Pages:
Author

Topic: Forget Quantum computer - This can come earlier (Read 2844 times)

donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
September 09, 2012, 03:20:40 PM
#25
...but will it run Windows? How can I install Windows if there's no CD/DVD? Do I plug it in - or feed it? lol.lol.lol.

BTW this ain't gonna happen guys. Your bitcoins are safe. Reality check please.

I think we all know. Just having some fun thinking about wild ideas on a lazy sunday... all the while more enjoyable than all the "YOU SCAMMER, I REPORTED YOU TO THE SEC YOU SCUMMYFUCK"-shit that goes down on other parts of these forums Wink
sr. member
Activity: 381
Merit: 255
You really just dont know what invention this field will eventually come up with. Not that it will destroy Bitcoin or any of those scenarios, but you could end up with a wet-ware computer in less than 5 years. You just DONT know.
sr. member
Activity: 358
Merit: 250
...but will it run Windows? How can I install Windows if there's no CD/DVD? Do I plug it in - or feed it? lol.lol.lol.

BTW this ain't gonna happen guys. Your bitcoins are safe. Reality check please.
sr. member
Activity: 250
Merit: 250
reading of 1 nucleotide takes 1 hour on the fastest machines. You will need to read more than one nucleotide :-)

Could a processor such as an ASIC be customized to do this faster?

1. well, ok, ok, there are single molecule sequencing techniques that do a single nucleotide in miliseconds :-) [Pacific Biosciences] but these are not reliable (20% error rate).

2. ASICs are already used in some sequencing techniques: [http://www.iontorrent.com/] in fact this is a very interesting approach and quite a promissing technology but still not mature enough to compete with illumina in terms of nucleotides / $  ((( but if you can create an ASIC that measures pH changes in wholes of ~50nm diameter ... this would be interesting ,+ it has to have millions of these wholes on the chip )))

........ but in any case there is no connection between biology and bitcoin mining :-)
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
reading of 1 nucleotide takes 1 hour on the fastest machines. You will need to read more than one nucleotide :-)


Could a processor such as an ASIC be customized to do this faster?
sr. member
Activity: 394
Merit: 250
reading of 1 nucleotide takes 1 hour on the fastest machines. You will need to read more than one nucleotide :-)

damnit, ok then make the bacterium that finds a solution not mark itself, but instead produce some huge molecule we can actually see using a microscope and encode the nonce into that somehow.


I think the fastest approaches are quite a bit faster than 1 nucleotide an hour.

http://www.helicosbio.com/Portals/0/Documents/Helicos%20tSMS%20Technology%20Primer.pdf

DNA oligos are pretty good at picking out single sequences from a big mess of others.  I'm not that familiar with the computation we are trying to do here, if someone could explain the search space we would need to look in, we could have a discussion on the feasibility of using DNA to find the needle in the haystack.

For example, if you are searching for a known sequence that can be encoded in 25 base pairs (50 bits) and either is, or is not present in a soup of random sequences bound to a glass surface, IN THEORY you could fluorescently tag a complementary oligo, wash it over the surface, wash unbound material off, and check for the presence of a fluorescent dot somewhere on the surface.  IN THEORY.  In practice, noise, dust, etc would make that approach difficult, but there may be work arounds.

donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
reading of 1 nucleotide takes 1 hour on the fastest machines. You will need to read more than one nucleotide :-)

damnit, ok then make the bacterium that finds a solution not mark itself, but instead produce some huge molecule we can actually see using a microscope and encode the nonce into that somehow.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 251
Ah ah, not the worst strategy either imo. And I'm pretty sure he'll come to bitcoin at some point.
Anyway, thank for the complementary opinion on Venter
sr. member
Activity: 394
Merit: 250
Academics have issues with Venter's attitude, not his results.  He knows how to spot talented people and ideas and get the funding to make them happen. Celera's shotgun sequencing really pushed the Human Genome Project forward and basically beat the academic team (though assembly would not have been possible without the high quality scaffold already generated by the project).  The sequencing of the sargasso sea was also a great and  fascinating idea and yielded red-Channelrhodopsins from Volvox and probably much more I don't know about.

