Token Daily

3

2 3

2 2

5

9 3

7 2

Uldregirne 1 week ago

"Notably, Binance Pool is the only top-five pool to not yet support Taproot."

Binance may refrain from publicly signaling the upgrade, considering there are currently some money laundering court cases against them. Though I'm sure they will upgrade when the time comes.

2

jojothehodler redditor for 6 weeks 1 week ago

Yes majority is good news. That's a good update. I hope it lives long :)

4

soontobesilenced redditor for 3 months 1 week ago

majority isn't a meaningful threshold in bitcoin. this ain't no democracy.

1

Frogolocalypse 1 week ago

It does make a difference if there is an activation threshold to the consensus change proposal. It might even be possible to enact immediately after it is released if the miners all signal past a certain percentage which triggers the protocol change.

3

TopWoodpecker7267 Redditor for 2 months. 1 week ago

I see coindesk, I downvote.

0

NinjaDK Platinum | QC: CC 48, BTC 15 1 week ago

Great news for Bitcoin! I think we'll reach that 95%, there's not really any downsides to Taproot AFAIK.

5

Ant-n Platinum | QC: BCH 54 1 week ago

> Great news for Bitcoin! I think we’ll reach that 95%, there’s not really any downsides to Taproot AFAIK. What are the upside?

1

ProbPatrickWarburton Platinum | QC: XMR 57, CC 33 | MiningSubs 14 1 week ago

"privacy"

1

Ant-n Platinum | QC: BCH 54 6 days ago

> privacy How it is achieved?

1

ProbPatrickWarburton Platinum | QC: XMR 57, CC 33 | MiningSubs 14 6 days ago

Like any other second layer solution on a transparent ledger, it isn't actually achieved in a tangible way. It's good for the people "TrYnA gEt RiCh" off bitcoin, though...

2

ebaley Bronze 1 week ago

End of Monero.

0

jwinterm 1 week ago

See comment by Greg Maxwell: https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/dglapw/comment/f3eny6g Also, with respect to privacy on the bitcoin network, was just reading this earlier: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-October/018223.html The solution was more or less: use lightning.

3

infernalr00t Bronze 1 week ago

How do you implement privacy on a transparent protocol?. I'm talking about tcp/ip.

2

jwinterm 1 week ago

With the assistance of the Naval Research Laboratory?

0

ebaley Bronze 1 week ago

You'd still have to imagine the privacy is good enough.

0

jwinterm 1 week ago

Need to get to 95% though, only about 55% right now.

5

23 2

jpreddit200 Platinum | QC: CC 62 | NEO 8 Yesterday

Mod please delete

3

DenverNEO Yesterday

Whatever you do. Don’t contact this jamoke. There’s no way he will grow your BTC

3

00100101011010 Yesterday

Mods

5

Mcgillby Platinum | QC: CC 125, BTC 67 Yesterday

rip completeza

1

sudospectral 1 week ago

"liquid assets"

2

bananaEmpanada 1 week ago

liquid assets

Lol. As if bitcoin is liquid.

Even if you do manage to convert back to fiat without the exchange "getting hacked", the market is so thin that a sell of that size will cause the price to plummet substantially.

5

Heish_MIX warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

A 24hr trade volume of $50 billion, I don’t think the market is thin.

3

bananaEmpanada 1 week ago

1. Exchanges fake volume to make the books appear thicker than they are 1. Exchanges fake orders to make the books appear thicker than they are. Theres many examples of people doing a market sell only to find that most of the sell orders instantly disappear. That kind of behaviour is illegal in a healthy market, but not in the crypto wild West 1. Each exchange is isolated. The fragmented market makes it thinner (are you gonna sell across 100 different exchanges?). Some exchanges have been known to copy-paste other exchanges' order books into their own, with the plan that they will on-sell. This leads to double-counting.

3

kickass404 1 week ago

Protip: Moving a dime back and forth in your accounts doesn't make you a billion dollar business.

2

Objective-Answer 1 week ago

hey, it worked for Enron, what could go wrong?

2

Crypt0JAy 1 week ago

Everyone post their wallet addresses and hope he sends us something .

2

bitsteiner 1 week ago

Don't worry, there are enough coins for all billionaires. It is just a question of price.

1

SterlingBoardman redditor for 2 weeks 1 week ago

Bitcoin / Cryptos are NOT a safe haven against the mother of all Ponzi scheme's (Fiat Currencies)

(It's a damn mouse trap, bring your fiat & win some imaginary fiat, same fiat, but poof, the paper is GONE!)

Today the #s say one thing, tomorrow it will say something entirely different. (Read Casino!)

0

Sertan1 1 week ago

You don't win imaginary fiat, it's the conversion rate if you go to the market right now and take offers at so price. inevitably someone ends up with more fiat than would like to hold and it goes back to pump the price again. It is its own thing not an arm of the government.

1

drleeisinsurgery 1 week ago

And the second richest person in my household and I also have 10% btc assets.

Aiming to be the first!

1

bitcoiner2020 redditor for 3 weeks 1 week ago

Time to start learning Spanish, muchachos! /s

1

flclfanman 1 week ago

Watch out Carlos Slim!

This guy's going to the moon and not even your crappy NYT paper will stop him!

1

L0b0Mau 1 week ago

Soon he will be Mexicos richest man

3

Nossa30 1 week ago

Smart man.

1

yogibreakdance warning, I have the brain worms...and they're mult 1 week ago

Anddddd you butters still have no coins ? What are you ? Thieves of your own wallets ?

0

RedPill43 1 week ago

Why does every "smart" and "rich" guy always buy when the price is up? Do they sell low? Where can I find news saying rich people bought bitcoin at 3k?

14

giraffenmensch warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

They don't. When they signal and when they buy isn't necessarily related. It's common practice for such people to pump their holdings by announcing them, same thing happens in the stock market. Even richer and more famous people wouldn't usually do it themselves, they just feed the info to the right journalists who do their work for them spreading the "news". But sure, billionaires are sooo dumb. He's probably going to sell low and lose bigly. That's how he made his previous 12 billion dollars.

1

7bnbutts 1 week ago

https://twitter.com/ricardobsalinas/status/1328895703486255104?s=21 In this tweet he clarified that he started buying back in 2016 at $800 price, uses ButtScale. This was necessary, because a condescending senior butter immediately assumed him to be part of a "stampede" and intentionally mixed up "portfolio" with "net worth"...

5

madali0 1 week ago

What's interesting to me about that tweet is the related tweets at the bottom with the btc hashtag. Absolutely, all of them is exactly "you need to buy, it will go up!". Bitcoin is a new form of ponzi, it has the backing of global social network referrals. Welcome to web 3.0, where it's going to be all ponzi all the time!

4

jaumenuez warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

10 year ponzi ? aha, so everything is a ponzi: Amazon, Apple, Google, what not! You are a very smart guy figuring this up by yourself in 2020. Bitcoin provides much more than just a save heaven for your wealth. No company, no government, no bank can provide that. Not too late for you to start saving some satoshis Mr. Butthurt.

