The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way

[Hexadecibel]

http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/b/b3/800px-Legionofmadfellows.jpg

I laughed out loud.

[1714115325]

1714115325

[1714115325]

1714115325

[the joint]

ugh... the "quantum computing" thread got out again.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3008.0

tl:dr

quantum computing is no threat to bitcoin.

In Bitcoin's current state, yes, it absolutely is.

Give it 10-20 years.

BTW, if you think that the current publicity on quantum computing is 'up-to-date,' you're kidding yourself.  How do I know this?  Simple.  If I (or you) was in a position of ultimate authority, would I restrict the amount of information that actually reaches the public regarding technological advances?  Fuck yes I would.

tl;dr

Quantum computing is far more advanced than any publication will lead you to believe.

Ok, care to share your source?

Common sense.  Like I said, if I was at the top, I would restrict all kinds of information from being leaked.  Its natural that others would do the same.

"Hey!  We invented a device the size of a cubic foot that literally contains and can compute an infinite amount of information!"  (And, btw, a single qubit can, in fact, store an infinite amount of information, but some infinities are larger than other infinities)  "Here everybody!  Here's how to build one!"

Or

"Hm...why don't we just keep this little secret to ourselves...and profit like f*cking crazy and gain a competitive edge over every country in the world while they all scramble to figure this out on their own."  Either that, or they know we'd all kill ourselves if we had access to that kind of technology.

Gee, I wonder which is more likely.

Seriously, if you think that you can look up the most advanced technology through a Google search, or hear it from a buddy with a PhD, you must be a fool.

[Qoheleth]

To me this just means someone should start an altchain that switches ECDSA and SHA-2 for algorithms that are secure in the face of QC, so that if someone suddenly unveils a quantum computer, there's an alternative already lined up and ready.

[realnowhereman]

Quantum computing is far more advanced than any publication will lead you to believe.

Ok, care to share your source?

Common sense.  Like I said, if I was at the top, I would restrict all kinds of information from being leaked.  Its natural that others would do the same.

Exactly; that's why I've never publicised my invention of the Quantum Gravititic Hypercomputer.  I can break the entire blockchain five times over before breakfast; predict the lottery numbers for every lottery around the world before 11 then sit outside in the sunshine until the exact second when my computer predicted the rain would start.

Of course, I haven't made use of any of these abilities; because then the world would realise what I'd created.


You do realise how nutty you sound?  Your evidence of the existence of working quantum computers is that that there is no evidence of working quantum computers?

[mccorvic]

You do realise how nutty you sound?  Your evidence of the existence of working quantum computers is that that there is no evidence of working quantum computers?

Personally, I'll believe it when I see a fuzzy photograph or shaky video footage. Anything less is just fantasy talk.

[Piper67]

Quantum computing is far more advanced than any publication will lead you to believe.

Ok, care to share your source?

Common sense.  Like I said, if I was at the top, I would restrict all kinds of information from being leaked.  Its natural that others would do the same.

Exactly; that's why I've never publicised my invention of the Quantum Gravititic Hypercomputer.  I can break the entire blockchain five times over before breakfast; predict the lottery numbers for every lottery around the world before 11 then sit outside in the sunshine until the exact second when my computer predicted the rain would start.

Of course, I haven't made use of any of these abilities; because then the world would realise what I'd created.


You do realise how nutty you sound?  Your evidence of the existence of working quantum computers is that that there is no evidence of working quantum computers?

Hey, don't knock that line of reasoning, it worked really well for the Inquisition for a couple centuries 

[Vandroiy]

Like I said, if I was at the top, I would restrict all kinds of information from being leaked.  Its natural that others would do the same.

That's not how it actually works. It might be like this with military implementations or other technologies that can be "gathered" in a more final state. But the more fundamental parts of research are beyond what government control is capable of. Such things stem from a scientific community that is largely international and, quite frankly, beyond the organizational capabilities of governments.

Last quantum storage I saw lived a fraction of a second in a vacuum chamber inside of some laser interference pattern. It's not ready for usage, there is no known path to get it ready for usage, and if there were such a thing it would be extremely hard to conceal, since one would have to gather up people with expertise in the topic without anyone noticing.

If, against all odds, someone figures out any decent-sized implementation of Shor's Algorithm any time soon, assume one hell of a head-start warning.

[alan2here]

Not all QC is alike. The slowest type wouldn't effect us much at all, the best type would make the concept of any type of currency irrelevant.

I predict that the law of accelerating returns will continue as normal, resulting in some form of QC guarenteed fairly soon, but gradually and incrementally as to be not all that exciting, presumably this is factored into Bitcoin development already.

