Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. The Bitcoin/Crypto Thread

The Bitcoin/Crypto Thread

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
461 Posts 22 Posters 74.8k Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Doctor PhibesD Offline
    Doctor PhibesD Offline
    Doctor Phibes
    wrote on last edited by
    #449

    I wish these people would speak in plain English rather than use all this technobabble.

    I was only joking

    1 Reply Last reply
    • AxtremusA Offline
      AxtremusA Offline
      Axtremus
      wrote on last edited by Axtremus
      #450
      1. Plain English has been failing at keeping up with technology advancements. Heck, practically all natural languages have the same problem. There will always be subject matter that less than .01% of the population understand. "Plain language" is developed to accommodate the middle one to three sigmas of the general population. There will always be cases when plain language simply cannot do a subject matter justice.

      2. But if you really want that compromise to get some aspects of a message across to the middle one to three sigmas of the general population, sure, try a "plain language" approximation. AI can probably do that quite well most of the time these days.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

        Blockchain doomed?

        I hadn’t heard of the poster but he’s followed by lots of Silicon Valley royalty.

        taiwan_girlT Offline
        taiwan_girlT Offline
        taiwan_girl
        wrote on last edited by
        #451

        @jon-nyc said:

        Blockchain doomed?

        Why does this mean blockchain is doomed?

        AxtremusA 1 Reply Last reply
        • jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
          #452

          Well it’s not technically just in its current form.

          Shor’s algorithm breaks the math underlying most public key cryptography. But today it requires millions of years of computation whereas a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could do it in hours or less.

          Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

          KlausK 1 Reply Last reply
          • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

            @jon-nyc said:

            Blockchain doomed?

            Why does this mean blockchain is doomed?

            AxtremusA Offline
            AxtremusA Offline
            Axtremus
            wrote on last edited by
            #453

            @taiwan_girl said:

            Why does this mean blockchain is doomed?

            Only blockchains of certain implementations are doomed. Google's work is fairly specific about cracking the ECDSA 256-bit encryption method in a reasonable amount of time using a quantum computer that Google believes will come into existence sometime in 2029. Blockchains that use the ECDSA 256 (or fewer) bits encryption methods will be "doomed" if/when their underlying encryption can be broken in a reasonable amount of time -- using a quantum computer that may come into existence in 2029.

            But blockchain as a general concept will continue to have a place in technology and industrial applications. The U.S. government, especially through NIST, is spearheading the world-leading effort to standardize a bunch of new encryption methods that are expected to be "quantum resistant" -- i.e., encryption methods that even quantum computers cannot break for a very long time. New blockchains can be implemented using these quantum-resistant encryption methods and continue to be secure in the face of quantum computers.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

              Well it’s not technically just in its current form.

              Shor’s algorithm breaks the math underlying most public key cryptography. But today it requires millions of years of computation whereas a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could do it in hours or less.

              KlausK Offline
              KlausK Offline
              Klaus
              wrote on last edited by Klaus
              #454

              @jon-nyc said:

              Well it’s not technically just in its current form.

              Shor’s algorithm breaks the math underlying most public key cryptography. But today it requires millions of years of computation whereas a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could do it in hours or less.

              With a 500K qubit computer, which is completely unknown whether that's ever going to work. Nobody knows whether quantum computing will ever be practically useful. I highly doubt we'll have a 500k qubit computer in the 2030s.

              Also, cryptographic algorithms can be changed. It just requires a "hard fork" of the blockchain.

              Doctor PhibesD 1 Reply Last reply
              • KlausK Klaus

                @jon-nyc said:

                Well it’s not technically just in its current form.

                Shor’s algorithm breaks the math underlying most public key cryptography. But today it requires millions of years of computation whereas a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could do it in hours or less.

                With a 500K qubit computer, which is completely unknown whether that's ever going to work. Nobody knows whether quantum computing will ever be practically useful. I highly doubt we'll have a 500k qubit computer in the 2030s.

                Also, cryptographic algorithms can be changed. It just requires a "hard fork" of the blockchain.

                Doctor PhibesD Offline
                Doctor PhibesD Offline
                Doctor Phibes
                wrote on last edited by
                #455

                @Klaus said:

                With a 500K qubit computer, which is completely unknown whether that's ever going to work. Nobody knows whether quantum computing will ever be practically useful. I highly doubt we'll have a 500k qubit computer in the 2030s.

                More importantly, will it be able to run Crysis at 120fps?

                I was only joking

                1 Reply Last reply
                • KlausK Offline
                  KlausK Offline
                  Klaus
                  wrote on last edited by Klaus
                  #456

                  Quantum computing is way overrated in my opinion. Even if we'd have working quantum computers with millions of qbits, nothing really extraordinary would change. We'd have to upgrade some crypto technology to be quantum resistant. We'd set a few new records in finding large primes. And a few narrow applications, such as certain simulations, would become faster. But it's far from being a general purpose "make my program run faster" machine.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nyc
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #457

                    I think you’re too dismissive. It’s true the applications are narrow but that doesn’t mean they’re not impactful. Quantum computing could totally transform drug discovery, catalyst design, or battery chemistry for example.

                    Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • KlausK Offline
                      KlausK Offline
                      Klaus
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #458

                      OK, yes, there are some quite useful application domains, but in the public media it is often presented as an "everything will be a million times faster" thing, which is completely false.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • 89th8 Offline
                        89th8 Offline
                        89th
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #459

                        yeah, it'll be a billion times faster

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • 89th8 Offline
                          89th8 Offline
                          89th
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #460

                          Kidding, I have no idea.

                          I do know the moon apparently has a shitload of Helium 3 which would be awesome to have for clean fuel, energy, quantum this, Crysis at 120 fps, etc.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • taiwan_girlT Offline
                            taiwan_girlT Offline
                            taiwan_girl
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #461

                            Well, my two quantum stocks are up about 8x so hopefully it will continue to go up so that I can afford a gallon of gas.

                            1 Reply Last reply

                            Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                            Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                            With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                            Register Login
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Don't have an account? Register

                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • Users
                            • Groups