There's actually lots of evidence these days they were on to something. Check out Nickel Metal Hydride LENR (the new name for "cold fusion" since the incident you describe formed a sort of anti-cult around it.) Even NASA validated the THz-stimulated LENR in Nickel Metal Hydrides.
Except when the story was concocted that Sweden was trying to get Assange from the UK so the USA could extradite from Sweden, the USA wasn't trying to get him. This article says that these preparations started in the past year.
TIL there's actually people this ignorant of the world confident enough in themselves to speak. (Who am I kidding, it's not a TIL, it's just fucking sad.)
He didn't break a law, he published content from a leaker. The leaker broke the law, he just happened to be the only uncorrupted reporter with a media outlet willing to actually do his job and report (aside from Michael Hastings.)
Is what is holding back science. As soon as "proven science" and "pop science" were things, it started to stagnate. There is no science pope, as much as they want there to be one.
No, "distributed" is not the only selling point. No, banking can not achieve everything crypto can. For example I can transfer money globally, including exchange from one fiat to another, with lower fees and possibly faster access to the transferred funds.
They achieved that with the ACH systems in the 70's. Distributed architecture is the ONLY advantage cryptocurrencies have. As soon as it becomes centralized you'll see higher fees just like with existing ACH systems. The cheap transaction cost is a result of the distributed nature (lots of people competing to drive down the rate efficiently,) not some magical feature of cryptocurrencies.
I forgot my original password and it was linked to an email address on one of a number of old domain names I don't remember or own anymore. But yes, the multiple types of references and pointers are the issue. It's getting hackier, not better.
Not every user needs to be a full node. You merely need *enough* nodes with *enough* diversity.
To be distributed, yeah they do. What you're describing is no different from the modern banking system, only slower.
Centralization, now were are getting into the politics of crypto not the technical details. With *enough* diversity we can still have security but perhaps not political purity.
That's the whole point, cryptocurrencies only have the one selling point: distributed architecture. You can achieve everything else they offer (and in fact, it already exists) with the modern banking system.
H) c++ has two types of reference/pointer addressing to further conflate things because it was a hack on c's syntax to begin with - it's entire existence is a hack.
D-Wave is already making them commercially at that scale, with wide enough use that papers are being written from tests on it https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.459...
It's followed Moore's law for nearly the last decade with no signs of letting up. Only takes 1,100 qubits to run Shor's algorithm and destroy all pre-quantum cryptographic algorithms and we're already in the few-hundred of qubit range. 2 more doublings (approximately 3 years following trends over the last 8 years) and it's here. 5 years is being extraordinarily conservative in my estimate.
Generally: everything left over due to people who thought it was a scam when they were notified or otherwise didn't want to go through the hassle of filling out a form and waiting a month for a check to be snail mailed for $35 - so probably about 90% of it.
No, it means you need an absurd amount of storage when you use those algorithms in a blockchain because post-quantum signature algorithms produce enormous signatures. About 31KB per transaction, and you can't just apply some lightning-network style hack to get around that because it is based on individual wallet holders, so both for wallet holders and every single transaction they make you need to stick another 31KB on the blockchain to keep it secure. Look at the number of transactions and it becomes obvious why this destroys the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies: you effectively need a full blown server for every user, a datacenter-per-user after a decade.
No, that's because once a spam email got through it reported back that the email address was valid, it became more valuable, was sold onto higher grade lists on the dark web, and the floodgates opened.
Not possible, it got all the email addresses within a week. Symantec would have had the information, a spam getting through wouldn't have. There were no malware outbreaks in that time.
You are severely overestimating both the rate of advancement in quantum computing. I give it around 15 years.
Nope, just taking growth in qubits-per-machine over the last 5 years. They're roughly following Moore's law at this point, are already in the hundreds of qubits range, and it only takes ~1,100 qubits to run Shor's algorithm.
The point is cryptocurrencies have a singular selling point: they are distributed. The practical considerations of quantum computers ensure that even if switched to post quantum algorithms, they become centralized. Projecting quantum computers that can run Shor's algorithm by 2023 is not even a remote stretch, they could be here as soon as 2020 given current trends projected from the last several years of development. The only real constraint is that they need to hit about 1,100 qubits in a system, and current quantum computers are already in the hundreds growing at a pace equivalent to Moore's law.
Slashdot Mirror
#savelinus
There's actually lots of evidence these days they were on to something. Check out Nickel Metal Hydride LENR (the new name for "cold fusion" since the incident you describe formed a sort of anti-cult around it.) Even NASA validated the THz-stimulated LENR in Nickel Metal Hydrides.
Accusing the other party of your own fault, classic liberalism. 10/10, excellent impression mate.
Except when the story was concocted that Sweden was trying to get Assange from the UK so the USA could extradite from Sweden, the USA wasn't trying to get him. This article says that these preparations started in the past year.
TIL there's actually people this ignorant of the world confident enough in themselves to speak. (Who am I kidding, it's not a TIL, it's just fucking sad.)
He didn't break a law, he published content from a leaker. The leaker broke the law, he just happened to be the only uncorrupted reporter with a media outlet willing to actually do his job and report (aside from Michael Hastings.)
Is what is holding back science. As soon as "proven science" and "pop science" were things, it started to stagnate. There is no science pope, as much as they want there to be one.
Anyone screaming for regulation just thinks they'll be the ones doing the regulating.
Should be an interesting experiment.
It's not paranoia when they're actually out to get you.
No, "distributed" is not the only selling point. No, banking can not achieve everything crypto can. For example I can transfer money globally, including exchange from one fiat to another, with lower fees and possibly faster access to the transferred funds.
They achieved that with the ACH systems in the 70's. Distributed architecture is the ONLY advantage cryptocurrencies have. As soon as it becomes centralized you'll see higher fees just like with existing ACH systems. The cheap transaction cost is a result of the distributed nature (lots of people competing to drive down the rate efficiently,) not some magical feature of cryptocurrencies.
You can only compare the result of the beams if you have both beams. You can't get information about the other beam from the one you hold onto alone.
I forgot my original password and it was linked to an email address on one of a number of old domain names I don't remember or own anymore. But yes, the multiple types of references and pointers are the issue. It's getting hackier, not better.
D-wave is a complete scam. They are just regular digital computers. No wonder you think that.
Lol, no they aren't.
It's a paper about experiments done on a commercial machine, just freaking look up D-wave.
Not every user needs to be a full node. You merely need *enough* nodes with *enough* diversity.
To be distributed, yeah they do. What you're describing is no different from the modern banking system, only slower.
Centralization, now were are getting into the politics of crypto not the technical details. With *enough* diversity we can still have security but perhaps not political purity.
That's the whole point, cryptocurrencies only have the one selling point: distributed architecture. You can achieve everything else they offer (and in fact, it already exists) with the modern banking system.
H) c++ has two types of reference/pointer addressing to further conflate things because it was a hack on c's syntax to begin with - it's entire existence is a hack.
This is just wrong.
D-Wave is already making them commercially at that scale, with wide enough use that papers are being written from tests on it https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.459...
If I can fork over $2 for your mom then squirtle is a no-brainer.
It's followed Moore's law for nearly the last decade with no signs of letting up. Only takes 1,100 qubits to run Shor's algorithm and destroy all pre-quantum cryptographic algorithms and we're already in the few-hundred of qubit range. 2 more doublings (approximately 3 years following trends over the last 8 years) and it's here. 5 years is being extraordinarily conservative in my estimate.
Generally: everything left over due to people who thought it was a scam when they were notified or otherwise didn't want to go through the hassle of filling out a form and waiting a month for a check to be snail mailed for $35 - so probably about 90% of it.
No, it means you need an absurd amount of storage when you use those algorithms in a blockchain because post-quantum signature algorithms produce enormous signatures. About 31KB per transaction, and you can't just apply some lightning-network style hack to get around that because it is based on individual wallet holders, so both for wallet holders and every single transaction they make you need to stick another 31KB on the blockchain to keep it secure. Look at the number of transactions and it becomes obvious why this destroys the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies: you effectively need a full blown server for every user, a datacenter-per-user after a decade.
No, that's because once a spam email got through it reported back that the email address was valid, it became more valuable, was sold onto higher grade lists on the dark web, and the floodgates opened.
Not possible, it got all the email addresses within a week. Symantec would have had the information, a spam getting through wouldn't have. There were no malware outbreaks in that time.
You are severely overestimating both the rate of advancement in quantum computing. I give it around 15 years.
Nope, just taking growth in qubits-per-machine over the last 5 years. They're roughly following Moore's law at this point, are already in the hundreds of qubits range, and it only takes ~1,100 qubits to run Shor's algorithm.
The point is cryptocurrencies have a singular selling point: they are distributed. The practical considerations of quantum computers ensure that even if switched to post quantum algorithms, they become centralized. Projecting quantum computers that can run Shor's algorithm by 2023 is not even a remote stretch, they could be here as soon as 2020 given current trends projected from the last several years of development. The only real constraint is that they need to hit about 1,100 qubits in a system, and current quantum computers are already in the hundreds growing at a pace equivalent to Moore's law.