IBM Gives Everyone Access To Its Five-Qubit Quantum Computer (fortune.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Gives Everyone Access To Its Five-Qubit Quantum Computer (fortune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday May 4, 2016 @01:01AM from the free-for-all dept.

An anonymous reader writes: IBM said on Wednesday that it's giving everyone access to one of its quantum computing processors, which can be used to crunch large amounts of data. Anyone can apply through IBM Research's website to test the processor, however, IBM will determine how much access people will have to the processor depending on their technology background -- specifically how knowledgeable they are about quantum technology. With the project being "broadly accessible," IBM hopes more people will be interested in the technology, said Jerry Chow, manager of IBM's experimental quantum computing group. Users can interact with the quantum processor through the Internet, even though the chip is stored at IBM's research center in Yorktown Heights, New York, in a complex refrigeration system that keeps the chip cooled near absolute zero.

84 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:04 · Score: 2

They still make hardware?
1. Re:IBM by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-05-04 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  I thought they got out of hardware when deployment stopped involving a fork lift
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
2. Re:IBM by lfourrier · 2016-05-04 01:36 · Score: 2
  
  I'm quite certain the refrigeration system for nearing zero K is enough for needing some forklifts...
3. Re:IBM by Nchantim · 2016-05-04 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they got out of hardware when deployment stopped involving a fork lift
  There was this thing called the 5150.....
4. Re:IBM by ArchieBunker · 2016-05-04 01:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Guess you haven't bought a mainframe lately. That market is doing extremely well.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
5. Re:IBM by LordHighExecutioner · 2016-05-04 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe. They are qubits, after all...
6. Re:IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of computing in this country. The IBM 360 was the mainframe to rent. Then the other guy came out with a three-qubit computer. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the IBM 370. That's thirty-two bits and an a DASD storage array. For databases. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four qubits. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, renting thirty-two bits and a tape drive. High-speed controller channels or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five qubits.
  Sure, we could go to four qubits next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a thicker substrate and call it the Qubit3SuperTurbo. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
  You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the quantum computing game. Did anyone get fired for buying IBM? Fuck, no. No man ever got fired for buying IBM.
  What part of this don't you understand? If two qubits is good, and three qubits is better, obviously five qubits would make us the best fucking quantum computer that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the computing game by clinging to the two-qubits industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five qubits is the biggest chance of all.
7. Re:IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  It depends on how near zero and what you're cooling. There are plenty of off the shelf systems now that are quite compact intended for just a component of a desktop sized experiment.
The magic of Quantum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:10 · Score: 5, Funny

And IBM will also give no one access to its Five-Qubit Quantum Computer?
1. Re:The magic of Quantum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not certain about that.
2. Re:The magic of Quantum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  And its both a Quantum computer.... and not a quantum computer...
  You realize they've probably just branded one of their digital computers 'Quantum' and have it running an annealing algorithm. That would be about as Quantum as DWave's analogue one.
3. Re:The magic of Quantum by KGIII · 2016-05-04 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Have you tried just looking?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
4. Re:The magic of Quantum by stealth_finger · 2016-05-04 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  Have a look, although that will change the result.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
5. Re:The magic of Quantum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  You realize they've probably just branded one of their digital computers 'Quantum' and have it running an annealing algorithm. That would be about as Quantum as DWave's analogue one.
  That's possibly the dumbest thing I've read all day.
  Obviously, they've just put the processor online with no locking mechanisms and opened five bits of one of its registers for all to access in real time.
6. Re:The magic of Quantum by smallfries · 2016-05-04 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  That is a shame. I really need a factorisation of 15. Well, one that is approximately correct to a degrer of accuracy. Wonder which of the three quantum algorithms people will try on this thing.
  
  --
  Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
7. Re: The magic of Quantum by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Im getting my cat to look on my behalf
8. Re: The magic of Quantum by WarJolt · 2016-05-04 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be naive. Clearly this computer operates on the same principle as quatum bogosort. It's a universe destroying death ray.
9. Re:The magic of Quantum by Sir+Holo · 2016-05-05 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  My application for some user-time is now entangled in their system.
count {all | some | none | any} the things by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2016-05-04 01:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Five qubits? According to understanding of quantum computing, which I got by reading two seconds of various Wired articles before the paywall kicked in, that means that this amazing machine is capable of storing every value between 0 and 31 simultaneously!
1. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Wow! That's an infinite number of values! That's quite the storage space!
2. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  On Wired, just use the old right-click -> 'Print' trick. Then read the print preview. Gets around the paywall quite nicely.
3. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by thinkwaitfast · 2016-05-04 01:39 · Score: 2
  
  It is when you live in a four bit universe.
4. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by ctrl-alt-canc · 2016-05-04 02:10 · Score: 2
  
