Yes, I made it more user-friendly, those who can't memorize 81 chars are allowed to use "qwerty" and the like.
Do you have a recommended minimum chars?
Topic: IOTA - page 706. (Read 1473233 times)
Google’s Quantum Dream Machine
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544421/googles-quantum-dream-machine/
Google Says It Has Proved Its Controversial Quantum Computer Really Works
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544276/google-says-it-has-proved-its-controversial-quantum-computer-really-works/
When can Quantum Annealing win?
http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2015/12/when-can-quantum-annealing-win.html
New Research Injects Optimism into Question of Quantum Computers
http://electronicdesign.com/microprocessors/new-research-injects-optimism-question-quantum-computers
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544421/googles-quantum-dream-machine/
Google Says It Has Proved Its Controversial Quantum Computer Really Works
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544276/google-says-it-has-proved-its-controversial-quantum-computer-really-works/
When can Quantum Annealing win?
http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2015/12/when-can-quantum-annealing-win.html
New Research Injects Optimism into Question of Quantum Computers
http://electronicdesign.com/microprocessors/new-research-injects-optimism-question-quantum-computers
You didn't prove any point. You just vaguely alluded that since QC can do many computations in superposition, that it must somehow speedup Cuckoo Cycle finding.
Is it what was written in that paper? That by increasing number of qubits 30-fold number of computations done within the same timeframe is increased 1'000'000'000-fold?
It is a big misconception to think that QC are some magical device that can speedup arbitrary computation. Evidence suggests that they have limited speedup applicability
(all variations of Grover's unstructured search and Shor's group structured search).
I think I urged you to read Scott Aaronson's
"The Limits of Quantum Computers"
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/limitsqc-draft.pdf
last time, to correct this misconception.
(all variations of Grover's unstructured search and Shor's group structured search).
I think I urged you to read Scott Aaronson's
"The Limits of Quantum Computers"
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/limitsqc-draft.pdf
last time, to correct this misconception.
Yes, and I quoted text that was proving my point.
You didn't prove any point. You just vaguely alluded that since QC can do many computations in superposition, that it must somehow speedup Cuckoo Cycle finding.
It is a big misconception to think that QC are some magical device that can speedup arbitrary computation. Evidence suggests that they have limited speedup applicability
(all variations of Grover's unstructured search and Shor's group structured search).
I think I urged you to read Scott Aaronson's
"The Limits of Quantum Computers"
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/limitsqc-draft.pdf
last time, to correct this misconception.
(all variations of Grover's unstructured search and Shor's group structured search).
I think I urged you to read Scott Aaronson's
"The Limits of Quantum Computers"
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/limitsqc-draft.pdf
last time, to correct this misconception.
Yes, and I quoted text that was proving my point.
The best-known tmto algorithm is 20 million times slower with 1 millionth' the memory.
Of course, even being just 200 times slower means you will rarely find a block
if the block interval is just 100 proof attempts long...
Of course, even being just 200 times slower means you will rarely find a block
if the block interval is just 100 proof attempts long...
This is where we stopped the last time - I claimed that it's not a problem for a QC to do 20 million computations at once (25X qubits is enough to do a computation on 33 million sets of data).
It is a big misconception to think that QC are some magical device that can speedup arbitrary computation. Evidence suggests that they have limited speedup applicability
(all variations of Grover's unstructured search and Shor's group structured search).
I think I urged you to read Scott Aaronson's
"The Limits of Quantum Computers"
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/limitsqc-draft.pdf
last time, to correct this misconception.
Please publish the code for genning addresses. I'll update my functional C# version (not yet published.)
view-source:http://188.138.57.93/addressgenerator.html
It must be 81 chars long and can contain '9' and lowercase latin letters.
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond link=totpic=1216479.msg13320085#msg13320085 date=1450735293
The seed must contain up to 81 chars. Lower case latin letters and "9" are allowed.
Has something changed (Re: bold parts)?
Yes, I made it more user-friendly, those who can't memorize 81 chars are allowed to use "qwerty" and the like.
Please publish the code for genning addresses. I'll update my functional C# version (not yet published.)
The best-known tmto algorithm is 20 million times slower with 1 millionth' the memory.
Of course, even being just 200 times slower means you will rarely find a block
if the block interval is just 100 proof attempts long...
