Topic: The bubble has popped, slow decline to $3 on the way - page 4. (Read 11236 times)

HAHA. Well, derp u too. ;p

Well, I believe that our quantum computing capabilities are far in advance of what is being published.

Unfortunately, its being used to fend off the pan-dimensional alien beings from the planet "Derp" so can not be levied against bitcoin, or anything else.

I believe this. Don't try to argue against it with your belief

edit: and just for good measure...

Here's what I know about quantum computing.  Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Whereas in classical computing you start from the ground up and essentially try to add more bit processors to compute information faster, in quantum computing you're essentially starting with the sum of all information and trying to devise a method to find the specific information you're looking for.  In other words, classical computing is like starting with questions and trying to find the answers; quantum computing is like starting with ALL answers and trying to find the right question or set of questions which will give you the specific answer you're looking for.

A quantum computer is like starting with a library containing all books that have ever been written and will ever be written.  A single qubit can contain an infinite amount of information.   This in and of itself doesn't make for a useful library.  How do you know where to find the book you're looking for?  Moreover, when you begin to look (thus, you are trying to make calculated observations to find the book you want), the calculation you make on one piece of observed information changes the configuration of all the other information due to entanglement.  In a way, I think of it as almost like a giant, entangled rubix cube.  I would presume that adding more and more cubits allows you to process these calculated observations faster and allow you to retrieve the information you're looking for more quickly.

So, my guess is that a quantum computer with a single qubit could theoretically crack every key in the blockchain, but it would just take longer than if you had multiple qubits, and the more qubits you have, the faster it could be done.

You've got me on both questions, m8.

1. My knowledge of the SR 71 is pretty limited after just how long they were able to keep this thing secret.

2. I don't know the math invloved any where near close enough to be able to answer this.  edit; in case someone does let's hypothetically assume there existed a 248 Qubit Quantum computer.




edit; and OT to OP  6.41 and climbing. 

Was the SR-71 able to pursue its mission of being a spy craft to keep tabs on every inch of the planet, or just select areas?

Will a quantum computer today be able to crack every existing key in the blockchain, or just a targeted subset?

Dude, nobody's saying anything about proof.  I never said anything about proof, and I flat out denied that I was asserting a fact of any kind.  One post you're talking about plausibility of belief, then you're talking about proof, then plausibility of belief, then proof.  Don't ask me why my beliefs are plausible, and then when I tell you why they're plausible, come at me with "it's not proof!"

I said it's a belief, so I'm going to assume that that's what you're still focused on.  Your contention in your last post to me is that you don't believe my assertion, nor do you believe it's opposite.

You're essentially saying "Maybe, maybe not," and that you need evidence before you can make an informed decision about belief.

By your very failure to make a decision to believe or not believe,you are allowing my belief plausibility in which case I don't even need to answer.

I think you should look at what you're saying, and not what I'm saying, if you really want to understand why my belief is plausible.  You've admitted it and don't even know it.

aye, that's why I stated it as, "my personal belief."

OT a bit from present debate; Did you read about that research group that teleported the photon? That was nuts, and more recently a Chinese group has teleported multiple entangled photons over 60km... Maybe not 'beam me up' worthy but it will sure put a new 'spin' on moving information securely. The biggest benefit to quantum communications is spooky state. That's in very basic sense where if you observe the state of a quantum system, you change the state of that system merely by observing it. crazy shit.

See, that's your belief. While it's probable that there exists technology more advanced than what the general public knows about, this does not prove the existence of a powerful quantum computer, nor does it prove the existence of a human teleportation device or a perfect weather predictor (that last one is probably impossible due to the butterfly effect/chaos + Heisenberg uncertainty principle.)

I'm having a blast watching you guys debate this. But you're making my brain hurt trying to follow all of your advanced articulations. >.<

Is the base argument that it is possible for a quantum computer to crack sha-2 or that one could mine extremely fast? Or is it just whether one could even exist that could do that within a few years?


After those arguments arn't we still left with just what entity would even bother pointing one at bitcoin? Seems they would use it for military calculations, financial calcs, weather calcs, etc first.


Someone that has a better memory than I would have to answer this. Someone, maybe Andreson or other person more familiar with just how much calc is needed to crack sha-2 had said something along the lines of Qubit computing being like 10 years off from being able to crack sha-2, using the standard pregression of computing power? i.e., moore's law.

My personal belief is that there exist a Quantum computer right now that could theoreticly break sha-2. Just how quickly I do not know, maybe 6 months a year. Not feasible to use against sha digesting yet. I do not believe however that such a machine would be in a position to be used for anything other than some very predetermined set of uses.

side note; on the technology and secrets thing, SR 71 Blackbird..... First 2 paragraph's after the intro; http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-030-DFRC.html

I don't believe that. I also don't believe in its opposite. Evidence is necessary.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm not assuming that. The reference to the flying spaghetti monster is my justification for ignoring entirely unsubstantiated beliefs. Note that in that previous sentence, I'm not trying to imply that your belief is entirely unsubstantiated.

This is a bit off on a tangent... I'm just trying to assess the logic behind your statements. I never said "nutcase" in this thread, nor did I refer to myself as a "powerful Internet user." Be careful how you use those quotation marks.

As they say in Kansas, "cool story bro"

I am honestly only trying to look at the logic behind your beliefs.

Just fyi, you can't effectively tell someone's tone of voice from written text. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/jobs/07pre.html

Why is your belief plausible? I.e. that there is not technology more advanced than what is searchable in Google and accessible in peer-reviewed journals?

Now, maybe you'd concede to the general term 'technology' rather than the specific term 'quantum computing.  Maybe you think, "Well, maybe there's some other kind of technological advances that are out there that I haven't heard about yet, but not in the field quantum computing.  I've heard about quantum-computing and I can look it up, so that must mean that's all the information out there."  But, given that quantum computing does exist in the public knowledge base in rudimentary form, then my assertion isn't so far-fetched after all.  We know quantum computing exists.  Don't give me the flying spaghetti monster crap.

It's honestly shocking to me that someone like you would assume that the assertion I am making is something akin to the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "giant teacup" or any other ridiculous analogy.  I believe in extraterrestrials, I believe in intergalactic civilizations, I believe in teleportation (which has also been demonstrated by scientists at the atomic level, and that was years ago), I believe in cold fusion, I believe in technologies that would solve the entire energy crisis the world is currently facing, I believe in all kinds of shit.  Do I have proof of it?  No.  Does that make me a "nut?"  No.

What I do have knowledge of, however, is that mankind has consistently and repeatedly made faulty and arrogant assumptions about their presumed level of knowledge for thousands of years.  And then someone like you comes along and thinks, "Wow, this guy's a nutcase.  He actually believes there's shit out there that I, a powerful Internet user, don't know about."  Get real dude.  That attitude has been the source of the humiliation of humanity for millenniums.  So, maybe it's not that shocking that you're spitting the same, familiar arrogance.  Don't forget, a lot of people in Korea think their leader is a fucking deity.  Why do they think that?  Multiplied propaganda.  Think for yourself, not what you're told or what you read.

My brother told me a story about how his friend went onto Wikipedia one day and made up a town in Kansas, proceeding to write a history about this imaginary town and its people.  He maintained his entry for over a year, and then one day, he went to take it down from the website.

To his surprise, after he took it down, someone put it back up!  He tried to take it down again, but to no avail.  People kept believing the town actually existed, so much so that they adamantly scrutinized my brother's friend when he tried to tell them that he was the one that had put up the entry, and that he had fabricated the entire thing.

This only shows the power of what's posted on the Internet.  While the story about the imaginary town in Kansas is dissimilar to quantum computing in the sense that we know quantum computing exists, the point is that people are apt to believe what they can find on the Internet or in a published source.  Multiplied propaganda is a very powerful thing.  The fact that you can look up quantum computing and receive a buttload of Internet searches leads to confirmation bias.  "Yep, these all say pretty much the same thing.  That must be all there is out there."  But the mentality is similar to those who believe in the imaginary Kansas town, and are unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.  The thought didn't even occur to them that they might not be getting the whole picture.

It is now safe to say that his perspective is based on his belief that not everything related with quantum computing discoveries is made public. However given historic track records with other technologies being held back from public consumption makes it plausible even if you choose to ignore it. Even with the attempt to claim of fallacy by ambiguity, does not make it an unwise or foolish belief.

Its also true that I hope the Bitcoin project will gain in relevance in today`s world. My perspective, my belief that it is an alternative to gold and other forums of exchange, and solves issues we faced today using the traditional methods. Is but that my belief-based perspective.

On a side note I will use an example of fallacy of relevance.

Say for instance I think July 7 CERN will make it official or at least let us know when they plan to make it official. That the The Higgs boson has likely been found already. It does not matter what raw data I may have had access to. The point is its still my belief-based perspective. If I wish to extend that for others to make their own belief-based assessments, then that is up to me.

