pull down to refresh
It's good to talk to people who aren't bitcoiners.
I've been thinking about doing a series of normie AMAs where we get a normie to come on SN and everybody can ask them questions.
In The Once and Future King when Merlin turns the young Arthur into an ant, and he visits a colony preparing for war against another, this is the 1984-ish broadcast he hears:
- We are more numerous than they are, therefore we have a right to their mash.
- They are more numerous than we are, therefore they are wickedly trying to steal our mash.
- We are a mighty race and have a natural right to subjugate their puny one.
- They are a mighty race and are unnaturally trying to subjugate our inoffensive one.
- We must attack them in self-defence.
- They are attacking us by defending themselves.
- If we do not attack them today, they will attack us tomorrow.
- In any case we are not attacking them at all. We are offering them incalculable benefits.
I think I have heard every one of these in the political discourse lately.
or you can check out tether fun unbelievable details
I was just about to post about this.
I spent WAY to much time trying to understand Binohash (#1442276), but luckily people smarter than me were thinking about it to.
QSB (Quantum Safe Bitcoin) builds on Binohash (Linus, 2026), which uses a HORS-like one-time signature scheme embedded in Bitcoin Script. Binohash achieves transaction integrity through a proof-of-work puzzle based on signature sizes (OP_SIZE). However, this puzzle relies on the assumption that the smallest known ECDSAr-value cannot be improved — a quantum adversary running Shor's algorithm could compute the discrete logarithm ofr = 1, breaking the puzzle entirely.
From what I understood of Binohash, it relies on a quirk of how legacy script works in Bitcoin where a signature gets included in a script, but must be stripped out in order to validate the script (I probably have this a little wrong, but it's something like this). The result is that you can use this functionality to trick Bitcoin script into introspection. I'm still fuzzy on this and I doubt I could actually explain it well.
Anyhow, this new idea, Quantum Safe Bitcoin, uses some of the technique in Binohash to do something different:
QSB replaces this with a hash-to-signature puzzle: the script hashes a transaction-bound public key via OP_RIPEMD160 and interprets the 20-byte output as a DER-encoded ECDSA signature. A random 20-byte string satisfies the DER structural constraints with probability ~2^-46 — providing the proof-of-work target. Since this puzzle depends only on the pre-image resistance of RIPEMD-160 (not on any elliptic curve assumption), it is fully resistant to Shor's algorithm.So my grug brained explanation is that this lets you treat a hash as a valid Bitcoin signature.
Of course, supertestnet has a pretty good response too:
Cost of stamps is going up again (#1204522):
Can you give me a sense of what kind of compute I need to have in order to be able to do this? Can I run it on my old Pixel 4 mobile device? Or do I need to have a mac mini or a nuc?
Ah, shit. my stupid fat fingers. I changed it in my template when daylight savings happened and messed it up then.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before (eg how do agents get their stack). I'll be curious to see how this develops.
This checks out for people I know (the less favorable opinion of Israel part). However, among the conservatives I know, it doesn't seem to affect how they feel about republican candidates. There is a lot of excuse making.
This from Lola Leetz is interesting:
"Terrorist financing" is the one major concern that will push CLARITY Act DeFi discussions on KYC/AML over the edge. And the biggest terrorist there is, according to the US, is the very country now demanding payment in BTC – explicitly to bypass sanctions and confiscation.
If you KYC every endpoint, BTC can be confiscated just as well as any other asset on earth: through the threat of force and violence. Ensuring freedom of transaction in the US (and arguably anywhere else) just became a hell of a lot harder.
On Satoshi losing keys:
Seems unlikely that a person careful enough to not leak their identity would be uncareful enough to lose their keys.
On living like a leisurely billionaire:
Given the "I've moved on to other things" email, seems like Satoshi didn't make the decision to leave in an instant. I'd figure it wouldn't have been that hard for Satoshi to mine or buy coins that weren't obviously linked to Satoshi.