  It depends from who used them before. For example, Chuck Norris' qubits are always set to 1.
5. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  If you would like to emulate a n-qubit number on a non-quantum computer, you would need a 2**n matrix of [0,1] floats describing its 0/1 superposition state. With a 5-qubit number with a 32 bit precision that would be 1 full kilobyte of data. This is much better!
6. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Wow! That's an infinite number of values! That's quite the storage space!
  It is when you live in a four bit universe.
  And use a three bit encoding (one, zero, [both]), but runs on a two-bit OS, so you don't get a single bit of work done.
7. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  With 7 qubits, you can factor 15 = 3 * 5
  LOL
8. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by sootman · 2016-05-04 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  File -> Save As -> article.html, then read the local copy. Everything works -- styles, images, etc. -- but you won't get the ad-blocking-blocking overlay.
  Now finish reading TFA and post your full findings here. :D
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
9. Re:count {all | some | none | any} the things by Caption+Wierd · 2016-05-04 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  So every time someone gets an answer from this, 31 other universes are created and have the incorrect answers?
IBM will determine by turkeydance · 2016-05-04 01:13 · Score: 1

which are more equal than others
1. Re:IBM will determine by DigiShaman · 2016-05-04 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure the NSA is at the top of the list.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
2. Re:IBM will determine by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  The NSA has their own quantum computers far exceeding the 5-qbits IBM is making available.
Even though by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Users can interact with thing through the Internet, even though the thing is stored at location.
Wow! What an amazing application of the Internet!
Doesn't sound like "Everyone" to me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:23 · Score: 1

1) You have to apply
2) You have to have a solid background in technology..
3) .. preferably in quantum computing
Sounds a lot more like "IBM will consider granting access to quantum computing scholars"
What's with the wildly inaccurate and misleading titles on slashdot lately?
1. Re:Doesn't sound like "Everyone" to me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  lately?
2. Re:Doesn't sound like "Everyone" to me by CronoCloud · 2016-05-04 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  What's with the wildly inaccurate and misleading titles on slashdot lately?
  You Must Be New Here.
3. Re:Doesn't sound like "Everyone" to me by zenwarrior · 2016-05-04 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing wildly inaccurate or misleading in the title. I applied and was approved. Given my background in business and economics, that renders your numbers 2 and 3 completely null and void.
  
  --
  /.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
4. Re:Doesn't sound like "Everyone" to me by Orgasmatron · 2016-05-04 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  That set you off, but "crunch large amounts of data" didn't?
  
  --
  See that "Preview" button?
dont get it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:23 · Score: 0

Can someone help me understand something about quantum computing. so if we ask a quantum computer to add 2+2 the all possible answers are stored simultaneously, one if which is 4. but how do you know which one is correct. how does the quantum computer help you if you still have to filter all possible wrong answers.
1. Re:dont get it by ComputerGeek01 · 2016-05-04 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  Quantum computing is next to useless if you're just computing elementary algebra because the answer is definitively known. As a matter of fact, I thought they still offload these kinds of operations to co-processors because they are still either incapable or dramatically inferior at doing them. On the other hand, if you're doing something more involved like mapping a function on a chart, then having the entire range of answers "instantly" available is far more useful. Imagine not having to worry about stack heap exhaustion, or recursion depth limit BS; you would have code that actually did what you tell it to without having to resort to hackish ad-hoc douche-baggary with a full paragraph of comments begging your successor for their forgiveness. Of course we're knocking our selves back to 1975 in terms of programming languages and destroying every advancement we've ever made in encryption by doing all of this, but quantum entanglement should make encryption obsolete anyway.
2. Re:dont get it by TechyImmigrant · 2016-05-04 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  >destroying every advancement we've ever made in encryption by doing all of this
  No. Just RSA and DH. Key sizes may need to double on some other algorithms.
  Quantum resistant public key systems exist E.G. NTRU. Ones that don't suck are a pipe dream right now.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
3. Re:dont get it by KGIII · 2016-05-04 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, the only possible answer for 2+2 is 4. This is true - no matter how many semantics games you try to play. I have to run off for a while so you'll have to rely on the 'net for your answer but it's easy to find. 1+1 is never 3. Nor is 2+2 ever 5. The number 2 represents an integer, which is 2. Rounding does not matter - because the integer is 2. It is not 2.4 + 2.2 and then rounded to 5. It is 2+2 and only 2+2.
  You can trust me on this. If the computer tells you anything else, it is broken or you input the wrong information.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
4. Re:dont get it by Junta · 2016-05-04 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Also, ones as thoroughly vetted as RSA and DH.
  Shared secret cryptography is still pretty much safe given current best practices if your shared secret is managed well.
  While key sizes are effectively halved, most of those algorithms are already more than twice as long as would practically be risky.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
5. Re:dont get it by tlhIngan · 2016-05-04 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  The whole reason for public access to a real quantum computer is to get experience with it. Quantum computing will never supplant classical computing for everything - it will be used when it is appropriate.
  The problem is quantum computing is quite unlike classical computing, and experience with any form of it is limited to a very narrow population - those who can afford the power, cooling and other hardware necessary to run a quantum computer today. What IBM has done is to provide access - 5 qubits isn't a lot, but it's close to state of the art and it's extremely limited, which is a good thing if you want to try to wrap your head around it.
  Chances are, IBM's trying to scout for talent as well as see what's possible - perhaps the next big thing to happen comes from someone messing around with the machine who otherwise wouldn't have gotten access to it. This could come in the form of improved algorithms, improved ways to increase stability, decrease errors, etc.
  You're not running classical algorithms on it with defined results, you're really playing around trying to experience what quantum computing is like, and I'm sure IBM is doing it to broaden the field a little bit.
  
