pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @KYC 21 Apr \ on: What is the shittiest shitcoin? AskSN
I will need to buy a little of each to find out which is the worst.
Nowadays, no, but when I was a child, I didn't have that sense of justice. It caused me great losses throughout my life. I don't blame my parents... they did what they could, and sometimes I managed to escape. I've been trying to make up for the lost time throughout my journey.
The concern about quantum computing breaking Bitcoin's security is certainly valid, but as you mentioned, it still seems to be more theoretical than practical at this stage. Shor’s algorithm, which can break traditional encryption like RSA and ECC (used in Bitcoin to generate private keys), could indeed be a nightmare for crypto security. However, the reality is that, at present, quantum computing is far from having the necessary capability to pose an immediate threat. As you pointed out, most quantum computers today are, at best, experimental machines with few qubits and high error rates.
That said, the threat cannot be completely ignored. Technology advances quickly, and the idea of a "quantum supercomputer" capable of breaking Bitcoin’s security in the not-so-distant future is not far-fetched. So, the fundamental question is: how will cryptocurrencies adapt? The answer lies in post-quantum cryptography, which is already being explored by experts. This includes transitioning to new algorithms that would be immune to quantum attacks, such as those based on lattices or other techniques that do not rely on the complexity of prime factorization or discrete logarithms, both of which are vulnerable to quantum computers.
On the other hand, adaptation won’t be simple. The transition to a new security system can be a painful process, and many older wallets could indeed become vulnerable. The update process may cause confusion and even pose risks of failures, with users losing access to their wallets if they don’t migrate in time or securely. This places a huge responsibility on the Bitcoin community to ensure that everyone can adapt without losing their funds.
And if we’re talking about resilience, Bitcoin has been impressive in evolving and adapting over the years, facing various threats and challenges such as forks, 51% attacks, and regulatory issues. Innovation and a strong community may be key to implementing measures that protect the network.
However, we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that "nothing will happen until then." It’s important to stay vigilant and start preparing now for a potential transition. While quantum computers are still in their early stages, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies must continue developing solutions to ensure that, when this problem becomes real, digital currencies can still operate securely and effectively.
So, is quantum computing a threat? Yes. When will it happen? Maybe not anytime soon, but it’s something the community needs to be aware of. And while the "final boss" of quantum computing is still far off, Bitcoin’s adaptation to it will be crucial for maintaining its security.
The problem with Monopoly has always been the BANKER and the banker’s friend. The banker’s friend always does well because they manage to get some coins without anyone knowing, while the banker, well, needs no introduction. They're the wolf in the henhouse, haha.
Hard work always deserves to be valued. I don’t know what your challenges are, but trust the process of chiseling your rough stone or your own 'INNER SELF'.
One of the ways hackers hack is by distributing "hacking manuals" on the Internet. All you have to do is click on a link and it could contain malicious code, or you can download any file and it could contain spyware. It is not wise to trust this type of solution.
Look, the EU changing the rules to ditch unanimity is a clear sign they’re done waiting for countries like Hungary to hold things up. Makes sense—they want to move fast with the war going on. But at the same time, this just highlights a big EU problem: how much say do member states really have if they can just be ignored when it’s inconvenient?
Hungary, as usual, is pushing back, and they’re not wrong about sovereignty. Brussels wants more control without dealing with opposition, and that’s causing friction. Orbán is controversial, but he represents a chunk of Europe that doesn’t want to blindly follow EU mandates.
In the end, the EU is at a crossroads: either become a faster, more centralized bloc at the cost of democracy or stay bogged down in internal disputes. They’ve clearly picked the first option, which might work for now, but could backfire in the long run. The EU already has cracks, and sidelining certain countries might just make them worse.
For the first time, the IMF is giving clear guidelines on how these digital currencies should be classified in global statistics, which could open doors for more official acceptance of Bitcoin and the crew.
On the positive side, it’s like a legitimacy stamp, you know? It’ll build more trust in cryptos, especially in countries still on the fence about how to handle them. Now that there’s official regulation, it might make the market safer, more transparent, and even help protect investors and consumers from scams and frauds.
But, on the flip side, there are some issues worth considering. Bitcoin is super volatile. So, how is it gonna fit into a financial system where stability is key? Imagine buying a car with Bitcoin, and then the next week the price of the coin drops like crazy. That’s gonna be tricky, right? Not to mention the pressure this could put on governments and banks to create rules to control it all, which kinda goes against the decentralization thing that cryptos are all about.