0

madali0 1 week ago

>10 year ponzi ? aha, so everything is a ponzi: Amazon, Apple, Google, what not Those are companies. They have revenue. >Bitcoin provides much more than just a save heaven for your wealth What's the much more part? Btw, the selling point you guys have isn't that it's a "save heaven" (safe haven?), it's that it increases your wealth substantially. If it was supposed to a safe heaven, the argument would be "buy btc so your wealth can remain stable!" But if that was the PR, no one would buy it.

15

jaumenuez warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

>>10 year ponzi ? aha, so everything is a ponzi: Amazon, Apple, Google, what not > > > >Those are companies. They have revenue. > So what? You buy shares. They provide something useful, just like the Bitcoin protocol. >>Bitcoin provides much more than just a save heaven for your wealth > >What's the much more part? A safe heaven is enough, but you can get privacy (aka Liberty). Some people still appreciate that. Read about cypherpunks, their efforts to create digital cash ( cash = anonymous payments) and why cypto is a thing. Do you even know what Bitcoin was created for? Who created it? Do you know what 'open source' means? Also, if it gets enough mainstream traction as a SoV, it will be accepted for payments (using other protocol layers on top of Bitcoin). > >Btw, the selling point you guys have isn't that it's a "save heaven" (safe haven?), it's that it increases your wealth substantially. If it was supposed to a safe heaven, the argument would be "buy btc so your wealth can remain stable!" But if that was the PR, no one would buy it. There is no "guys" here. Anyone can buy bitcoin for whatever reason they want, but Satoshi knew what he was doing: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" He also knew how to bootstrap and incentivise something like this. Bitcoin is a global revolution nobody can stop now. But don't worry, no one will force you to use it, you can stay at home looking through the window.

0

bitcoin1975 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

Lol. Yes they would. What do you think people bought gold for that gave it a multi trillion market cap? yeh...

0

madali0 1 week ago

There is very little risk with gold. People only go with btc due to it's high profit potential. Sp high risk, high reward. No one will be interested in high risk/low reward.

2

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Rich people and institutions don't buy the same way normies buy. Microstrat, for example, accumulated half a billion dollars worth of bitcoin without moving the price. They literally made tens of thousands of microtransactions to do it. https://steemit.com/hive-148441/@jrcornel/so-how-did-microstrategy-get-usd425-million-into-btc-without-moving-the-price Likewise, i read an article a few years back on how Grayscale accumulated bitcoin at 4k for a reserve bitcoin fund. They just didn't tell anyone about it.

1

madali0 1 week ago

That is such a weird angle. We are being told that prices are going up because microstrategy and greyscale and whatever are accumulating bitcoin, now the argument is that the institutional demand has no impact on btc price?

10

Ichabodblack 1 week ago

...or, you know, he swapped his personal BTC stash for that paid for by his investors. It's possible. Does the fact that even that article admits that even small movements of money swing the BTC price due to how thin the order books are?

4

RedPill43 1 week ago

No, I mean when bitcoin pumps, public figures keep coming out saying they wanna buy.

4

jmarrrk22 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

Please god, I hope this doesn't trigger Carlos Slim to fomo BTC to $20k+

If this pyramid scheme doesn't die like r/buttcoin predicted many times, and early adopter butters become the new wealthy elite, I will have to kill myself. What a nightmare.

0

thonbrocket warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

>I will have to kill myself. Yup. The only course compatible with honour. I foresee a great gathering of r\\buttcoiners in, say, Jonestown, Guyana, where our GrandLizard jStolfi addresses the congregation on the subject of million-dollar Butts in lugubrious tones; following which everybody quaffs laxative-laced kombucha, and they shit themselves to death in serried ranks. Except, of course, the GL himself, who demurs when the handmaids offer up the fatal goblet, and wanders off, Scrooge-like, to caress his secret crypto hoard. Smart fella, that Stolfi. All great tragedy to wives and sweethearts, of course. But comedy gold to any passing Butters.

0

jmarrrk22 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

lol. I'm surprised to see real comedy in a ~~hate~~ ~~propaganda~~ ~~cope~~ comedy subreddit.

0

Shitcoin84 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

Bitcoin = Nasdaq index 1) No connection to reality. 2) Trades irrationally. 3) Pumped by FED in the case of Nasdaq and pumped by Tether in the case of BTC. 4) Both are government indirectly/directly controlled. 5) Both fester extrem greed and rewards the worst type of people: psychos, megalomaniacs, thiefs, fraudsters, gamblers, and people in general with no moral compass. And thats why the probability that both continue going up is quite high, yet both are a danger to society as a whole. In order to keep Nasdaq levitating, FED needs to print more which destablizes the system, and the higher BTC goes, the more legitimacy is being given to blockchain tech that will be used for the new CBDC monetary system, which will result in financial serfdom for the majority of us.

0

jmarrrk22 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

When cash production ends and we enter the totalitarian CBDC dystopia, the only escape will be gold/silver coins and BTC/ETH/XMR. Otherwise 100% of your assets will be KYC'd and frozen with the press of a button if you commit thoughtcrime. Drugs will be legalized. The new war will be against the underground trading of gold/silver/BTC/ETH/XMR.

0

Shitcoin84 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

What you are missing is that BTC is part of the totalitarian CBDC dystopia. That was the whole fucking purpose of BTC. Yet all you "libertarian" imbiciles swallowed the bait so easily, and the only thing they needed to do was to pump the price of bitcoin up. Sheeps will forever stay sheeps.

2

jmarrrk22 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

nah, BTC is a giant gateway to freedom money like XMR

1

Shitcoin84 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

Only the feeble mind believes in Satoshi Pickahu. All the smart and open minded BTC investors i know of, aknowledge that its much more likely that it was created by the government.

0

chapelierfou 1 week ago

Trees grow to the sky! To the moon!!

4

cMVjwDjN2OwoJm0DYn86 warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Is there another ponzi in history which crashed and recovered 80-90% of its value multiple times over its lifespan, and was still running after more than 10 years? I don't understand this ponzi, how does it still exist?

5

donotdare 1 week ago

it exists because there's no central person who controls cryptocurrency. this sub is fine for skepticism but asking a ridiculous question like "how does bitcoin still exist?" is just dumb when everyone and their mother has backups of the software and code used to run the various crypto networks.

0

PaulMorphyForPrez warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Ponzi schemes have ongoing expenses(even if thats just paying out dividends to old investors) that cause them to constantly need more money and eventually collapse. Bitcoin may be overpriced, but its not a ponzi scheme.

0

JohnPaulJonesSoda 1 week ago

Isn't continuing to pay the miners an ongoing expense? And how else is the price supposed to continue to rise without people continuing to buy in at higher and higher prices?

5

PaulMorphyForPrez warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Holders don't have to pay miners though(aside from modest inflation I guess). And price doesn't need to rise constantly to avoid collapse. We have had bad years for Bitcoin and then good years. Thats the key aspect of a ponzi scheme. If people lose confidence in it, ponzis run out of money and quickly go to 0. Bitcoin is more comparable to gold(gold as a raw material is worth a tiny fraction of gold as a speculative asset).. Its highly speculative and depends on overall confidence, which leads to big price swings, but its not going to quickly go to 0.

0

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

Fixed income frauds collapse as soon as there are no new investors. Bitcoin is an equity fraud. It crashes slowly when there are no new investors. Miners are paid by new investors and the money lost to miners is money that will not be recovered. It's an ongoing cost that creates a negative sum game.

3

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

The scheme of John Law in the 18th century was similar to bitcoin. It was based on a new technology (paper money) plus a flawed theory of money plus of course a lot of investors. Every scheme like this sustains itself with new investors (it's a [pyramid scheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme#/media/File:Pyramid_scheme.svg)). Bitcoin is like that scheme except that it's global so it'll last a few more years.

7

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

> Every scheme like this sustains itself with new investors (it's a pyramid scheme). So let's follow the logic. When there are no new investors, bitcoin goes to zero? Why? EDIT: And, just doing some cursory reading on John Law's Missippi bubble, I can already see some differences. Law's bubble relied on giving people claims that were assumed to be backed by something valuable. Bitcoin owners, however, don't have a claim anything valuable outside of the bitcoin they hold. It's fundamentally no different than holding any commodity.

1

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

When there are no new investors then it stops being profitable for previous investors and they'll slowly give up on it. In the walk toward zero there can be many booms and crashes as there were when it walked in the opposite direction. It'll not be obvious that the "old era" has gone and the "new era" has arrived. You're looking at the fine print and that doesn't really matter. The reason why people buy bitcoin is because the price went up. The same was true for Law's money. Edit: And indeed, while most other schemes have an intellegible theory to support them, and once the theory is found to be false they collapse very rapidly, the same can't be said for bitcoin. As a result, there is no reason to expect any rapid collapse at all. I would say that it's similar to gold, except that it's completely worthless instead of partially worthless. It's like gold minus the industrial uses and/or the jewellery and all that. It's a concentrated of bad monetary economics. It's the gold standard minus gold the commodity. But as I've said the fine print and the intellectual justification don't really matter. What really rules the roost is the easy profit. When that goes away the pseudo intellectuals will go away on their own. It's like trumpism in a sense. After trumpism loses power then all the trumpist pseudo intellectuals stop being trumpist. They're all quacks.

11

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

> once the theory is found to be false they collapse very rapidly, the same can't be said for bitcoin. As a result, there is no reason to expect any rapid collapse at all. Bruh.... if the same can't be said for bitcoin, why expect **ANY** collapse ever??? > It's the gold standard minus gold the commodity. So bitcoin is actually worth the monetary premium gold is. Hasn't gold has had that monetary premium for thousands of years? If bitcoin has the same type of monetary premium that has given gold extra value for **thousands** of years **AND** by your own admission doesn't have a pyramid style intellectual scheme to collapse it's value..... I mean, what then, even is the point of this sub? Why bother waiting for bitcoin to collapse?

0

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

>Bruh.... if the same can't be said for bitcoin, why expect ANY collapse ever??? I've never said that I expect it to collapse. I expect its price to converge to zero because I know that people aren't willing to buy and hold pseudo assets with no value. They may be willing to do it if they expect to sell at an higher price, but I know this expectation is a temporary thing that can't be sustained indefinitely. >So bitcoin is actually worth the monetary premium gold is. Hasn't gold has had that monetary premium for thousands of years? The "monetary premium" has vanished and reappeared multiple times. It's not something that you can rely on. It comes and goes. Its entire existence is based on a misunderstanding of monetary economics. The misunderstanding comes and goes. >**AND** by your own admission doesn't have a pyramid style intellectual scheme to collapse it's value..... You're making it sound as if a pyramid scheme with no passable intellectual arguments is more solid than the others. It's the opposite. Not having any argument makes it less solid. But at same time, indeed, it makes a sudden crash less likely. The nature of the thing is the pyramid scheme. The talk doens't matter much. The talk matters only to the extent that it influences expected profits. But we know that the actual profits come from the other investors anyway.

6

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

> The "monetary premium" has vanished and reappeared multiple times. Vanished and reappeared over.... thousands of years. But you still expect bitcoins price to converge to zero.

0

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

Gold can afford to survive even without "monetary premium" but bitcoin can't. Bitcoin is based on a misunderstanding from start to finish. Gold may bubble up here and there due to the misunderstanding. For example in the 90s, that is, 30 years ago, there was no "monetary premium" for gold. The price was below the cost of production and some central banks even liquidated large amounts of gold. Still, gold has survived because it can't go to zero.

7

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

> Still, gold has survived because it can't go to zero. Well, at this point especially, neither can bitcoin! I'll repeat what I said elsewhere. As long as subjective and particular reasons for buying bitcoin exists bitcoin can never go to zero. Thus, at the very worst, bitcoin is just like gold. And hence, the entire point of waiting for bitcoin to go to zero (and hence, this sub) is worthless. And if you want to see how trivial "subjective and particular" reasons can be, just look at dogecoin. Dogecoin has a literal **infinite** inflation rate. If you buy doge, the value of your doge will **always be inflated away. It's literally worthless by design, because it's designed as a joke!** But people still buy it. So if Dogecoin still has value, what hope do you have for seeing Bitcoin valueless? Also, I would dispute the idea that just because the price of gold was below cost of production, that a monetary premium for gold did not exist. The monetary premium for gold is simply the amount of the price of gold that is determined by hoarding. After all, if people did not hoard gold, the price of gold would have been even lower relative to the cost of production.

1

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/jwd23d/second_richest_billionaire_in_mexico_announces/gcq8koe/

3

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Alright, so, two serious question. 1) What does "give up on it" even mean? I would guess it means "sell at a lower and lower price". But.... what happens when the number of sellers at a particular low price runs out? Remember, there's only a finite amount of bitcoin. 2) Doesn't this assume that bitcoin isn't going to be used by any "investors" for its intended purpose as a medium of exchange? Remember, you can buy stuff on paypal with it now.

1

madali0 1 week ago

>Remember, you can buy stuff on paypal with it now. You can't. You tell paypal i want 10 satoshis. They tell you based on marketprices it costs, say 10 dollars. You pay them usin fiat, and in your paypal profile, they say you have 10 satoshi (which is 10 usd). Now you want to pay someone in paypal. Paypal tells you, cool, they remove it from your profile, and pay the other person 10 usd fiat. At no point is the bitcoin in your btc wallet, at no point is blockchain used for transfer btc between the two parties. It's extremely annoying that we have heard that the reason btc is so revolutionary is blockchain and then everyone is excited about paypal for specifically not utilizing that at all. All paypal basically does is this: it links your fiat to global market rate of btc.

5

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

"Give up" means more and more people are no longer willing to hold it because they don't expect to make a profit or even to break even on it (you've to actually earn 10%/year to keep up with the stock market). The price doesn't matter, lower price encourages holding only if you expect it to bounce back. As these expectations are disappointed, it'll then crash again. It's a slow process and it's basically the opposite process of how it went up. You can't "use" money in any sense. It's an asset that brings benefits to society because it circulates. These benefits are not captured in the price. It doesn't become valuable because it circulates. Rather it circulates because it's valuable. People generally expect money to preserve its value, and hence, they're willing to sell stuff for money. In the case of bitcoin, there is no such expectation. In case of bitcoin the expectation is for easy profit. When these profits fail to materialize people lose interest. It's not money. Let's say it even more compactly: buying and selling it "as if it is money" doesn't make it money.