However time will tell.

You're right, though, computers are only a tool, and weather those advanced tools are available in use today is irrelevant.

edit: unless they come online and you are holding onto a dozen of BFL ASIC`s bad boy`s

That makes more sense. So you believe that there is underground quantum computing. Cool. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as do millions, if not thousands, of other devout followers. http://www.venganza.org/

I'm going to ignore your beliefs and every belief-based argument if you don't mind.

As for your "plausible scenarios," why do you think they are plausible? That is what needs support.

I'm saying the assertion I made is what I believe, and that's why I believe that you're a fool who's wasting his time trying to 'logically' disassemble my belief with your belief (i.e. that my assertion is false). 

Although, I also think you're a fool for not believing in the realistic plausibility of my belief which would include any of the 3 scenarios I outlined in the previous page of this thread.

Are you implying that you have asserted an absolute fact when you said that quantum computing with abilities well beyond the public's knowledge is already being used? If not, what are you saying?

I want to chime in here for the layman

Technology will be developed and held as a close guarded secret one way or another.

Take apple's approach to secrecy for example, in Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs.

He describes Ive's design studio as "shielded by tinted windows and a heavy clad, locked door.

"Just inside is a glass-booth reception desk where two assistants guard access. Even the most high-level Apple employees are not allowed in without "special permission." In a wonderful bit of pot-kettle-black criticism, other Apple employees describe Ive's design team as "secretive". When you're accused of secrecy by people who work for the most secretive company in the world, you must be pretty good at keeping secrets."

And thats just for what may end up being a public Retail product.

If you are responsible for a National and Global security, technology implimentations and its present usable sate may be and should be shrowded in secrecy. OR ELSE!

Take for example one way to safeguard votes is to limit access to them when they're being transferred from precincts to central polling stations where they're tallied.

This is just what the Swiss are looking into. "The nation is on the cutting edge of research into quantum cryptography. But unlike traditional cryptology methods -- encoding and decoding information or messages -- quantum cryptology depends on physics, not mathematics."

You can read more here http://swissquantum.idquantique.com/?-Quantum-Cryptography-

This is a discussion in which the Devil's Proof applies. Obviously, we can't peer inside the labs of people doing NDA or classified research, so we can't say for certain that something is not happening there. Nor can the inability to falsify what goes on in those labs serve as an argument for any particular thing X existing there.

So let's look at it like this: generally speaking, how far ahead are those labs, compared with the state of the art known to published science? And what's the known state of the art for quantum computers?

I'm not familiar with the former, but the latter is easy to look up, and it seems to be:
1) a project by four universities that managed to build a 2-qubit computer in laboratory conditions, and
2) a 128-qubit device made by a private company which can only do discrete optimization (and as such is not a quantum computer per se).

In 10-20 years? Maybe we'll see something that cracks discrete logarithm cryptography in twain. Is it a risk to Bitcoin? Well... I'm not sure. Grover's algorithm weakens SHA-2 by roughly half its bits, so one can probably expect the number of target bits to double as soon as Grover makes it into the wild. But it'll still count as proof-of-work, so that's not actually a problem. The real problem is ECDSA being murdered Shor's algorithm, which means that Bitcoin needs to have some kind of solution lined up (support for Lamport signatures, for instance) well before they hit market. Note that this wouldn't require a new blockchain or split the one we have; at most, it'd be a BIP16-type effort where people upgrade to support a new transaction type.

If you're not clever enough to tell the difference between a belief and an assertion of absolute fact, you're not clever enough to be lecturing me on logic.

I'm fully expecting some dumb reply about how hypotheticals are logical fallacies, too.  

If you don't want logic lectures, debate properly. "Burden of proof" is a valid requirement. Do I really need to give an example?
"There's a monster under my bed which poops cold fusion"

Lol you guys are idiots.

First, a straw-man does not make an argument invalid or implausible.  It just doesn't make it sound.  I think your logic needs a bit of ship-shaping since claiming a straw-man does nothing to defeat the assertion.

Second, I think you missed the post by the ex-NASA/Boeing employee who asserted that there are, in fact, classified projects going on all the time that don't make it to peer-reviewed journals or researchers for a number of reasons.

Third, burden of proof?  Are you kidding me?  Speak for yourselves.  You have two choices in this scenario: 
1)  Make a counter assertion, i.e. that I am wrong, and place the burden of proof equally upon yourselves (good luck with that one, by the way)
or
2) Say "I don't know" in which case you are allowing my assertion plausibility.

Don't give me lectures on logic.