Topic: Is Google supercomputer a threat? - page 4. (Read 4579 times)

Q: Is Google supercomputer a threat?
A: NO

Google Maps however is, this app use to work like a charm now it's slow and bloated and if by some miracle you get it to load chances are it will direct you straight off the edge of Earth.

Thanks man, I'll read it.

Oh well, that does explain it. Just make sure that the next time you read most (if not all) of the posts before asking questions that might already be answered. Also as an average consumer you should not really worry about these things; you can't really change anything either (since then you're most likely not a developer nor security expert). If you have questions feel free to ask questions in the Beginners & Help section.

---

---

Update: Corrections.

I'm just entering this new field of knowledge (Bitcoin), so I'm learning, didn't stop to read many things about this subject yet, but I'll learn more eventually, I was a bit concerned in fact, however as I see the answers here, it seems not the end of the world for me  
(sorry if it was a newbie question, but it matches with my status as member).

You remind me of Mike Hearn.  A flippant arrogance that implies an inability to see things in broader perspective, to consider consequence, or implication, or alternative.  You represent the very worst fears of those that look at your involvement in these matters.

To simplify, what a quantum computer does is it has a superstate which makes it quite faster. SHA 256bit for a normal computer is the same as SHA128 for a quantum computer IIRC. Theoretically even with huge gains in the computational field, we could upgrade to SHA 512 and would not have any problems in the foreseeable future (if SHA itself doesn't get broken). People worry about this subject more than they should.

---

---

Update:
Welcome to the ignore list useless shill.

Uow, I've never seen this piece. So, is it certainly impossible that a new, disruptive processing technology is invented? I mean, that could process without the limitations we currently know?

Here is an excerpt from Craig/Satoshi from his recent conference, and I think it is highly applicable to this topic:

VIDEO REFERENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZWVu6XsO4

<<< Excerpt Timestamp ~18:13 >>>
"And that's where the banks are going wrong.  At the end of the day, there isn't a bank out there in the world that has the computing power to stop me, personally, now.  If they were to run a Ripple network, or their own private blockchain.  Then I've got an ... um... 3 point whatever petaflop computer sitting and gringing away and ... um ... and if an individual ... well, a small group ... can basically set up something.... umm ... then others can.  Governments can.  And if the government really wanted to compete with me and chunk more money into supercomputing research, they would build something way bigger that could attack any system.   And if we think about competing currencies, and banks, then in time, if we are going to rely on private blockchains, we are going to find we have a system that is less secure, not more."

How about you read the actual content of the thread before asking such questions? Being a million times faster than a regular computer is still weak in terms of hashrate. By the time that they have this product ready the hashrate of the network will go long past 1 Exahash.

One of their major goals will be to see if they can break Bitcoin... just to see if they can.

Even if Google doesn't use it for mining, I put this subject as a reflection. The giant can eat the small one, this is what I'm saying, another big company could build a computer like this and try do mining, I don't know, pure especulation...But WHAT IF it was true? May should we be worried about it don't you think?

Or... are how stupid are you for not understanding the meaning behind this article and Bitcoin? (no offense just a joke).

It's about the speed to bruteforce private keys.

There is this old thing where people ask, if you could have dinner with any 2 people from history, who would they be etc...

Well, right now, I would choose this Craig/Satoshi guy, and Elon Musk.  And I would ask them WHY?

Elon Musk: He's a smart guy, goes and buys a stake in Google's Deepmind, then says he did so to "keep an eye" on AI, and strongly issues a loud warning about AI.  THEN he doubles down on developing a power system capable of potential, eventual self-replication - thereby guaranteeing an energy source for for an AI robotics force.  On top of that he focuses on this space initiative of communications - which would guarantee that AI communications could not be touched by us lowly earthbound humans - thereby protecting it's future "communications/neural network" on global scale.