  >destroying every advancement we've ever made in encryption by doing all of this
  No. Just RSA and DH. Key sizes may need to double on some other algorithms.
  And really, RSA and HD aren't falling yet because this thing is only 5 qubits. Both require extremely long keys in order to keep factorization a slow process.
  This computer is too small to handle current recommended keys (RSA-2048+), and roughly speaking to break RSA you need an equivalently big quantum computer in order to factor those numbers.
  It is extremely hard to add qubits to a quantum computer - that's the limiting factor right now. Each additional qubit takes excessively more power and cooling and shortens decoherence time (the amount of time you have to run your algorithm before it literally all falls apart).
6. Re:dont get it by TechyImmigrant · 2016-05-04 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  >Also, ones as thoroughly vetted as RSA and DH.
  Yes. Welcome to my day job. God I hate quantum computer hype.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
7. Re:dont get it by Junta · 2016-05-04 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  But what about all the sites running 5 bit RSA keys? They are no longer safe! They need to hurry and switch to another scheme, what other alternative would they have.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Still not big enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:28 · Score: 0

5 Qubits is still smaller than the Fed debt.
Umm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:34 · Score: 1

....'was impressed by the machine and said the quantum processor gave the right answer âoea little more than a third of the timeâ for a certain calculation he tried.'
So what, we've invented a machine that guesses badly?
Yay progress or something!
1. Re:Umm... by Kierthos · 2016-05-04 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  My god, we've invented a technology journalist.
  Or, rather, any journalist.
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
2. Re:Umm... by peragrin · 2016-05-04 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I thought IBM had improved the weather reporters.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
W A T S O N by yodleboy · 2016-05-04 01:35 · Score: 4, Funny

WATSON = 5 letters
IBM quantum computer = 5 qubits

Coincidence? I think NOT!
1. Re:W A T S O N by yodleboy · 2016-05-04 01:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  oh jesus, it's too early for slashdot... excuse my counting failure.
2. Re:W A T S O N by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, no worries. You're just simultaneously exploring alternative solution spaces by fuzzing the edges of arithmetic. IBM might give you some time on their quantum computer.
3. Re:W A T S O N by EvilSS · 2016-05-04 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Illuminati Confir..... Oh wait. Nevermind. Sooo close though!
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
4. Re:W A T S O N by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  Domo alley-gato!
5. Re:W A T S O N by KGIII · 2016-05-04 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no, you can't just let it go at that. You gotta make up a good excuse - blame it on Iranian hackers or something. Or, better yet, insist it is correct due to some esoteric quantum function. You can't just leave us hanging. ;-)
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
6. Re:W A T S O N by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  My two qubits to this is.... this post. Or is that two cents/bits.....
7. Re:W A T S O N by neoRUR · 2016-05-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  There are only 5, the O is in a quantum state...
URL for the manual for programming the machine? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:36 · Score: 0

The provided link looks more like marketing than info to see what the actually have.
Though with 5 qbits that are correct a bit over 1/3 of the time, I can guess.
Promoting interest by restricting access by Culture20 · 2016-05-04 01:37 · Score: 1

They're restricting access to those who are already extremely interested, and perhaps invested in quantum computing. How does that promote interest?
1. Re:Promoting interest by restricting access by zenwarrior · 2016-05-04 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Look before forming an opinion. I know very little about quantum computing, but am interested in learning more. I was notified just this morning that my application for access submitted only yesterday was approved. State you've read a little about the subject and your reason for requesting access is only for the sake of knowledge and you're in. Based on my minimalist application and its immediate approval, there effectively are no restrictions.
  
  --
  /.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
2. Re:Promoting interest by restricting access by adamjgp · 2016-05-04 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I applied this morning, and less than an hour later I was approved. I essentially put in the same information as you did, it seems very easy to get accepted.
what does a quantum algorithm look like? by goombah99 · 2016-05-04 01:37 · Score: 1

what does a program look like

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:what does a quantum algorithm look like? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The ones I've seen any detail on behave like a finite state machine, except that the state retains all possible positions from the full range of inputs as modified to that point of the algorithm and a 50% chance of entering an error flow that results in an incorrect answer. Fortunately, the incorrect answer is not consistent, so if the algorithm does have a consistent correct answer it will be the most common answer after multiple executions.
  Once your sequence of parallel finite state analyses gives you a strong assertion of a correct answer, it is relatively trivial to test that answer with even a naive classical algorithm.
  In theory, a quantum-inclusive machine can solve many problems in 2O(n) time (as in, two separate O(n) sub-algorithms) that would take a classical system O(n*n). How perfectly it scales to reducing O(n!), O(x^n) and similar is beyond my current familiarity.
2. Re:what does a quantum algorithm look like? by Sir+Holo · 2016-05-05 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  what does a program look like
  Well, I'd show you, but that would change the algorithm.
  You will have to determine it on your own. :-P
How many cores though... by duncan · 2016-05-04 01:51 · Score: 1

Access to one quantum processor is great and all, but how many cores does it give me access to?
1. Re:How many cores though... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  All of them, at the same time.
2. Re:How many cores though... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  IT'S A TRAP!
Five-Qubit Quantum Computer by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 01:53 · Score: 0

which can be used to crunch large amounts of data.
Does large amounts of data mean one simple formula like 3 x 5 = 15? wow!
I'll give them two bits five quibits by JoeyRox · 2016-05-04 02:28 · Score: 1

And not a penny more!
First Post! Yes!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:37 · Score: 0

At least it would have been if I used IBM's Five-Qubit Quantum Computer.
Honeypot!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 02:45 · Score: 0

It's also a Honeypot for finding Time Travelers
So They Can Learn From (steal) Your Ideas by uncleroot · 2016-05-04 03:04 · Score: 1

So They Can Learn From (steal) Your Ideas
Refridgeration by TechyImmigrant · 2016-05-04 03:13 · Score: 1

Each time the add a qbit, the power needs of the refrigeration doubles.
This is why quantum computers can't beat classical computers. The energy expended to maintain a low enough entropy environment to do real work grows exponentially.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
1. Re:Refridgeration by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  the propagation of chaos - the second law of thermodynamics
2. Re:Refridgeration by angel'o'sphere · 2016-05-05 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  The energy expended to maintain a low enough entropy environment to do real work grows exponentially.
  
  That is the biggest nonsense on /. since days, if not weeks.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
3. Re:Refridgeration by TechyImmigrant · 2016-05-05 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  The energy expended to maintain a low enough entropy environment to do real work grows exponentially.
  
  That is the biggest nonsense on /. since days, if not weeks.
  Are you unfamiliar with thermodynamics? A fridge gets to be cold on the inside by increasing entropy more on the outside than it reduces it on the inside. That's the heat coming off the back.
  If you made it colder on the inside you would be sucking more power and emitting more heat on the outside.
  If you want to entangle 10 qbits, it needs to be colder than it would be to entangle 5.
  You can figure the rest from there.
  Go look at the IBM's website showing the inside of the lab. It's a tiny chip and lab full of cooling.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
4. Re:Refridgeration by angel'o'sphere · 2016-05-05 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to entangle 10 qbits, it needs to be colder than it would be to entangle 5.
  
  No it would not, the temperature is exactly the same.
  And the devices in question are so small that the energy to cool it is neglectible.
  Even if you had a million qbits there would not be a single watt difference.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
5. Re:Refridgeration by TechyImmigrant · 2016-05-05 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  So why are there so few qbits in quantum computers? Why is the refrigeration system so huge?
  If what you said was true they would just throw in an extra 250 qbits and break Diffie Helman.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
6. Re:Refridgeration by angel'o'sphere · 2016-05-05 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  The refrigerator is huge because it cools the equipment down to very low temperatures.
  More qbits are right now nit possible as we can not address them without disturbing the others.
  But I guess in 10 years already we might have quantum computers with a dozen qbits or so.
  Keep in mind the pictures you see are a research lab, and not a finished product, which will be as small as a laptop.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Do we need to provide by stealth_finger · 2016-05-04 03:25 · Score: 1

Do we need to provide our own cups of really hot fresh tea?

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The calculation they are really after... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 04:46 · Score: 0

How long would it take for Watson to jerk off everyone on the planet...
Hmmm by Dunbal · 2016-05-04 05:11 · Score: 1

And I would read the EULA very, very, very carefully.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There goes Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-04 18:35 · Score: 0

Better move your digicash to gold or some other NP-complete substance with intrinsic value.