7

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Alright, I'm going to have to go to sleep after this, but one more response.... 1) OK, but I feel like this doesn't answer my question. What happens when sellers at a particular low price point simply don't show up? (Ex: at 500 dollars in 2030, not enough sellers are left for buyers to buy at under 500 dollars). 2) Your entire argument rests on the idea that the "previous investors" bought bitcoin **ONLY** to make a profit. But what if I want to buy and hold bitcoin for fun? What if I just want to buy ice cream with it, or use it to trade goods with my anarchist buddies? Now, if we can imagine additional reasons why people would buy bitcoin other than profit (ex: fun), perhaps we might imagine others. Perhaps I would want to send money overseas. Perhaps my local currency is failing and I want a more reliable way of trading goods. Ect. So as long as those reasons exist, simply saying "then it stops being profitable for previous investors and they'll slowly give up on it" is overly simplistic.

3

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

If sellers don't show up at 500 in 2030 and buyers do show up then price goes up. The problem for your argument is that you've to explain why buyers would show up at 500. Haven't they seen that it's a losing game? Haven't they lost enough money already? You're saying they're having fun and anarchism and all that. Well, in the end the economy is a biological system. Evolution slowly but surely filters out the losers. If you keep wasting money your girlfriend will tell you that she is not having much fun with you.

6

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

> Haven't they seen that it's a losing game? If people are so susceptible to what you call "misunderstanding of monetary economics" why would you expect all potential buyers to see that it is a losing game? I mean, hell, people play the lottery do they not? > Evolution slowly but surely filters out the losers. So having fun trading collectibles and participating in social organizations is losing? Look, my point is this. As long as subjective and particular reasons for buying bitcoin exists, simply saying "then it stops being profitable for previous investors and they'll slowly give up on it" is overly simplistic.

1

ConsistentLab5603 1 week ago

The misunderstanding of monetary economics doesn't matter much when the bitcoin (or the gold) price is going down and has been going down for several years. People want tangible results. > So having fun trading collectibles and participating in social organizations is losing? If your social organization takes money from X and gives to Y, at random, and it has a rather high cost to keep it up running, then, yes, it's a losing game. People won't have much fun with this. > I mean, hell, people play the lottery do they not? Yes basically it's a lottery ticket. The revenues for lotteries are going down over time as people learn that it's a waste of time.

5

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

> I don't understand this ponzi, how does it still exist? If you don't understand, perhaps you should learn. https://michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/

0

jmarrrk22 warning, I have the brain worms... 1 week ago

Sounds like he bought 50k+ BTC

What about muh transaction fees? Muh 5 TPS? Muh shopping mall?! Muh crimebux

Clearly these billionaires don't know what the fuck they're doing.

0

thehoesmaketheman 1 week ago

So if that's true all the billionaires who *didn't* buy it means it's stupid right? Checkmate, idiots reasoning.

7

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

So does every billionaire have to own some BTC for it to be smart?

0

thehoesmaketheman 1 week ago

I don't know I'm not a delusional religious grifting moron so I'm not familiar with the broken logic gymnastics you guys do. This guy is saying that 1 owning it makes it smart. I'm mocking him. You seem like a deluded greedy moron, why don't you tell me. There's 2100 billionaires. How many need to own it to make it 'smart'?

8

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

You were the one who brought up numbers, ie "all the billionaires who didn't buy". My response is that clearly the number of people who buy something doesn't matter. It's whether bitcoin is a sound thing to own that makes owning it a smart decision. And clearly, at least one person who is intelligent and industrious enough to become a billionaire has decided that it is. Not exactly a "delusional, religious, greedy, grifting moron".

0

aaj094 warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Dude, I had enough fun arguments with these folks last week and the best course is to leave them to their fate of remaining poor.

0

Ichabodblack 1 week ago

Bless you for LARPing success :)

2

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Oh I know. I've only encountered such thickness in coronavirus deniers and young earth creationists. But it's good to talk to "the weirdos". Even if they're totally wrong, they still provide an education on "the folly of man", ie, how irrational and foolish humans can be. I find that keeps me humble. Who knows, maybe on some other issue, I'm just like the people I criticize! And sometimes, the weirdos are even right! Or at least, they might provide an angle on an issue that you hadn't considered.

1

Ichabodblack 1 week ago

>Oh I know. I've only encountered such thickness in coronavirus deniers and young earth creationists. You left the conversation when you couldn't even quote the right person and then had the arrogance to try to claim you were right when you could see in the thread you'd quoted the wrong person. >But it's good to talk to "the weirdos". Even if they're totally wrong, they still provide an education on "the folly of man", ie, how irrational and foolish humans can be. I find that keeps me humble. Who knows, maybe on some other issue, I'm just like the people I criticize! You Bitcoin cultists are exactly like anti-vaxxers and young earth creationists

2

thehoesmaketheman 1 week ago

so anything a billionaire does is instantly right and smart? no. of course not. its beyond stupid. you cant see that because you are not very smart yourself. not to mention you are deluded by your greed and rat like grubbing behavior

4

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

> rat like grubbing behavior You must have a lot of experience coming up with new insults!

0

Ichabodblack 1 week ago

>And clearly, at least one person who is intelligent and industrious enough to become a billionaire has decided that it is. Not exactly a "delusional, religious, greedy, grifting moron". But they're outnumbered by the majority of intelligent and industrious billionaires who haven't invested

7

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

We don't know if said billionaires are informed enough to accurately judge bitcoins value proposition. Sure some of them are informed enough to judge bitcoin's worth.... but some of the informed billionaires also judge bitcoin worthy of big investments. So what this clearly shows is that the arguments for bitcoin have to be taken seriously. They could be wrong but clearly **someone** of real intelligence and wherewithal finds the arguments for bitcoin persuasive. Meanwhile, r/buttcoin is like > I'm not a delusional religious grifting moron so I'm not familiar with the broken logic gymnastics you guys do. Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously.

0

Ichabodblack 1 week ago

Your logic is incredibly flawed. You are using confirmation bias and ignoring data. You make an appeal to authority because some Billionaires have invested in Bitcoin. However many more haven't than have. Rather than weighing the balance and saying, well the majority of these people, who I have already made an appeal to authority for, aren't interested therefore on balance it's probably not a great investment, you instead claim it shows there is something there. >So what this clearly shows is that the arguments for bitcoin have to be taken seriously. No. Because the consensus amongst Billionaires is that its not worth investing in. You have cherry picked a few Billionaires with confirmation bias and claim they represent the entire group in terms of expertise. >They could be wrong but clearly someone of real intelligence and wherewithal finds the arguments for bitcoin persuasive. Who said Billionaires are all intelligent? There is nothing to show that becoming a Billionaire is solely dependent on intelligence. >Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously. You need to get out into the real world more if you believe Coiners are taken seriously...