[the joint]

Not all QC is alike. The slowest type wouldn't effect us much at all, the best type would make the concept of any type of currency irrelevant.

Bingo.

You do realise how nutty you sound?  Your evidence of the existence of working quantum computers is that that there is no evidence of working quantum computers?

No, I think it's nutty to assume the opposite.  And by the way, your assumption that "there is no evidence of working quantum computers" is dead wrong since scientists have already laid claim to the existence of working quantum computers the size of a handful of qubits, though they claim they aren't very useful in their current state and can only use them to solve extremely basic and not very useful problems.  I'm simply giving three plausible scenarios (there are others, of course) and one of them is likely true:

1)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, but they don't know of others who have built vastly more complex ones.
OR
2)  There are scientists that have built extremely complex quantum computers, but they are minimizing their results to the public.
OR
3)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, are aware that others have built vastly more complex ones and are trying to replicate this complexity, but are restricting this information to the public.


You and others are taking the position that it sounds nutty based on the arrogant assumption that you think you're somehow privileged enough as another human being to know exactly what's going on.  I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials exist because you/we haven't seen them despite clear evidence of a hierarchy of life and intelligence, and to assume that that hierarchy stops at planet Earth is one of the dumbest, most egocentric conclusions a person can reach.  It's hardly different than the assumption proven false long ago that the sun revolves around the Earth.

[mccorvic]

Not all QC is alike. The slowest type wouldn't effect us much at all, the best type would make the concept of any type of currency irrelevant.

Bingo.

You do realise how nutty you sound?  Your evidence of the existence of working quantum computers is that that there is no evidence of working quantum computers?

No, I think it's nutty to assume the opposite.  And by the way, your assumption that "there is no evidence of working quantum computers" is dead wrong since scientists have already laid claim to the existence of working quantum computers the size of a handful of qubits, though they claim they aren't very useful in their current state and can only use them to solve extremely basic and not very useful problems.  I'm simply giving three plausible scenarios (there are others, of course) and one of them is likely true:

1)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, but they don't know of others who have built vastly more complex ones.
OR
2)  There are scientists that have built extremely complex quantum computers, but they are minimizing their results to the public.
OR
3)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, are aware that others have built vastly more complex ones and are trying to replicate this complexity, but are restricting this information to the public.


You and others are taking the position that it sounds nutty based on the arrogant assumption that you think you're somehow privileged enough as another human being to know exactly what's going on.  I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials exist because you/we haven't seen them despite clear evidence of a hierarchy of life and intelligence, and to assume that that hierarchy stops at planet Earth is one of the dumbest, most egocentric conclusions a person can reach.  It's hardly different than the assumption proven false long ago that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Please work on your analogies, they are terrible. A leap of scientist are working on qc to scientists have secretly made a super advanced and working qc is NOT the same as life on earth so there may be life out there somewhere.

A better analogy would have been: " I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials abduct people and impregnate them with alien hybrids because you/we haven't seen them"

And yes, I would think those people are nutty.

[sadpandatech]

You do realise how nutty you sound?  Your evidence of the existence of working quantum computers is that that there is no evidence of working quantum computers?

No, I think it's nutty to assume the opposite.  And by the way, your assumption that "there is no evidence of working quantum computers" is dead wrong since scientists have already laid claim to the existence of working quantum computers the size of a handful of qubits, though they claim they aren't very useful in their current state and can only use them to solve extremely basic and not very useful problems.  I'm simply giving three plausible scenarios (there are others, of course) and one of them is likely true:

1)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, but they don't know of others who have built vastly more complex ones.
OR
2)  There are scientists that have built extremely complex quantum computers, but they are minimizing their results to the public.
OR
3)  There are scientists that have built rudimentary quantum computers, are aware that others have built vastly more complex ones and are trying to replicate this complexity, but are restricting this information to the public.

You and others are taking the position that it sounds nutty based on the arrogant assumption that you think you're somehow privileged enough as another human being to know exactly what's going on.  I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials exist because you/we haven't seen them despite clear evidence of a hierarchy of life and intelligence, and to assume that that hierarchy stops at planet Earth is one of the dumbest, most egocentric conclusions a person can reach.  It's hardly different than the assumption proven false long ago that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Please work on your analogies, they are terrible.

A better analogy would have been: " I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials abduct people and impregnate them with alien hybrids because you/we haven't seen them"

And yes, I would think those people are nutty.