Of course, even being just 200 times slower means you will rarely find a block
if the block interval is just 100 proof attempts long...
This is where we stopped the last time - I claimed that it's not a problem for a QC to do 20 million computations at once (25X qubits is enough to do a computation on 33 million sets of data). In this situation someone ought to prove that that particular algorithm is quantum-resistant, otherwise we can't accept that PoW blockchain are secure (burden of proof in cryptography lays on one claiming that an algorithm is secure, not the other way around).
Cuckoo Cycle reduces the gap between commodity and custom hardware by being memory bound, making mining less centralized.
What is the time-memory ratio for algorithm that works with 1 million smaller RAM?
The best-known tmto algorithm is 20 million times slower with 1 millionth' the memory.
Of course, even being just 200 times slower means you will rarely find a block
if the block interval is just 100 proof attempts long...
It must be 81 chars long and can contain '9' and lowercase latin letters.
The seed must contain up to 81 chars. Lower case latin letters and "9" are allowed.
Has something changed (Re: bold parts)?
Yes, I made it more user-friendly, those who can't memorize 81 chars are allowed to use "qwerty" and the like.
Is this a concern? You seem pretty relaxed on the issue, am I missing something?
Some merchants accept transfers with 0 (or very few) confirmations. This is why "merchant policy". Those who like risk and can't afford to hire Chuck Norris may become a victim of a doublespending.
Cuckoo Cycle reduces the gap between commodity and custom hardware by being memory bound, making mining less centralized.
What is the time-memory ratio for algorithm that works with 1 million smaller RAM?
Forgive my brevity but I'm short on time
Short answers preferred, thanks.
1. Will there be an explorer for IOTA?
2. Is IOTA susceptible to double-spends?
3. Is there any kind of scripting language in IOTA? (Ethereum style)
4. Does IOTA afford better anonymity than Bitcoin?
5. Does IOTA require/benefit from decentralized nodes? (Bitcoin-style)
6. Where do JINN and ternary procs fit in?
7. When are we "Quantum Secure"? After XMAS?
Short answers preferred, thanks.
1. Will there be an explorer for IOTA?
2. Is IOTA susceptible to double-spends?
3. Is there any kind of scripting language in IOTA? (Ethereum style)
4. Does IOTA afford better anonymity than Bitcoin?
5. Does IOTA require/benefit from decentralized nodes? (Bitcoin-style)
6. Where do JINN and ternary procs fit in?
7. When are we "Quantum Secure"? After XMAS?
1. Yes
2. Depends on merchant policy
3. No
4. No
5. Didn't get the question
6. Iota works with trits instead of bits
7. From the very beginning
Thanks
Follow-up:
2. Depends on merchant policy
Is this a concern? You seem pretty relaxed on the issue, am I missing something?
There are no PoW competitions. But I will be happy to submit once there are.
The only thing left is to note that your statement
"PoW blockchains are inherently vulnerable to QCs"
only applies to PoWs where a huge range (at least billions) of nonces is searched
(by one miner in one block interval).
The only thing left is to note that your statement
"PoW blockchains are inherently vulnerable to QCs"
only applies to PoWs where a huge range (at least billions) of nonces is searched
(by one miner in one block interval).
If you "solve" PoW blockchain vulnerability by making mining centralized then I can't accept this as a solution.
Cuckoo Cycle reduces the gap between commodity and custom hardware by being memory bound, making mining less centralized.
Let's test address generation - http://188.138.57.93/addressgenerator.html. The seed must contain up to 81 chars. Lower case latin letters and "9" are allowed.
PS: The task is to find such seed that gives the longest English word inside the address. For example, "q" gives "CCWW9NBQGIRGVUGBMXWNYXSYUSKOJYNIUUMPHFLGQNXQJEPSMMNVWCMYNRXYCBOOMYANFC9CRRDRXFVYA".
PS: The task is to find such seed that gives the longest English word inside the address. For example, "q" gives "CCWW9NBQGIRGVUGBMXWNYXSYUSKOJYNIUUMPHFLGQNXQJEPSMMNVWCMYNRXYCBOOMYANFC9CRRDRXFVYA".
What is the most popular and common settings file format?
"Key = value" in text form.
Jump to: