|
JorgeStolfi
|
 |
June 10, 2014, 10:44:53 AM |
|
OK wise bitcoiners who think you "understand the math", do you know why the mining problem is hard? Or why it is hard to sign a transaction without knowing the private key?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Cassius
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1031
|
|
June 10, 2014, 10:45:25 AM |
|
I love this bit from the article (emphasis mine): Now we have a small piece of pure, incorruptible mathematics enshrined in computer code that will allow people to solve the thorniest problems without reference to “the authorities”. Which is bullshit, unfortunately. There is no mathematical proof that the mining problem is hard, or that it is hard to get the private key of any given address. No one has found how to do either of those things efficiently yet, but a smart teenager may find one tomorrow. Or may have found it already. But bitcoiners need not worry, if that happens not only bitcoin, but all current e-commerce protocols will be compromised... Oh for goodness' sake, Jorge. Do you have any understanding of the maths behind this, or how long it would take to implement a vulnerability in a useful way? Either you do, in which case this is pure and simple trolling. Or else you don't, which also raises plenty of questions. In either case I hope none of your students stumble across this thread. i think he has finally lost the plot  I actually checked carefully several times to make sure this really was JorgeSto lfi, not JorgeSto fli. I'm still wondering whether someone else wrote it. This simply isn't becoming of a respectable academic, Jorge. |
|
|
|
|
|
Asrael999
|
|
June 10, 2014, 10:45:38 AM |
|
OK wise bitcoiners who think you "understand the math", do you know why the mining problem is hard? Or that it is hard to sign a transaction without knowing the private key?
why don't you enlighten us as to why it isn't? |
|
|
|
|
|
JorgeStolfi
|
|
June 10, 2014, 10:50:01 AM |
|
why don't you enlighten us as to why it isn't?
Because I am only an old retard, you are the ones who know bitcoin inside out. Do your homework, and tell me: where is that "pure incorruptible mathematics" proof? |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
June 10, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Last edit: June 10, 2014, 11:19:59 AM by aminorex |
|
equality before the law
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor alike to piss in the street, or to steal bread. -Anatole France |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
June 10, 2014, 10:54:01 AM
Last edit: June 10, 2014, 11:19:43 AM by aminorex |
|
I'd be interested to see if it is something else as I cant fathom how the hr can be saturated in a normal sense of the word
I'm pretty sure he meant that so much silicon was dissolved in the hashrate that any more would result in crystals of silicon starting to form in our bitcoins. This could be a fungibility nightmare, if people start valuing bitcoins with big crystals in them more than others. To fathom this, poke a 6 foot long stick in it, and if it bumps into something, back up. |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:00:42 AM
Last edit: June 10, 2014, 11:20:26 AM by aminorex |
|
Do your homework, and tell me: where is that "pure incorruptible mathematics" proof?
The proof is conditional upon an assumption. You are averring to the unproven nature of the assumption. Your detractors are averring to the proof which it conditions. Of course both are right, and of course both are wrong, in differing senses. Such a delightfully complex relationship there is between truth and interpretation. This is how I can be both a relativist and a fundamentalist, so brisk and liberating is it. Thank you for reminding me. |
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2170
Merit: 1776
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
June 10, 2014, 11:01:03 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JorgeStolfi
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:10:09 AM |
|
The proof is conditional upon an assumption. You are averring to the unproven nature of the assumption. Your detractors are averring to the proof which it conditions. Of course both are right, and of course both are wrong, in different senses.
Thanks! Actually it is two independent assumptions: (1) solving the mining problem requires a lot more computation than checking the solution, and (2) forging the signature for a transaction requires an impractical amount of computation. AFAIK, either could be false with the other being true. |
|
|
|
|
oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:10:45 AM |
|
why don't you enlighten us as to why it isn't?
Because I am only an old retard, you are the ones who know bitcoin inside out. Do your homework, and tell me: where is that "pure incorruptible mathematics" proof? There is none. But you know that much. On the other hand, Church Turing is just a hypothesis as well, but you don't see any of us (including you) going on about tangents of "how it is maybe all just a meaningless, inferior form of computation we're doing here". In fact, your tenure is based on it, I'd argue. There are a select few assumptions that seem to be so well grounded in reality that it is a waste of one's productivity to constantly doubt them. If the day comes that they'd break, we'll be as well prepared as we are now to tackle the fallout from the event.(*) (*) (EDIT) which is not the same as there being a vulnerability in the implementation of the cryptographic methods. But that's not what you had in mind, if I understood you right. There are practical solutions (or so we believe) to that problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
greenlion
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:11:42 AM |
|
I love this bit from the article (emphasis mine): Now we have a small piece of pure, incorruptible mathematics enshrined in computer code that will allow people to solve the thorniest problems without reference to “the authorities”. Which is bullshit, unfortunately. There is no mathematical proof that the mining problem is hard, or that it is hard to get the private key of any given address. No one has found how to do either of those things efficiently yet, but a smart teenager may find one tomorrow. Or may have found it already. But bitcoiners need not worry, if that happens not only bitcoin, but all current e-commerce protocols will be compromised... Oh for goodness' sake, Jorge. Do you have any understanding of the maths behind this, or how long it would take to implement a vulnerability in a useful way? Either you do, in which case this is pure and simple trolling. Or else you don't, which also raises plenty of questions. In either case I hope none of your students stumble across this thread. i think he has finally lost the plot The fake professor needs to go back to his bread and butter making up meaningless stuff about China volume, this cryptography stuff is simply outside of his wheelhouse. |
|
|
|
|
Dotto
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 981
Merit: 1005
No maps for these territories
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:12:38 AM |
|
Dear JorgeStolfi, you are wrong on so many levels!!  The laws of mathematics are stronger than the laws of men, I wonder when are you going to realise how wrong you were this days, you have it in front of your very eyes all time! Rechrist!! |
|
|
|
|
|
akujin
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:14:12 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
phosphorush
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:15:24 AM |
|
Dear JorgeStolfi, you are wrong on so many levels!! The laws of mathematics are stronger than the laws of men, I wonder when are you going to realise how wrong you were this days, you have it in front of your very eyes all time! Rechrist!! Math was made by man  |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:18:09 AM |
|
Dear JorgeStolfi, you are wrong on so many levels!! The laws of mathematics are stronger than the laws of men, I wonder when are you going to realise how wrong you were this days, you have it in front of your very eyes all time! Rechrist!! Math was made by man Excepting, of course, the natural numbers. |
|
|
|
|
|
T.Stuart
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:18:26 AM |
|
why don't you enlighten us as to why it isn't?
Because I am only an old retard, you are the ones who know bitcoin inside out. Do your homework, and tell me: where is that "pure incorruptible mathematics" proof? You have a certain point, Jorge, but it isn't to do with mathematics. You probably get frustrated reading posts from people enthusing about Bitcoin without knowing how it works. So it's tempting to ask people, "Do you really know what you are talking about?" But could I ask, at dinner parties are you in the habit of berating the person next to you because they don't know how credit card encryption works? Although I suppose most people don't spend their time enthusing about credit cards at dinner parties - that would be pretty annoying. Still, if you have such a low opinion of Bitcoiners you are not obliged to spend so much time on Bitcointalk... |
|
|
|
|
|
phosphorush
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:21:25 AM |
|
Dear JorgeStolfi, you are wrong on so many levels!! The laws of mathematics are stronger than the laws of men, I wonder when are you going to realise how wrong you were this days, you have it in front of your very eyes all time! Rechrist!! Math was made by man Excepting, of course, the natural numbers. Hun? Math is an abstract tool that helps us making models of the world among other things. How are the natural numbers any different? A lot of mathematicians seems to be platonists, like if mathematical concepts had an independent reality outside of man... but that's just naive dogmatism. |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:21:59 AM |
|
Church Turing
Glad I am not an altar boy in Church Turing. Wow, so many happy today. |
|
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:23:30 AM |
|
why don't you enlighten us as to why it isn't?
Because I am only an old retard, you are the ones who know bitcoin inside out. Do your homework, and tell me: where is that "pure incorruptible mathematics" proof? You are just right, there is no proof. The article contains lots of other inaccuracies also. Time to move on. |
|
|
|
|
aminorex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1029
Sine secretum non libertas
|
|
June 10, 2014, 11:24:51 AM |
|
The laws of mathematics are stronger than the laws of men...
Math was made by man Excepting, of course, the natural numbers. Hun? Math is an abstract tool that helps us making models of the world among other things. How are the natural numbers any different? A lot of mathematicians seems to be platonists, like if mathematical concepts had an independent reality outside of man... but that's just naive dogmatism. 'Kronecker might be the most famous of the Pre-Intuitionists for his singular and oft quoted phrase, "God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man."' I often forget that y'all are not in my mind. (Or rather, that y'all are not aware that y'all are in my mind.) Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
