Something that I find interesting in this situation is that there's a noticeable difference in grammatical errors between the alleged plagiarized content and the added "word-spun" filler - equivalent to the difference between a well-read-but-not-native English speaker and a native English speaker. These inconsistencies are sometimes clear
even in the same quote. It adds credence to Kalemder and Suchmoon's comments regarding "word-spinning".
Bold emphasis is mine, red remains from previous posts in order to indicate alleged plagiarized content.
Incorrect comma usage:Actually if SHA gets broken the problem will be on a much larger scale where Bitcoin will be irrelevant (unless globally adopted). A lot of things use SHA, for example banks.
What I'm trying to say is:
For SHA256, it effectively becomes SHA128 to a Quantum computer. Now the question remains, can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256?
With out current technology and for the near future, we still can't build a real Quantum computer that can even begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it.
This is a noticeable change in comma proficiency mid-post. Non-native speakers often struggle with comma usage following introductory phrases: "Actually", used as an introductory phrase, is always followed by a comma.
The comma usage in "A lot of things use SHA, for example banks." reinforces this difference. A comma is (incorrectly) used to indicate an upcoming example, where a colon would be more appropriate. "A lot of things use SHA: for example, banks." would be grammatically correct but still clunky. "A lot of things use SHA: banks, for example." would be appropriate.
Compare this to AzN1337c0d3r's mirrored content, where we see much more consistent comma usage in the same situation:
For SHA256, it effectively becomes SHA128 to a Quantum computer. Now the question remains, can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256?
With our current technology and for the foreseeable future, we still cannot build a Quantum computer that can yet begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it in a time within our lifespan. Thus SHA256 is considered "secure enough" for now.
I see no information about 128 bit keys being broken. Any information found on stackexchange has no guarantee to be correct. It confirms what I said. SHA can't be reversed; it has to be brute forced.
It clearly indicated that quantum computers are more powerful than the computers of today, which is logical. There is no information on there internet about this. You're talking out of a hat.
Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster to bruteforce than 256 bit. This doesn't mean that it is vulnerable when used.
It's obvious that people are commenting without proper knowledge in quantum related technology. The computers are not nowhere near ready to do any complicated jobs.
The main challenge in a Qcomputer is to make sure that the qubits are entangled (if you're familiar with Schrödinger’s cat you will know what I'm talking about; look that up). The computer must stay in this state (for the cat - it can't be simultaneously dead or alive) long enough to perform calculations and get results. The ones that we have can keep the state for miliseconds or maybe a couple of seconds. That's not long enough to do something useful. To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits. Existing quantum computers operate with 14 qubits at maximum.
I have not forgotten about D-wave though. The company D-Wave claims that it has produced a 512 qubit Qcomputer. That is not a real quantum computer because it uses quantum annealing effect and can't demonstrate full properties of one. It is basically set to do a few specific tasks and represents no danger to encryption.
To summarize: You're wrong. Existing implementations have not shown that they can beat 128bit encryption. They aren't even close. That's the current situation. I'm not saying that in 5 years we won't have better technology. We might operate with 1400 qubits or be stuck at 140. Nobody really knows.
I've included two more examples of comma usage from above to reinforce that this does not appear to be a one-off mistake. "Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster" and "To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits." are both examples where the following clause needs to be indicated with a comma. Interestingly, the second example there
is written correctly in the alleged source material:
Exactly how is spreading FUD related to retardation?
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) = is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.
One thing taught to all students in a second language program is "Read your sentence out loud." This is a common error when inserting symbols: incorrectly applied, you make existing text redundant. In this case, Lauda's version out loud would sound like "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt - FUD -
equals is generally a strategic attempt...", while the alleged source material would be grammatically correct. To me, this is the most damning evidence of text edited post facto by someone with a different reading/writing level.
Again - these are mistakes you would expect to see
consistently made. A fluctuation in the grasp of English grammar should not be seen mid-post, and definitely should not be clearly separated between the black text unique to Lauda and the red text of the alleged source material. I invite others to criticize as needed.
To be clear, I have no vested interest in whether anyone is banned or not. I have some opinions about what I consider to be flaws in Lauda's judgment (I don't believe that a word like "pajeet" can be separated from its intentionally-racist 4chan origins), but I find them largely irrelevant to this topic or the decision at hand.
inb4 "nice first post", "hop on your main acct", etc. The rules of language don't change based on your activity level. I've been a lurker for
years, and a cursory mod search would show I'm not on TOR, not using a VPN, and have sent PMs to board members regarding similar topics.
I am sorry for those who collaterally suffer because of my past.