Having worked for Nasa/Boeing for a number of years at a base that had a large number of research projects going on. I can vouch for The Joint's analogy. I can think of very little research that was taking place there, at the time, that was published in any sort of peer journal or any place else it would be known by the public or other researchers. As 90% or more of it was either confidential company property or government owned. And no I'm not privy to any secrets so don't ask..

cheers

[dacoinminster]

The only way bitcoins will drop to $3 is if MtGox dies in a spectacular fashion. Even selling bitcoins when they were $30 was humorously short-sighted (although quite profitable if you were smart enough to buy them back at the bottom).

Here's my thread about my infographic regarding why I think the sky is the limit on bitcoin prices:

[sadpandatech]

The only way bitcoins will drop to $3 is if MtGox dies in a spectacular fashion. Even selling bitcoins when they were $30 was humorously short-sighted (although quite profitable if you were smart enough to buy them back at the bottom).

Here's my thread about my infographic regarding why I think the sky is the limit on bitcoin prices:

it looks like they are all closing in to kick bitcoins ass. 

[miscreanity]

The only way bitcoins will drop to $3 is if MtGox dies in a spectacular fashion. Even selling bitcoins when they were $30 was humorously short-sighted (although quite profitable if you were smart enough to buy them back at the bottom).

Here's my thread about my infographic regarding why I think the sky is the limit on bitcoin prices:

it looks like they are all closing in to kick bitcoins ass. 

More like Bitcoin is a young, hungry black hole drawing all of their energy away.

[realnowhereman]

You and others are taking the position that it sounds nutty based on the arrogant assumption that you think you're somehow privileged enough as another human being to know exactly what's going on.

The burden of proof is traditionally on the asserter.

You assert that quantum computers of immense power exist; and yet your proof of that is that "well, if people had them, they wouldn't tell us".

It is not I that is arrogantly specifying exactly what is going on in secret around the world; it is you.

I think it's nutty, because your logic could be followed for literally anything.  I see no evidence that matter teleportation is a practical technology -- by your logic, it therefore exists and is simply being kept from use.

I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials exist because you/we haven't seen them despite clear evidence of a hierarchy of life and intelligence, and to assume that that hierarchy stops at planet Earth is one of the dumbest, most egocentric conclusions a person can reach.  It's hardly different than the assumption proven false long ago that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Well you've certainly put a lot of words in my mouth there with that giant straw man.

I won't bother responding to that, because it's so wildly away from the point under discussion.

[nimda]

Logic'd

[Hexadecibel]

You and others are taking the position that it sounds nutty based on the arrogant assumption that you think you're somehow privileged enough as another human being to know exactly what's going on.

The burden of proof is traditionally on the asserter.

You assert that quantum computers of immense power exist; and yet your proof of that is that "well, if people had them, they wouldn't tell us".

It is not I that is arrogantly specifying exactly what is going on in secret around the world; it is you.

I think it's nutty, because your logic could be followed for literally anything.  I see no evidence that matter teleportation is a practical technology -- by your logic, it therefore exists and is simply being kept from use.

I'd bet you're also a person who thinks it's "nutty" for people to think that extraterrestrials exist because you/we haven't seen them despite clear evidence of a hierarchy of life and intelligence, and to assume that that hierarchy stops at planet Earth is one of the dumbest, most egocentric conclusions a person can reach.  It's hardly different than the assumption proven false long ago that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Well you've certainly put a lot of words in my mouth there with that giant straw man.

I won't bother responding to that, because it's so wildly away from the point under discussion.

well said. I wanted to retort something similar but its hard to do on my phone.

What good is logic when its more fun to just believe in something?

[the joint]

Lol you guys are idiots.

First, a straw-man does not make an argument invalid or implausible.  It just doesn't make it sound.  I think your logic needs a bit of ship-shaping since claiming a straw-man does nothing to defeat the assertion.

Second, I think you missed the post by the ex-NASA/Boeing employee who asserted that there are, in fact, classified projects going on all the time that don't make it to peer-reviewed journals or researchers for a number of reasons.

Third, burden of proof?  Are you kidding me?  Speak for yourselves.  You have two choices in this scenario: 
1)  Make a counter assertion, i.e. that I am wrong, and place the burden of proof equally upon yourselves (good luck with that one, by the way)
or
2) Say "I don't know" in which case you are allowing my assertion plausibility.

Don't give me lectures on logic.

[nimda]

If you don't want logic lectures, debate properly. "Burden of proof" is a valid requirement. Do I really need to give an example?
"There's a monster under my bed which poops cold fusion"

[the joint]

If you don't want logic lectures, debate properly. "Burden of proof" is a valid requirement. Do I really need to give an example?
"There's a monster under my bed which poops cold fusion"

If you're not clever enough to tell the difference between a belief and an assertion of absolute fact, you're not clever enough to be lecturing me on logic.

I'm fully expecting some dumb reply about how hypotheticals are logical fallacies, too.