I asked specifically which "planes" have used this propulsion. You responded with things that are not airplanes. It would be the same as when the first jets came out: "We've been using fires since the caveman days. What's new about this?" Just the implementation. Just the fact it's not really been done before. Just details that matter.
No, it would be the same as when the first jets came out: "We've been using jets since..." - if they had actually had jets prior.
The highest degree of entanglement is found in living cells, otherwise seen as hugely chaotic structures driven by discrete components. As the degree of small scale order increases entanglement is preserved in metastable ways. This isn't really something that should come as a shock, but it is something we will likely crack by the time we reach that point. That said, we've successfully entangled thousands of particles in labs, those experiments are slow to translate to useable technologies but at the same time that translation has happened in a precisely linear manner for the last 10 years steadily. Extrapolating that it will do that for 4 more years as a risk case for a preexisting technology is not remotely a reach, and what any sane person would do who isn't more interested in driving a pump&dump scam.
Sets of hundreds, not 6. Being entangled (coherent means something entirely different) for "fractions of a microsecond" is just fine, in fact less is more (just like "time it takes to flip a bit in your CPU.")
There is no reason to suspect such a limit exists and you can't just double the bits in a blockchain, to change key sizes in a blockchain takes YEARS because each wallet holder has to initiate the conversion manually.
They have hundreds entangled at a time, they have thousands due to parallel sets of those hundreds. That ranks them in the "hundreds" range - specifically the "over 500" range.
D-wave is in the hundreds of entangled qubits, they have machines currently which reach into the thousands, but those are essentially parallel sets in the hundreds.
How about a better deal: if you're so sure I'll bet you $5 if you win, or you cut off your testicles if you lose, you don't even have to give me anything.
My 2 - 2 - 10 rule for projects: No matter the estimate, it wil take twice as long, cost twice as much and ten percent of the planned capablity will not be delivered
Sure, if you're dealing with a new project. But this isn't a trend among a single entity, this is a trend across a population - which is radically different for statistical purposes. It's also not an estimate to completion, it's an estimate for preparation. The estimate is "we can make this cryptocurrency" the failure scenario is "it has x years before the entire cryptographic framework it has been constructed upon is worthless." The question becomes "can we get enough out of it before it becomes worthless for it to be worth it transiently?" Since you're pumping it, I'm sure you believe that to be the case.
The quote supports nothing. Just because you're too blind to read signs around you doesn't make them false, and it doesn't make anyone who can wrong. More likely though, you can read and interpret just fine but you want to lie because you dislike the man.
This is a trend that has been steady for 10 years extrapolated by 4 more - and taken within the conservative side of the error bars. It's as certain as anything in science can be.
some block-chains have a concept known as FINALITY in the makings --- which drops off old transactions.
And that's a concept waiting to be exploited for reasons which should be obvious.
regarding your 'size of post-quantum transactions' concern, a 4TB disk is ~100$. 100/yr for any business or entity with a dog on this fight is inconsequential.
Trivial to exchanges and miners, not to users. This is what leads to consolidation.
Citation please, their is a new field. quick google-fu seems to indicate you are wrong.
Really, where? Because there are none, as in zero. The closest thing which might get there is lattice-based crypto, and that isn't even proven to be safe against modern computers.
It doesn't work that way for quantum computers, it works that way for classical computers, but the key sizes are already bigger than anything a traditional computer the size of the universe could solve. You can't draw 1:1 comparisons between limits of classical and quantum computers like that.
Right now quantum computing is mostly marketing hype
This demonstrates extreme ignorance of modern technology. Quantum computers already exist, they have already been proven to exceed traditional computational ability in some niche cases, and they already have hundreds of qubits in a mutually entangled state at the leading edge of the machines currently available to the market. It's a real technology, it exists and putting your head in the sand won't change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, they only need to buy $160 million worth of suicide prevention nets, the slaves will do the rest.
Except for the fact that people in the industry don't count DWaves as "computers" but consider them calculators.
The pop-sci media industry doesn't get a vote.
I asked specifically which "planes" have used this propulsion. You responded with things that are not airplanes. It would be the same as when the first jets came out: "We've been using fires since the caveman days. What's new about this?" Just the implementation. Just the fact it's not really been done before. Just details that matter.
