Topic: Crypto Compression Concept Worth Big Money - I Did It! - page 3. (Read 13895 times)

Proof or it did not happen, and will not happen.

Correct.

It's like saying "a found a really special magic number that is even, yet it cannot be divided by 2!" but more complicated, so its logical inconsistency is less obvious.

I feel bad for B(asic)Miner though, cause I'm sure he genuinely believed he found something marvelous. Contrary to the maker of that Project 7 / DNA video who is definitely a fraud.

so in other words... it is just a roody poo idea

But.. solid 100% proof that it can't be done has been posted numerous times.

Seriously. It's not a matter of some smart algorithm that we didn't consider, some new fancy approach, or 'thinking out of the box'. The idea he proposed (as well as the video from that other site) is simply a logical impossibility. 

thanks for the tip. however i am asking for some kind of proof showing me that he can back his theory up. i am not going to invest if he can't come up with his own proof. and no, someone else video isn't going to pass. he did state that he has already completed his program of compression. all he needs to do is show me.

i'm not a computer programer or anything of that nature. all he needs is to show me his own proof. something he hasn't done through out this entire post. i'm not trying to doubt the man. surely he can provide me with some type of preview of his completed work. not just something that someone else had claimed or so called completed through theory. again it is only theory. maybe he can make us a video and post it on youtube so we call can see it for ourselves.

Yes, you are. See, in basketball, people are encouraged to make a throw because they could theoretically make the shot. It might be hard, difficult, or almost impossible, but in the right circumstances, with enough effort, and maybe a bit of luck, it could be done. In this compression endeavour, however, you're simply facing a cold, hard, theoretical, fundamental, mathematical, absolute impossibility. You have way more chance of managing to throw your basketball into the sun (or into the Alpha Centauri galaxy, for that matter) than to get this magic compression thing working.

Anyway, as for the movies: yes, some huge movies can probably be compressed to 64K. For example a 3 hour Full HD movie of the inside of a cave at night, i.e. total darkness. But in general, no.

Same argument that has been repeated over and over: if you can compress a huge movie to 64K, then you can also combine 3000 of such 64K files (each representing a single huge movie) into one new movie. Just displaying every 64K in sequential frames (movie shots), representing the bits in black & white or RGB pixels or whatever. It will probably look like a strange static noise movie, but it's a movie nonetheless. Now we can compress this new movie into 64K as well. So, if we can compress any single huge movie into 64K, we can also compress any 3000 huge movies into 64K. And also 1850000000 huge movies for that matter. Logic impossibility.

Ah, yes, the non-binary "bits". Along with the Jan Sloot myth, this had to come up sooner or later.

Look, until here, nobody ever discussed how bits were stored or represented whatsoever. They were considered just an abstract unit of information, cause that's exactly what a bit is: a binary value that can have two states, typically called 0 and 1.

If you can 'encode' single bits as 2,3,4,5,etc then by definition we're not talking about "bits" anymore. And a byte being 8 bit, and a KB being 1024 bytes, this means a "4KB crypto key" is also completely meaningless.

Yes, I can also store a 50 GB movie in only 3 "kilobytes". With the notion that I invented special "bytes" than, due to a new kind of encoding, can actually have 8¹⁷⁵⁴ different values. Brilliant!

After 15 pages of debunking this nonsense, you come with this?

I just had to quote it for posterity.

Given that:

1) you had a military service experience
2) you've reached middle age
3) you have an experience of tilting at windmills with the help of one-man crew

you'll need to:

A) observe where the advice from the school sport coaches doesn't apply
B) switch to the pursuits that are age-appropriate.

The good starting point would definitely be a thorough reading of:

The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha

which could possibly help you achieve the peace of mind that you are seeking.

It's not possible, and proof has been shown multiple times within this thread. It's simply not a task one can accomplish. Do not invest any money into this idea. OP has no experience programming crypto-compression, and is just shooting ideas around as if he's invented something.

you guys did? I did search the thread for "monkey" before I posted though. 


Indeed, this one reminds me of those free energy videos.

(quadruple facepalm)

B(asic)Miner or anyone else, want to do a side bet with me? I'll contact the developer of this DNA / Project 7 bogus. If he accepts my bet, I'll be happy to side bet with other people here on the forum whether he wins or loses. I'll take any stake, small or huge.

Correct. I don't believe it

I'll tell you what they're doing: they're lying. Seriously, this is a fraud. 100% sure. Probably to trick venture capitalists into investing money.