Oh, and let’s not forget the environmental issue. Bitcoin mining uses a crazy amount of energy, and as cryptos gain more traction, that’s only gonna go up. So, while the IMF’s move gives cryptos a little push to be more ‘official,’ it also opens up the debate about how we’ll balance innovation with sustainability.
It’s a big step toward cryptos becoming mainstream, but it also raises a bunch of questions about how this will actually impact the economy and the future of the financial market.
Man, 23andMe crashed hard, huh? From a $6 billion company in 2021 to bankruptcy in 2025… all because of a massive data breach. Classic case of "trust us with your DNA," and boom—your data is out there, who knows where.
What happened?
The thing is, this company literally runs on genetic data, so customer trust was everything. Then comes a data leak, lawsuits start piling up, and, of course, sales plummet. The result? Bankruptcy.
Why is this a big deal?
-
If a billion-dollar company can’t protect data, who can? – If a major player like this failed at cybersecurity, what about smaller companies?
-
Genetic data is like a password you can’t change – If your bank password gets leaked, you just reset it. But your DNA? You can’t exactly swap that out. Huge privacy issue.
-
This could mess up the entire industry – After this disaster, who’s going to rush to get a DNA test online? Other companies in the field will have to work extra hard to regain trust.
But wait… is there another side to this?
-
Maybe the problem wasn’t just the breach – 23andMe was already struggling to grow. Maybe the whole ancestry testing business just hit a ceiling.
-
The tech is still valuable – Despite the scandal, genetic research is still a game-changer, especially in healthcare. The problem isn’t the science—it’s how companies handle the data.
-
Consumers need to be more careful, too – At the end of the day, people need to think twice before handing over their personal data to just any company.
Bottom line: cybersecurity isn’t optional anymore, especially when it comes to data that defines you at the most fundamental level. Any company wanting to survive in this space better learn from this trainwreck.
The talk about Bitcoin scalability and whether the Lightning Network can handle the load is always a hot topic. Peter Todd has already done some math showing that, with current technology, Lightning can support hundreds of millions of users. But of course, not everyone agrees.
The main criticism is that Bitcoin might end up becoming a system only for the rich because Lightning, as efficient as it is, might not handle global demand. If that happens, people will end up relying on custodial solutions like banks and exchanges, bringing us back to the same old story of the traditional system: fractional reserve risks, centralized control, and the nightmare of losing access to your own funds.
Another tricky point is security. Everyone says the ideal is to hold your own keys, but in reality, that’s way harder than it sounds. Store the seed phrase? Where? In a bank? In the backyard? And what if the hardware device gets compromised? What if the M-of-N scheme fails? In the end, most people won’t be able to handle all that and will end up trusting third parties anyway.
Then comes the softfork debate. The people pushing for it believe the only way out is to increase the network’s capacity by changing Bitcoin’s structure. But that could also open up new security risks, and honestly, do we really need that right now? The "YAGNI" (You Ain't Gonna Need It) principle makes sense here: don’t mess with the code unless there’s no other way.
Bottom line, but far from a conclusion, Lightning Network can definitely support a lot of users, but will that keep Bitcoin decentralized the way we want? Or are we heading towards a model where only a few hold the majority’s funds? The best path might be to keep improving the tech gradually, without rushing to change everything at once. Let’s see how this story unfolds!
This whole thing is bizarre. Basically, a bunch of highly respected scientists and publications went crazy and pushed a narrative that now seems like pure propaganda. The so-called lab leak, which was initially dismissed as a "conspiracy theory," is looking more and more like a real possibility—and a lot of powerful people knew it from the start.
The craziest part? Two scientific papers screwed everything up. They basically convinced the entire world (politicians, the media, other scientists) that a lab leak was impossible. But now we know those studies were done by people with conflicts of interest and, even worse, they KNEW they were misleading everyone.
So the question is: why the hell did they do this? Fear of backlash? Protecting political or financial interests? Or was it just the classic arrogance of "I'm an expert, shut up and trust me"?
And let’s not even get started on how questioning this was labeled as "racist" or a "conspiracy theory" at the time. Like, how was it so absurd to think that a highly contagious virus might have come from the institute that studied... highly contagious viruses?
In the end, the government and the "experts" screwed up big time in a lot of ways: closing schools unnecessarily, vaccinating kids without enough evidence, messing up the mask strategy, and so on. Now, over time, a lot of what was called "misinformation" is turning out to be true.
Always be skeptical when someone says, "The science is settled" and tells you to shut up. Real science isn’t done through censorship.