5

Happy_Pizza_ warning, I am a moron 1 week ago

Hey, you're the one who brought up number of people when you said "all the billionaires who didn't buy". My response, "So does every billionaire have to own some BTC for it to be smart?" was to show how absurd **your** statement is. > Because the consensus amongst Billionaires is that its not worth investing in. If some billionaires believe bitcoin is worth investing in, then clearly there **isn't** a consensus. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the fact that a majority of billionaires don't own bitcoin is an indication of an **informed** consensus. Those billionaires likely didn't all look at bitcoin, examine the pros and cons, and **chose** not to invest. > There is nothing to show that becoming a Billionaire is solely dependent on intelligence. [So Jamie Dimon isn't intelligent?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/05/30/jp-morgan-bitcoins-biggest-enemy-suddenly-appears-to-be-going-all-in-on-crypto/?sh=5cc9e15423a6) So the second richest man in Mexico who runs all these companies isn't intelligent? Come on man, you are reaching for any argument.

1

madali0 1 week ago

>So the second richest man in Mexico who runs all these companies isn't intelligent? How about the richest man? I mean if the second richest man's investment strategy is important, the richest man should be even more important than, right? (It obviously doesn't work like that, but it just highlights how ridicolous the argument is). Anyway, that guy said he had 10% of his LIQUID portfolio in btc. Rich guys like him are generally not very liquid. Jeff bezos is worth 185 billion. Do you think he has 185 billion cash in the bank? We can be sure that almost none of it is liquid portfolio. Let's say he has 10 millon usd liquidity. And 10% of that would be 1 million, which would be a tiny fraction of his net worth.

1

Ichabodblack 1 week ago

>Hey, you're the one who brought up number of people when you said "all the billionaires who didn't buy". Actually I didn't. That was a different poster. >If some billionaires believe bitcoin is worth investing in, then clearly there isn't a consensus. Well done. However only one of use was asserting that their opinion could be used to make some definitive predictions about Bitcoins value. That person was you. >Furthermore, I highly doubt that the fact that a majority of billionaires don't own bitcoin is an indication of an informed consensus. Those billionaires likely didn't all look at bitcoin, examine the pros and cons, and chose not to invest. More confirmation bias. You seem particularly susceptible to it. There is no indication either way, so don't let your emotions shape your assumptions. >So Jamie Dimon isn't intelligent? So the second richest man in Mexico who runs all these companies isn't intelligent? Appeal to authority. Appeal to authority. I have no idea, I haven't had a conversation with either of these people and had an opportunity to interact with them day to day. Intelligence is not a single measurable entity. But I have met many highly intelligent people who were not very successful and a large number of very successful people that were dumb as shit. Drive is a much more usual trait in successful people than intelligence. >Come on man, you are reaching for any argument. You've done nothing except make baseless assertions and appeals to authority

2

PlanetEarthFirst 1 week ago

That's like $1.2B worth of BTC. Growing quickly, of course.

7

atrueretard 1 week ago

nah, his net worth is 11.8 billion USD. he invest 10% of his liquid assets, not total assets.  im guessing its more in the hundred million usd range, but its really unknown.

5

A_Rolling_Baneling 1 week ago

That assumes he has a billion in liquid assets. I really doubt that’s the case, but I guess that might depend on how liquid you consider some assets.

3

atrueretard 1 week ago

stocks are considered liquid assets, it would be normal for him to have a billion in stocks...the other 10 billion is real estate and in his businesses  also worth noting he is a CPA, accountants getting into Bitcoin is good sign

2

A_Rolling_Baneling 1 week ago

Not all stocks are liquid, especially for someone like him. Good point about him being a CPA. A billionaire mogul accountant investing significantly in Bitcoin is big news for mass adoption.

3

SnapshillBot 1 week ago

This is HUGE!

Snapshots:

Second richest billionaire in Mexic... - archive.org, archive.today*

I am just a simple bot, not a moderator of this subreddit | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

11

mimblezimble 1 week ago

another tweet decrying government-issued fiat as being “worth nothing”

Is this Mexican billionaire a member in this subreddit? What's his user handle? ;-)

9

Miladran 1 week ago

It's happening

12

4 4

1 2

1 3

4 8

25 13 2

EternityForest 1 week ago

This is so cool, but also I think the primary application is going to be making us need new devices that can hardware accelerate it, making even more DRM, moving more stuff to the cloud, etc.

Also more than likely Ethereum style stuff that runs every program on thousands of nodes, which will then be the next big thing integrated with every P2P app...

I'm sure there's going to be a lot of great uses, but also some really annoying ones.

2

JaceyLessThan3 1 week ago

/r/titlegore

3

Valmond 1 week ago

What a crap article.

We already do what's supposedly so great with this "crown jewel" (wtf).

1

mywan 1 week ago

No we haven't. Name one encryption protocol that allow you to run an encrypted program without first decrypting it? Name one encryption protocol that allow you to give a user certain pieces of information in an encrypted program but not others? Name one encryption protocol that allow you to let people run your program without also giving them access to the passwords and/or private keys and such that are hard coded in that program?

8

Valmond 5 days ago

Cheers, I did not read enough of that pile of crap article :-) and obviously if you want to run anything, it's impossible to do more than like obfuscate it. I'm not saying you can't hide things but then it's "just" a numbers game.

1

abduis 1 week ago

Ethereum is doing this. Baseline protocol allows for certain information to be available to certain users or to none. This protocol was pioneered by Ernst and young along with Microsoft and consensys + others. Their use case is for businesses to use public ethereum chain without letting customers see certain information while all of that information lives on-chain. For letting people use a program without seeing private keys, solved with smart contracts. The first question of not actually decrypting something to use it is not explicitly done. The closest thing I can think of is the use of zero knowledge proofs. But this is more done so that certain things can be done off chain to decrease computational requirements and increase throughput for certain tasks

1

mywan 1 week ago

Ethereum does what it does by separately wrapping sections of the chain with the owners keys. This is like splitting up each word in a message and putting those individual words in separate text files. Then encrypting each text file separately. Except it's sections of a chain rather than words in a text file. This is not at all what indistinguishability obfuscation does. >For letting people use a program without seeing private keys, solved with smart contracts. That's not a program that runs on your processor. It might execute a program under some specified conditions but the program that executes it is not even on the encrypted blockchain. The encrypted part, the blockchain, just uses miners to authorize the transaction initiated by an unencrypted program. All blockchain computing is done off chain and merely limits changes on the block chain to the owner. Calling the blockchain the program is like typing "Hello World!" into notepad.exe and then claiming the "Hello World!" text is the notepad.exe program. Ethereum does not allow you to write an Ethereum program, like Chrome.exe, that you can run on your computer while it is still encrypted. And then let some users access certain functions, settings, etc., but not others depending on what access you chose to give them. All while Chrome.exe was encrypted without ever decrypting it. Ethereum requires that the chain section you gain ownership of to essentially be decrypted and re-encrypted with your keys. What we are talking about is worlds apart. >The first question of not actually decrypting something to use it is not explicitly done. Of course not. The indistinguishability obfuscation paper was a brand new mathematical proof showing how it can be done. But not a single implementation has actually been done yet. Not one. But this paper gives people all the information they need to actually create an implementation. I guarantee that people are already working on an implementation. But you don't just go here's a widget idea and proof that it works and instantly "poof" here's the widget. That takes more work.