Craig/Satoshi: Guy is not only running a Supercomputer, and obviously proficient at high level code, including perhaps revolutionary ideas about the use of machine code - plus he actually teaches Supercomputer Programming.  He is obviously intelligent, and from everything I can find he is a basically a good person, with high moral goals, and clearly a degree of common wisdom not always found in "pure geek" mentalities.

So I would sit with these guys and ask them WHY are you proceeding?

Here is what I honest to G-d hope they would respond with.....

"Well, this stuff is coming anyway.  Can't stop it.  And it is clear that not everyone involved is operating wisely, or showing proper constraint.  We feel that by being at the forefront, we can also position ourselves inside as the future "warriors" that will be in a best position to fight / reign in this AI Beast once it gets loose.  What we do know is that by all definitions, once that happens, it will technically be a new Lifeform, albeit one never before seen, and nothing we are prepared for if things head south.  And it will be perhaps not only our equal, but possibly even the superior of the human species.  History teaches us that the theory of Evolution normally results in a situation of conflict between species that are of similar equality and competing in a limited ecosystem.   And so by being involved, we put ourselves in a position to be the most authoritative experts on what could then become an enemy of humanity.  What we do know is that technological biology does share in common some aspects of human biology.  It can be killed (or powered down) in a physical manner.  But assuming that a Technological AI Beast ends up controlling more firepower than humans - we need to perhaps be looking at more simple methods of attack / defence.  Both human biology and techno biology share the ability to be impacted by viruses.  We can't quite see what the eventual techno-biology may evolve into, or what the "body" of this AI Beast may morph into, or what built in "anti-bodies' it may have - but quietly we are learning and categorizing the features of this new lifeform.  Just in case we have to fight it, wrestle it down and put a chain on it, or even kill it.  We're also building in "kill switches" and/or links to which we might be able to have backdoor access in an emergency. As they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Anyway, that is what I would HOPE that they might say, and also any others that might say that were closely involved.   But after all of that, what I would REALLY want to hear out of them is.....

"But we are scared, and very very aware of the multitude of ways in which we could be outmaneuvered, blocked, killed, tricked etc.  Because we are in unchartered waters, and we ow it and are dong this humbly and with eyes wide open, and if we feel that the risks rise to a certain level, we will be responsible to LOUDLY and AGGRESSIVELY issue warning."

If that IS the answer in the hearts and minds out there.... I want to thank you in advance for preparing for a coming war that most humans don't even realize is possible.  Because it is coming.  As sure as the rain falls, it is coming.  Prepare for it.

Peace,
- david
aka The Mountains Voice

sure, but count on it that although Google ignores Bitcoin publicly they are most likely all over it secretly and NOT calling their punches.  I find Googles silence both troubling and exciting 

I don't think it's a direct threat to bitcoin. I don't see how everyone thinks it's a threat when it's really not.
How would it effect the value of bitcoin exactly?

Here we go again. Please use the search function next time. This has been discussed several times. 3600 times faster than a supercomputer is not nearly enough to do anything significant.

Quantum computer may be a threat.. but until then.. its safe

Seriously though, I mean everyone in the tech field has warned against AI. No clue to why this is still being worked on so much, there is no need for it, just use a person instead of wasting millions of dollars into R&D on this.

average computer is 5Mhash
1000 computers is 5Ghash
1mill computers is 5Thash
100mill is 500Thash

so google is only half a Phash

currently bitcoin network is 700Phash

making google, if it decided to mine bitcoin.. be only 0.071%(1 of 1400th) of the hashrate.

meaning if it were mining.. the most it would get is 0.01785714 bitcoins (<$8) per block

yet i bet it costs google alot more to run their supercomputer converting it to mine bitcoins, then a dedicated asic miner would
EG ANTMINER S7 BATCH 8 - 106 units totalling under $200,000 would outperform googles multimillion supercomputer

Think again mate, bit harder this time. If AI powered with super computers take control over communications and internet it can do what ever it want with Bitcon. Not that in such controlled environment Bitcoin would even matter much. In worst scenario AI could consider us just like parasites so figure it out.