No, it would be the same as when the first jets came out: "We've been using jets since..." - if they had actually had jets prior.
You have never done risk assessments, have you?
This is wrong.
The highest degree of entanglement is found in living cells, otherwise seen as hugely chaotic structures driven by discrete components. As the degree of small scale order increases entanglement is preserved in metastable ways. This isn't really something that should come as a shock, but it is something we will likely crack by the time we reach that point. That said, we've successfully entangled thousands of particles in labs, those experiments are slow to translate to useable technologies but at the same time that translation has happened in a precisely linear manner for the last 10 years steadily. Extrapolating that it will do that for 4 more years as a risk case for a preexisting technology is not remotely a reach, and what any sane person would do who isn't more interested in driving a pump&dump scam.
Sets of hundreds, not 6. Being entangled (coherent means something entirely different) for "fractions of a microsecond" is just fine, in fact less is more (just like "time it takes to flip a bit in your CPU.")
There is no reason to suspect such a limit exists and you can't just double the bits in a blockchain, to change key sizes in a blockchain takes YEARS because each wallet holder has to initiate the conversion manually.
They have hundreds entangled at a time, they have thousands due to parallel sets of those hundreds. That ranks them in the "hundreds" range - specifically the "over 500" range.
D-wave is in the hundreds of entangled qubits, they have machines currently which reach into the thousands, but those are essentially parallel sets in the hundreds.
How about a better deal: if you're so sure I'll bet you $5 if you win, or you cut off your testicles if you lose, you don't even have to give me anything.
1100 is for all RSA and ECDSA strengths.
D-wave, they have thousands, but only a few hundred entangled at a time so you can't count the thousands.
D-wave has the lead with several hundred.
My 2 - 2 - 10 rule for projects: No matter the estimate, it wil take twice as long, cost twice as much and ten percent of the planned capablity will not be delivered
Sure, if you're dealing with a new project. But this isn't a trend among a single entity, this is a trend across a population - which is radically different for statistical purposes. It's also not an estimate to completion, it's an estimate for preparation. The estimate is "we can make this cryptocurrency" the failure scenario is "it has x years before the entire cryptographic framework it has been constructed upon is worthless." The question becomes "can we get enough out of it before it becomes worthless for it to be worth it transiently?" Since you're pumping it, I'm sure you believe that to be the case.
1,100 are required, they're up to several hundred.
The quote supports nothing. Just because you're too blind to read signs around you doesn't make them false, and it doesn't make anyone who can wrong. More likely though, you can read and interpret just fine but you want to lie because you dislike the man.
Except there's 10 years worth of data following a perfectly linear trend and this is only extrapolated by 4 years, you anti-science shill.
This is a trend that has been steady for 10 years extrapolated by 4 more - and taken within the conservative side of the error bars. It's as certain as anything in science can be.
You have to be a crypto-shill to be this apparently dense. This is a simple extrapolation based on a linear trend of qubit count.
some block-chains have a concept known as FINALITY in the makings --- which drops off old transactions.
And that's a concept waiting to be exploited for reasons which should be obvious.
regarding your 'size of post-quantum transactions' concern, a 4TB disk is ~100$. 100/yr for any business or entity with a dog on this fight is inconsequential.
Trivial to exchanges and miners, not to users. This is what leads to consolidation.
Citation please, their is a new field. quick google-fu seems to indicate you are wrong.
Really, where? Because there are none, as in zero. The closest thing which might get there is lattice-based crypto, and that isn't even proven to be safe against modern computers.
You do realize that Quantum Computers will never exist in the capacity you think it will right?
Tell that to the linear trend, we're already in the hundreds of qubits.
Blind signatures are entirely unworkable with extant post-quantum algorithms, centralization is a separate issue entirely.
It doesn't work that way for quantum computers, it works that way for classical computers, but the key sizes are already bigger than anything a traditional computer the size of the universe could solve. You can't draw 1:1 comparisons between limits of classical and quantum computers like that.
Right now quantum computing is mostly marketing hype
This demonstrates extreme ignorance of modern technology. Quantum computers already exist, they have already been proven to exceed traditional computational ability in some niche cases, and they already have hundreds of qubits in a mutually entangled state at the leading edge of the machines currently available to the market. It's a real technology, it exists and putting your head in the sand won't change that.