3

jasonbrownjourno 6 days ago

Thanks, even I could understand enough of that to get an 'idea' of what this promises.

1

Fiach_Dubh 1 week ago

Interesting

1

Geminii27 1 week ago

Time to make offline backups of what's been discovered so far before it mysteriously disappears...

13

twinned BS | Psychology | Romantic Relationships 1 week ago

Hi Jason_Protell, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

It has a sensationalized, editorialized, or biased headline and is therefore in violation of Submission Rule #4. Please read our headline rules and consider reposting with a more appropriate title.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to message the mods.

1

theepicdaniel 2 weeks ago

Interesting

2

AgeOfAlgorithms 2 weeks ago

Great read!

1

Nodeity59 2 weeks ago

Oh Fuck..!

1

nandrom 2 weeks ago

Ah yes, just like Time AI - sounds like snake oil to me. I read most of it and it's just garbage vague statements. If they're gonna publish an article on technical stuff they should try to take these complex ideas and make them understandable to non-math experts. Even for math experts, this reads like nonsense.

1

davidgro 2 weeks ago

So, from the sound of it, this would be usable for DRM which would be much more difficult or actually impossible to break.

I'm not enthusiastic about that.

2

woolmonkey 1 week ago

No doesn’t seem like it from this article. And DRM well always be ”breakable” because till we digitally send the media to our brain. We have to decode it to watch.

1

SheeEttin 2 weeks ago

Is there a slightly more technical article anywhere? I can't really understand what's going on from this oversimplification.

5

Y_Less 2 weeks ago

https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1003

1

ddlgdaddydom 2 weeks ago

And we'll all come back here in 3 months when these scientists die from strange but absolutely normal circumstances

3

NorridAU 2 weeks ago

/remind me in 90 days

1

moschles 2 weeks ago

This is really bad news for antivirus scanners and cleaners....

2

5c044 2 weeks ago

unhappy day for governments around the world who want to ban end to end encryption

7

HardKnoxville00 Tin 2 weeks ago

So we good then?

2

rattie_ok Silver | QC: XMR 148, BTC 18 | NANO 27 | TraderSub 2 weeks ago

While the protocol is far from ready to be deployed in real-world applications, (...)

If something isn't ready for real-world application yet, in 9 out of 10 cases it actually means the military of at least several nations is using that something in covert ops.

Bitcoin is a patchwork of tech which already existed and was used for various civilian purposes. Had Bitcoin included in its workings some really exotic tech not yet declassified for civilian use, Satoshi Nakamoto would've been suicided long time ago before any of its source code ever left his computer.

2

Teknikal_Domain 2 weeks ago

I Honestly

Have no clue what I just read, what this actually means, or what any real practical implementations are

And I can't tell if it's because this is too vague or I'm not familiar enough with the terminology

5

RedditUser241767 2 weeks ago

Mostly I think it means the ability to run code without the system's ability to see or modify what the code is doing, meaning code will never run in an unapproved way. That could make it hard for malicious viruses to work. Another use would be unbreakable DRM. You could publish a video game that cannot be cracked without spending a billion years of processing time. Other than putting a webcam in front of your TV for static content like movies, piracy would be completely impossible.

3

green_meklar 2 weeks ago

>Other than putting a webcam in front of your TV for static content like movies, piracy would be completely impossible. If the program can stream the video *output* to your TV, then it can stream the same output to a capture machine. The video game example is better because the game actually has to respond dynamically in order to work. However, this obfuscation is likely to come with a substantial performance cost, so as long as AAA games are designed to push the limits of hardware performance (for better graphics, bigger worlds, etc), it won't be feasible to use the obfuscation on them.

3

VorpalAuroch 2 weeks ago

From the paper:

In this work, we show how to construct indistinguishability obfuscation from subexponential hardness of four well-founded assumptions. We prove:

Theorem (Informal). Let τ ∈ (0,∞), δ ∈ (0, 1), ǫ ∈ (0, 1) be arbitrary constants. Assume sub-exponential security of the following assumptions, where λ is a security parameter, and the parameters ℓ, k, n below are large enough polynomials in λ:

the SXDH assumption on asymmetric bilinear groups of a prime order p = O(2^λ),

the LWE assumption over Z^p with subexponential modulus-to-noise ratio 2^k^ǫ , where k is the dimension of the LWE secret,

the LPN assumption over Z^p with polynomially many LPN samples and error rate 1/ℓδ, where ℓ is the dimension of the LPN secret,

the existence of a Boolean PRG in NC0 with stretch n^(1+τ),

Then, (subexponentially secure) indistinguishability obfuscation for all polynomial-size circuits exists.

Further, assuming only polynomial security of the aforementioned assumptions, there exists collusion resistant public-key functional encryption for all polynomial-size circuits.

Attempting to translate:

the SXDH assumption on asymmetric bilinear groups of a prime order p = O(2^λ),

SXDH = Symmetric External Diffie-Hellman assumption. This assumption is that there is some pair of cyclic groups G_1 and G_2, such that there is an efficiently computable bilinear map from G_1 X G_2 -> G_T while the 'easiest' variant of the Diffie-Hellman problem is intractable across both G_1 and G_2. The 'easiest' variant, called DDH is to, given a generator element g and the two values g^x and g^y, with x and y unknown, have a decision procedure which is better than chance at guessing the value of g^xy. (This entails the discrete logarithm problem being intractable, as well as the weaker CDH assumption; both other those are explicitly but redundantly called out in the definition of SXDH. One other variant of the DH problem also needs to be intractable, co-CDH. I'm pretty sure, though not certain, that the truth of co-CDH is also entailed by DDH.)

the LWE assumption over Z^p with subexponential modulus-to-noise ratio 2^k^ǫ , where k is the dimension of the LWE secret,

The LWE assumption is the assumption that the Learning With Errors problem is intractable. This is the problem of discerning the coefficients of a linear function f over a finite ring (Z^p , here), given a set of (x^1 ,...x^j , y) samples where y_i = f(x^1_i ... x^j_i )+σ_i where σ_i is a noise parameter whose values are 0 with high probability and follow a known noise distribution. In this case that distribution's total noise (averaged over all samples, I think?) is known to be less than p/((2^k )^ǫ ), ǫ being one of the arbitrary parameters from the non-inclusive unit interval.

Some other sources I looked at said that LWE specifically mandates Gaussian noise, but how that squares with "y_i = f(x^1_i ... x^j_i) with high probability" I don't understand.

the LPN assumption over Z^p with polynomially many LPN samples and error rate 1/ℓδ, where ℓ is the dimension of the LPN secret,

LPN = "Learning Parity with Noise", is a very similar problem to LWE. Here the range of f is restricted to a single bit, and the error rate is the fraction of samples whose output will be bit-flipped. (Bernoulli noise.)

the existence of a Boolean PRG in NC^0 with stretch n^(1+τ),

PRG=pseudorandom generator, NC^0 = the class of functions computable by constant-depth, bounded-fanin circuits. Stretch being n^(1+τ) means that the PRG generates output of length at least weakly exponential in the input e.g. if τ=0.01 100 bits of seed generates 104 bits of output sequence and 1000 bits of seed generates 1071 bits of output. τ can be arbitrarily small so long as it's positive, so this is requiring 'minimally exponential' stretch.

AFAICT the strongest known NC^0 PRGs have only linear stretch, so this assumption is by far the shakiest.

15

orangejake 2 weeks ago

There are even more recent papers which use "more standard" assumptions. In particular, [this paper](https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1024.pdf) builds iO from circular-secure LWE which remains secure in the presence of a certain leakage assumption. I remember when the paper you quoted came out, some people on twitter were saying that LPN assumption was the sketchiest, namely because LPN is nearly always investigated over F\_2, so switching from constant-modulus LPN -> subexponential modulus LPN is a rather large increase.

1

VorpalAuroch 2 weeks ago

AFAICT the linked article is referring to this paper specifically. In any case, I am not an expert, just trying to lay out the claim that was made in a more precise way so that those with some familiarity had something to judge on its merits rather than, as /u/bedrooms-ds said, an "article [which] is apparently itself an indistinguishability obfuscation".

1

_selfishPersonReborn 2 weeks ago

Would you say that this is more likely a proof that iO exists, or that NC^0 linear PRGs don't?

1

VorpalAuroch 2 weeks ago

I am not an expert; I literally learned all these terms except Diffie-Hellman and PRG today. (I think I've used NC in the past but not NC^0 .) So: absolutely no clue.

0

VorpalAuroch 2 weeks ago

> Then, (subexponentially secure) indistinguishability obfuscation for all polynomial-size circuits exists. indistinguishability obfuscation = For any two circuits of the same size (C_0, C_1), there is a probabilistic-polynomial-time transformation iO(C) such that iO(C_0) is "computationally indistinguishable" from iO(C_1). This term, in turn, means that no efficient algorithm can differentiate them with non-negligible probability. > Further, assuming only polynomial security of the aforementioned assumptions, there exists collusion-resistant public-key functional encryption for all polynomial-size circuits. This part seems straightforward enough.

2

vanderZwan 2 weeks ago

Thank you, that helps a bit. Mostly to confirm that this is so far outside of my realm of expertise that I should wait for the experts and trust their consensus, but that still makes this a valuable comment nevertheless.

11

wikipedia_text_bot 2 weeks ago

**[XDH assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XDH assumption)** The external Diffie–Hellman (XDH) assumption is a computational hardness assumption used in elliptic curve cryptography. The XDH assumption holds that there exist certain subgroups of elliptic curves which have useful properties for cryptography. Specifically, XDH implies the existence of two distinct groups ⟨ G 1 , G 2 ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle {\mathbb {G} }_{1},{\mathbb {G} }_{2}\rangle } with the following properties: The discrete logarithm problem (DLP), the computational Diffie–Hellman problem (CDH), and the computational co-Diffie–Hellman problem are all intractable in G 1 {\displaystyle {\mathbb {G} }_{1}} and G 2 {\displaystyle {\mathbb {G} }_{2}} . There exists an efficiently computable bilinear map (pairing) e ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) : G 1 × G 2 → G T {\displaystyle e(\cdot ,\cdot ):{\mathbb {G} }_{1}\times {\mathbb {G} }_{2}\rightarrow {\mathbb {G} }_{T}} . [About Me](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrn2mj/about_me/) - [Opt out](https://www.reddit.com/user/wikipedia_text_bot/comments/jrti43/opt_out_here/)

3

druxarh 2 weeks ago

Alright this is cool enough and all but I just can’t help from offering a contrasting voice for a claim made in the article. This whole thing about a ‘crowning jewel’ and ‘building crypto’ up from this notion...

...techniques can be new or cool without superseding everything magically. I think it’s a bit misleading to make this seem too universal. Of course it could be a big deal if it works out in practice, but the in practice is part of cryptography — and the whole of cryptography cannot be derived from obfuscation.

Hiding the implementation of any program does not always meet your security goals!

0

orangejake 2 weeks ago

> and the whole of cryptography cannot be derived from obfuscation. Proof? In particular, this is why people are interested in obfuscation. For private-key cryptography, essentially all known primitives are equivalent (so if you have an OWF, you can build a PRG, and a PRF, etc etc). For public-key cryptography, this is *far* from being the case (for example [this paper](https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/108.pdf) shows that public-key crypto has several different "continents" that are all similar). The exciting part of iO is that it would give a single primitive which implies everything else, for essentially all known cryptographic constructions. You're right that you wouldn't want to replace everything with it in practice, but it would be for public-key cryptography similar to the work of the 90's was (showing equivalence of everything) for private-key cryptography.

5

MrMaxPowers247 2 weeks ago

F your Right to repair

1

download13 2 weeks ago

Tomorrow's headline: " Google announces update for Widevine L3"

0

imnotownedimnotowned 2 weeks ago

Found one of their published pieces of research. I don’t understand this shit past at most page 15 lol. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.09317.pdf

3

blueeyedlion 2 weeks ago

Is real or no?

2

StellaAthena 2 weeks ago

No

1

ctm-8400 2 weeks ago

Didn't read it yet, but Probably not. Too click baity to be true.

0

Myriachan 2 weeks ago

Pretty much the main use of such a thing is uncrackable DRM systems, which we absolutely do not need in this world.

1

Natanael_L Trusted third party 2 weeks ago

Proper uncrackable DRM still needs something that protects it's state from manipulation and reversal, etc. You can always replay an execution of a program like this.

2

basiliskgf 2 weeks ago

wouldn't there still be the analog hole?

2

Myriachan 2 weeks ago

Depends on what it is exactly, but generally yes.

2

r00fus - @r00fus 2 weeks ago

Some of the use cases presented sound like they'd be perfect for DRM.

isaacimagine - @isaacimagine 2 weeks ago

The important point here is that iO, once fully realized, can be used to derive other cryptographic primitives. Fully homomorphic encryption has been doing the rounds for a while now, but it's too slow for practical use - I wonder if this will change that.

karmakaze - @karmakaze 2 weeks ago

I'm no crypto expert and trying to follow along, but can't make this leap:

> But iO is stronger than it sounds. For example, suppose you have a program that carries out some task related to your bank account, but the program contains your unencrypted password, making you vulnerable to anyone who gets hold of the program. Then — as long as there is some program out there that could perform the same task while keeping your password hidden — an indistinguishability obfuscator will be strong enough to successfully mask the password. After all, if it didn’t, then if you put both programs through the obfuscator, you’d be able to tell which obfuscated version came from your original program.

Why does existence of another mask the secret? Even if you couldn't distinguish the programs, couldn't you just try both possible secrets?

sillysaurusx - @sillysaurusx 2 weeks ago

Fully homomorphic encryption?!

Reads article

Yup! Gosh, I can't wait for it to become remotely practical.

It's been a few years -- wow, almost a decade -- but I remember a paper that claimed to prove that "no fully homomorphic program can be written such that the secret key was guarded in all cases," i.e. it's theoretically possible to trick a FHE program into giving up its own key, unless your program is basically trivial.