You're getting distracted by the presentation, the techno babble, and all the almost-too-good-to-be-true promises. Have you already forgotten about the 2 bit vs 1 bit example? Exactly the same applies here as well.

Let's recap: "make any file smaller by factor 4". If that's possible, i.e. if they can "encode" any file A into another file B, such that B's size is only 1/4 of A's size, they can apply the same method on B as well, thus creating a file C that is 1/16 of A's size. And D which is only 1/64 of A's size. Ad infinitum. See? No matter how fancy their algorithm... IT'S NONSENSE.

In general, claiming that you have an algorithm that can compress or encode or represent or store any file in some smaller form, even if it's just ONE BIT smaller, implicitly (by repeatedly applying the same process on each output file) also means you can store the entire internet in 1 bit. Again, IT. IS. NONSENSE.

Actually, I'll repost my bet to compress any of those 3 files I posted earlier to the maker of this fraud presentation as well. Compressing or encoding or whatevering any of those three 1MB files into 950K or less = I pay 100BTC. No counter action required in return upon failure.

We tried to tell him numerous times...

ahem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

I only read a few posts in this thread and I'm not a "Crypto Compression" expert, but this was my first association.

How exactly does DNA store information?  Do you know?

No.
They might claim they can do it.
That is not, in any way, the same as demonstrating that they can do it.
You have claimed you can compress any file by 90%+. You have not demonstrated that you can do it.

I remember once back in college I was taking an information theory course.  I had stayed out late drinking adult beverages so was kind of hung over.  The teacher was droning on and on about some proof having to do with bases.  You can can create base 2, or base 3 or base 4 and so on devices but what is the mathematically "best" base for information density or some such criteria.

I fell asleep but woke up just in time to see the end of the proof and the answer was e.

Since e is closer to 3 than 2 I expect there is a small amount of gain to be had by doing everything base 3 instead of 2 but base 2 devices are just so much easier to implement.

I'm getting a sickening feeling of jealousy here:


It seems this is for real, guys.  Look here on youtube:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITW5bjTipPA


The video tells some very interesting things:  

1) It won't work with a file smaller than 64 bytes.  Just like I was proposing.
2) At 3:30 seconds in, the video claims "On the Internet, we grab a file that contains random data.  Compression software can not handle such files (sometimes they make these files even bigger). Project 7 does not use any compression techniques and it handles every file as equal, just a file containing a sequence of numbers."
3) It does not compress, it encodes, just like my theory (which you said was impossible!)
4) It's super fast at encoding, just like my idea.
5) It uses 7 layers to cross link the key in a unique way to create encoding like the method I proposed, but using high level maths which I could not propose.
6) The files are stored on your hard drive and can be seen by Windows even though they are now 4-factor smaller.  Movies will play in realtime, but the data is massively smaller on the hard drive.
7) They are working on a 8-factor version but it still isn't working yet.  If they can do 4 and now 8, then at some point they will be doing 16 or 32.  As time goes on, systems become more evolved and get faster.
There is one part of the video at 8:30 seconds that says how much encoding was done to the file:   it says original (I can't read it) ... but later it says the video is 7 MB after being encoded and I believe it says the video was 28MB before being encoded.  7 MB isn't as good as my idea, but there is a working version, so it's much better than my idea in reality.  Later, they will have 8-Factor, that means the 28MB video will be just 3.5MB but still be just as high quality (there example is a HD video!)
9) It says it will encode all files equally, something many people here have told me is impossible to say.  One guy here said if anyone claimed they could reduce all files sizes by even 0.000001% they would be lying.  But they demonstrate that they can shrink every file size by the same exact 4-Factoring.  That means you are wrong somehow.

OR ... they are a farce. And this video is fluff, and they are making fools of themselves and advertising something they don't really have.  That would be foolish.  Who knows until it's actually released to the Public?  They might just have a heartattack and all their data cards get lost, and disappear into moon, right?  Hahaha.

Later.


Man!  Here is another youtube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kQsWP6n03EU

The Jan Sloot Principal turns out to be none other than the DNA method!  Here is what they have to say on the youtube site video:

"DNA is a different way to store data on a very efficient way like SDCS principle from Jan Sloot. Like SDCS it uses Key-codes (DNA-codes) which are smaller then 257 bytes with a Reference Table.
Goto http://jansloot.telcomsoft.nl/Forum for more information."

I knew it!   A Referencing System!  I am a genius.  But DNA based!   With 3 overlaying streams from different algorythms working in tandem to create a unique key the way DNA does!  DAMN!  OMG!  I should have seen that myself!  3 years and I never thought about DNA, how it works!  This is totally exciting!