dropped 7 points in total. Same again in the second half of the season, and even if Barca and Real win all their games, Atletico are still champions. It's not just that they've got a 10 point lead, it's that their record in the first 19 games is close to faultless. They're not dropping enough points to be caught.  |
|
|
|
Looking at the sun doesn't have anything to do with the angel who stands in the sun. He still stands in the sun.
You don't know he's there unless you see him. Sound traveling through space doesn't have anything to do with an angel speaking in a loud voice.
You don't know what he's said unless you hear him. Science know so very little about what there is to know scientifically.
God of the gaps is not a compelling argument. 2000 years ago: "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god throwing lightning bolts from the sky."
1000 years ago: "We do not know what keeps the planets in their courses. There must be angels pushing them along."
500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
200 years ago: "We do not know how the many species of plants and animals could have appeared, therefore God must have created them."
100 years ago: "We do not know how the universe started, therefore God must have done it."
60 years ago: "We do not know how genes are passed from parent to child, therefore traits must be imprinted upon the soul." As science advances, the domain of things caused by God diminishes. Eventually there will be hardly anything left. Faith and religious belief confer certain social benefits, but there is no underlying truth to them. |
|
|
|
And I saw an angel standing in the sun
If you look at the sun for any length of time, then you're not going to see very much at all, and will probably need a trip to hospital. who cried in a loud voice
Sound doesn't travel through space. If the angel is in the sun, this is an issue. to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God,...
Birds don't understand exhortations in spoken English. I'm not being flippant, just trying to illustrate the point that if you don't accept facts and science as an argument, and use faith-based arguments, then you are starting from a conclusion and seeking out whatever corroborates your pre-set opinion, rather than starting from a position where you seek out facts to determine whether or not your assumed conclusion is correct. Which goes back to the discussion of a couple of days ago: have you ever changed your mind about anything, based on evidence? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