I tried to get the guy who invented shotgun sequencing to buy some bitcoins. He was all about amassing gold and shorting the Euro though. His loss. :-P
sr. member
Activity: 394
Merit: 250
@molecular ... reading of DNA is definitely slower than 10 min :-) You will have a solution that was good a day ago :-)

That is probably not the only problem with the approach Wink.

I know this is completely unfeasable, but for the fun of it: I only need to read a very small portion of the dna. Find primer (did I use that word right?), read data. Still 10 minutes?

The advantage of DNA is not speed, but parallelization.  See, Helicos's or Illuminia's sequencing systems. They do say 5Gbp / day in short fragments, but do that by sequencing millions at once, not by high speed.


sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 251
I'm not an expert in synthetic biology, but I work in system biology and I've been to some conferences with talks about synthetic biology.
I concur in saying that the first application will probably be oil productions, and that we are extremely far from biological computation.

And people don't have the biggest esteem for Craig Venter. He seems better at making big claims than deliver
sr. member
Activity: 381
Merit: 255
My reason for posting is that I see very fast development in the world of synthetic biology and a great number of companies shooting up around this field.

Its not possible to say what will happen in terms of computing power. I for one will keep an eye out on whomever comes out with a wet-ware computer. First model may be "crap" but at the same time, this industry has 25+ years to catch up with silicon.
sr. member
Activity: 250
Merit: 250
reading of 1 nucleotide takes 1 hour on the fastest machines. You will need to read more than one nucleotide :-)
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
@molecular ... reading of DNA is definitely slower than 10 min :-) You will have a solution that was good a day ago :-)

That is probably not the only problem with the approach Wink.

I know this is completely unfeasable, but for the fun of it: I only need to read a very small portion of the dna. Find primer (did I use that word correctly?), read data. Still 10 minutes?
sr. member
Activity: 394
Merit: 250
Yes, a small portion ... this is basic research ... but to publish something in Nature (derivatives) You must claim that You discovered America. Only a small percentage of nonsense get's through the referees but this is still much bigger than the number of discovered Americas :-)

Yes, that's a problem with science and the media, one is concerned with finding the best theory, and the other is concerned with finding the most readers through hype and exaggeration Smiley

Which is which?
full member
Activity: 562
Merit: 100
Yes, a small portion ... this is basic research ... but to publish something in Nature (derivatives) You must claim that You discovered America. Only a small percentage of nonsense get's through the referees but this is still much bigger than the number of discovered Americas :-)

Yes, that's a problem with science and the media, one is concerned with finding the best theory, and the other is concerned with finding the most readers through hype and exaggeration Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 394
Merit: 250
Biological computation has broad appeal to the layperson, engineer, comp sci person, hence it's common publication in Science, Nature. In practice, synthetic biology's promise is not there, but rather in metabolite engineering, biological production of difficult to synthesize molecules, biofuels, etc.

Also, at Nature about 60% of submissions get through referees, but < 10% of submissions get sent out for review.
sr. member
Activity: 250
Merit: 250
@molecular ... reading of DNA is definitely slower than 10 min :-) You will have a solution that was good a day ago :-)
sr. member
Activity: 250
Merit: 250
Yes, a small portion ... this is basic research ... but to publish something in Nature (derivatives) You must claim that You discovered America. Only a small percentage of nonsense get's through the referees but this is still much bigger than the number of discovered Americas :-)
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
Going off on a tangent:

If you think about it, evolutionary algorithms are often a good solution for search and optimization problems. Mining is a search problem.

However the nature of sha256 makes it impossible to construct a good fitness function.. you just don't know wether you're close to a solution or not.

So maybe what you could do is utilize massive parallelism by implementing some bacteria that is able to somehow evaluate two rounds of sha256 and somehow mark itself when difficulty is met. Put in it's dna the necessary input data (the block hash, right?) and a random nonce. Then make it reproduce under mutation of the nonce and select any marked individual and read its nonce from its dna. Voila, mesdames et messieurs: block found biologically Wink

Pages:
Jump to: