warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Why would they go after him? I mean, "irrational human madness" maybe, but it's not like you are going to blame the Wright brothers if a plane carrying your loved ones crashes.
I am sure someone has...
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
True but you gotta admit it's probably pretty rare and crazy
If only one in ten million are that crazy ...
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I just think the vast majority of people would blame the friend who got them into crypto or whatever, rather than the pioneer of the tech (for people who'd look to blame somebody else and not their own actions). Like, if a plane crashes and your uncle dies, I've never heard of anyone blaming the pioneers who invented planes, but instead the airline, pilot, etc. You guys are very spot on that it just takes 1 crazy person and there's lots of crazy people out there with all sorts of crazy views.. but like, there are so many more people that are easier to blame if you lose your life savings in crypto - the friend who told you about it, the influencers on twitter who influenced what you invested in, the people who wrote the news articles, the members of the various crypto communities you were a part of, etc. It would take a truly insane person to blame the inventor of the tech, and I just think that if you're crazy enough to do that, you're going to be blaming the clouds for it, you're going to be blaming 5G for it, and probably licking salt off the sidewalks or something. I completely agree that "it just takes one" though and that there's plenty of nutty people out there
EnglishEdward
Deity
The Wright brothers were considerate enough to have died before passenger flight became significant.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I honestly don't think this guy would have to worry, it's far easier to find other scapegoats. Each time I've seen somebody freak out about losing lots of money in the stock market or crypto, if they end up blaming anybody it's the shills who convinced them to buy into whatever, or the person who got them involved initially. Good point about the inventor of the plane being dead though lol
Like, do people blame the inventor of the HTTP protocol when they click the wrong porn link and end up getting "hacked"? Do people blame the inventor of email when they fall for a phishing scam? There are just so many other scapegoats that are easier and more logical to go after, IMO
But yeah, of course, there's crazy people out there who will blame whatever comes to mind, I can't dispute that
Like, do people blame the inventor of the HTTP protocol when they click the wrong porn link and end up getting "hacked"? Do people blame the inventor of email when they fall for a phishing scam? There are just so many other scapegoats that are easier and more logical to go after, IMO
But yeah, of course, there's crazy people out there who will blame whatever comes to mind, I can't dispute that
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Tesla starts accepting once-joke cryptocurrency Dogecoin
Tesla, the electric carmaker headed by billionaire Elon Musk, has started to allow people to buy brand merchandise using Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency initially started as a joke.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60001144
Tesla, the electric carmaker headed by billionaire Elon Musk, has started to allow people to buy brand merchandise using Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency initially started as a joke.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60001144
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's a bit deceiving, sort of. Most people assume it means that you can buy a Tesla car with Doge.. You can't though, you can only buy Tesla merchandise like beltbuckles
I own that $4.5bn of digi-dosh so rewrite your blockchain and give it to me, Craig Wright tells Bitcoin SV devs
Craig Wright (as in the "I am Satoshi Nakamoto" guy from the last page) is claiming to own but have lost the keys for £14m of Bitcoin SV ("Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", a fork of a fork from the original Bitcoin). He wants the devs to "re-write or amend the underlying software code to enable [Tulip Trading] to access the Bitcoin [sic, perhaps a judge not fully up to date with the technology]."
I kind of do not understand this. Surely if the currency is working as designed this is impossible? If it was possible, what would prevent them doing this for everyone's wallet and taking all the moneys (though it seems nChain thinks it is possible)? If he really is Satoshi Nakamoto how did he have so little understanding of crypto to have allowed the loss of a computer to result in loss of his coins?
Craig Wright (as in the "I am Satoshi Nakamoto" guy from the last page) is claiming to own but have lost the keys for £14m of Bitcoin SV ("Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", a fork of a fork from the original Bitcoin). He wants the devs to "re-write or amend the underlying software code to enable [Tulip Trading] to access the Bitcoin [sic, perhaps a judge not fully up to date with the technology]."
I kind of do not understand this. Surely if the currency is working as designed this is impossible? If it was possible, what would prevent them doing this for everyone's wallet and taking all the moneys (though it seems nChain thinks it is possible)? If he really is Satoshi Nakamoto how did he have so little understanding of crypto to have allowed the loss of a computer to result in loss of his coins?
An NFT is a kind of cryptocoin, so you need to "own" that to be able to sell it (where "own" = have the ability to create transactions involving it). You need some fungable cryptocoin to make an NFT.
More on "quantum computers advancing every week":
Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon
Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon
Fault-tolerant quantum computers that can solve hard problems rely on quantum error correction. One of the most promising error correction codes is the surface code, which requires universal gate fidelities exceeding an error correction threshold of 99 per cent. Among the many qubit platforms, only superconducting circuits, trapped ions and nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamond have delivered this requirement. Electron spin qubits in silicon are particularly promising for a large-scale quantum computer owing to their nanofabrication capability, but the two-qubit gate fidelity has been limited to 98 per cent owing to the slow operation. Here we demonstrate a two-qubit gate fidelity of 99.5 per cent, along with single-qubit gate fidelities of 99.8 per cent, in silicon spin qubits by fast electrical control using a micromagnet-induced gradient field and a tunable two-qubit coupling.
Our results demonstrate universal gate fidelity beyond the fault-tolerance threshold and may enable scalable silicon quantum computers.
Our results demonstrate universal gate fidelity beyond the fault-tolerance threshold and may enable scalable silicon quantum computers.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
Not that I know a ton about NFT's, but the creator of the NFT does not need to own any sort of cryptocoin to make one, only be willing to accept cryptocoin in order to sell it.
Like, if I made a unique piece of digital art. The original digital art i made does not require me to own crypto. But now, as a unique NFT, it can only be bought using cryptocoins, so in order to sell it to someone, I must be willing to accept payment in cryptocoin (as one would a physical painting for dollars). At which point, I no longer own the original digital art (or painting in my physical analogy). People may own copies of my original painting, or NFT, but they do not own my original creation.
In SAT terms... NFT : Crypto AS Painting : Dollars
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
It will always have value as a speculative asset. Old stamps or coins have no intrinsic value, but people speculate on them. Comic books, like the first appearance of Deadpool or Harley Quinn, have no intrinsic value. Michael Jordan's rookie card has no intrinsic value. But they all have value as speculative assets. Meme coins like DOGE or SHIBA never had value to begin with, except as speculative assets.
I'm "in" crypto with that understanding, just like I'm "in" collectible comic books: with the understanding that it's only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. I'll never be able to pay for my groceries with either, but I could sell my collectible & then use that money to buy groceries.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Quantum computers will not mean the end of cryptocurrencies, there are already algorithms in place to prepare for such things.
ALTHOUGH, if a quantum computer were to suddenly show up on the market tomorrow, and let's say it's capable of easily breaking through the sort of encryption used on some particular blockchain, then that blockchain is probably screwed. I would guess anyway. If they prepare properly though, then they should be fine, assuming their implementation and push out to the blockchain goes smoothly.
Proof of Stake blockchains should be unaffected either way.
I could be wrong but you usually need to pay gas fees to mint an NFT. I think I've seen something about an NFT marketplace that allows you to mint for free, but you had to pay gas for other stuff IIRC.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
Oh, that could be totally correct for all I know. Like a "registration fee" or something, that must be paid in Crypto, in order for someone to buy it? You're most likely right there. I was just speaking to the actual creation of the NFT - the creation itself, as far I know, doesn't consume Crypto.