It was one of those papers that you run across, then never see again, and wistfully wish you'd saved a reference to. Tantalizing idea, if true, but probably not true.

EDIT: I just went back to finish the article, and they linked to it: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-44647-8_1 Welp. Looks like it was a good paper!

nottorp - @nottorp 2 weeks ago

This is confusing:

>For decades, computer scientists wondered if there is any secure, all-encompassing way to obfuscate computer programs, allowing people to use them without figuring out their internal secrets.

Obfuscate executable code? Somehow I don't think the original paper is talking about that.

They are?

But... how do you execute it then?

beatle_sauce - @beatle_sauce 2 weeks ago

Is this basically the learning parity with noise problem, but instead of a fixed size vector, the noisy output is generated in by a PRNG with a pre-determined secret seed? How can this be used for authentication or encryption?

gumby - @gumby 2 weeks ago

Doesn't seem like they deal with the 10^6 X slowdowns you encounter with HE. Seems inherent to all the obfuscating computation.

anonymousisme - @anonymousisme 2 weeks ago

I can see the malware/ransomware business really wanting this. It would make it impossible to circumvent or decrypt their warez.

kemonocode - @kemonocode 2 weeks ago

@dang, it may be good to de-editorialize the title of this article. Best to simply say that indistinguishability obfuscation has been achieved.

RcouF1uZ4gsC - @RcouF1uZ4gsC 2 weeks ago

> Then — as long as there is some program out there that could perform the same task while keeping your password hidden — an indistinguishability obfuscator will be strong enough to successfully mask the password.

I wonder if this will be the Achilles heel. If there were a way to perform a task without needing a secret, you would not be using homomorphic encryption. You could just do regular computation since there is no secret. However, if the only way to perform the computation is with the secret, then Indistinguishability Obsfuscation won't help you. To me it seems that iO is useful only for computations that didn't need homomorphic encryption in the first place, because they already had a way to do the computation without the secret.

mabbo - @mabbo 2 weeks ago

Nit: Hiding what the neck you're talking about doesn't make for better journalism.

If you're going to spend 9 paragraphs talking about the controversy of whether such a thing is possible or not, dedicate at least 1 sentence at the start to explain it. Otherwise it's just confusing because as a reader, I have no idea why I should care or what's even worth caring about here.

Recommendation to anyone who hasn't read the article yet: start with the part called "The Crown Jewel".

some_furry - @some_furry 2 weeks ago

> For decades, computer scientists wondered if there is any secure, all-encompassing way to obfuscate computer programs, allowing people to use them without figuring out their internal secrets.

As someone who works in cryptography, this isn't "The Crown Jewel" of Cryptography.

Cryptography to me is about helping queer people live their best life even in countries where they're hated.

Cryptography to me is about providing assurance that the software you're running was produced by the people you thought produced it, and that the built binary is reproducible from the source code, which technical people can also inspect to assert the absence of backdoors.

Obfuscation and copy-protection are non-goals for me. Fully homomorphic encryption has uses in machine learning and cloud services, but I find them at odds with the goals I care about.

AdmiralAsshat - @AdmiralAsshat 2 weeks ago

Just in time for the DoJ and the EU to tell them to intentionally cripple it for law enforcement purposes.

Show all comments on Hackernews

3 3

5 1 7

MrRGnome 2 weeks ago

Surprised to hear such a coherent and informed argument out of fidelity. I want looking for something to complain about and came up empty. Good on them.

3

DajZabrij 2 weeks ago

I hereby fact-approve this message.

1

oldskoolr 2 weeks ago

Good find, enjoyed them, especially the energy argument.

Have a lot of "climate activists" friends who shit on Bitcoin for that reason.

8

fgbnnetdfvb 2 weeks ago

is "energy arguement" is still a thing? I thought they are extinct and are just a meme just like flat earthers etc

9

l0rb 2 weeks ago

It is still a thing because it is a valid concern that should be addressed.

1

thebawller 2 weeks ago

Id bet if you removed all the banks and their buildings and heat and air and lights and computers atms etc the difference wouldn't be as much as people think

3

smoothID redditor for 3 months 2 weeks ago

Banks do not have to constantly add more branches. Bitcoin MUST add more hashrate. The only reason someone doesn't have 51% hashrate today is because they can't physically get that much hardware at once. If miners don't keep constantly adding equipment eventually there will be a point where 51% worth of hardware will become relatively inexpensive to manufacture and launch.

0

Bitcoin_to_da_Moon 2 weeks ago

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/ that might help us in the long run. and 45% is already renewable

2

thebawller 2 weeks ago

That's pretty much irrelevant to what my point was. Hash rate increase is not 1:1 power increase.

2

smoothID redditor for 3 months 2 weeks ago

This is pretty much missing my point entirely. It's not about electricity usage, it's about it having necessarily to grow forever, whereas banks don't need to add more buildings.

0

thebawller 2 weeks ago

No. But ok

1

AutoModerator 2 weeks ago

Bitcoin(BTC) Basic Info: Website - r/Bitcoin - Abstract - History - Exchanges - Wallets

Biases(Updated July, 2019): Arguments For & Arguments Against | CryptoWikis: Policy - Contribute

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

AutoModerator 2 weeks ago

Hello, u/dannydorrito. If this submission was flaired inaccurately, click here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

4 2

25 6

GregVazy 2 weeks ago

What assets can I buy through paypal now? Only bitcoin? What about eos? I only recently started trading these assets when ownr started supporting it. But I think that eos is quite promising.

1

esisenore i lose money on shitcoins 2 weeks ago

Is it cheaper than coinbase? If so, ill never use coinbase again.

1

milos123456789 Tin 2 weeks ago

Sell the news guys

1

Harucifer Bronze 2 weeks ago

If I had a btc for everytime some news about "paypal and crypto" was shared I'd be Satoshi Nakamoto.

2

jansenqueen Tin 2 weeks ago

crypto adoption

1

Clash_My_Clans Tin 2 weeks ago

Paypal be joining the big corporations to buy lots of BTC.Great for bringing BTC and crypto to the masses even though i think its only greed in their part that they are milking this bull.....To the moon or bust

1

ElStrider Tin 2 weeks ago

Do they really own any crypto or you just bet on price like derivatives? If they don't buy any of it, the impact will be minimal.

1

ImbeddedElite Tin 2 weeks ago

People are talking about adoption as if this is anywhere close. This is the stock market part of bitcoin. That’s it. And once the initial PayPal users see that, you’re going to see a massive drop off. Worse, those people probably won’t come back to crypto because they’ll feel that’s all it is.

1

CheekyFifaCunt_7 2 weeks ago

Bullish af, just wait for the fomo to come!!

1

Osemka8 To the moon! 2 weeks ago

FOMO soon!

5

windows_intel64 Tin 2 weeks ago

Soon in the news « Paypal used to launder cryptocurrency ». Told you so....😂

1

smooke-it-ange Hodling Sh!t Coins 4 Life 2 weeks ago

gif

2

Sawyer86uk Platinum | QC: CC 211 2 weeks ago

Here we go folks! Our dreams will be made!!!!

2

betstef Tin 2 weeks ago

hm this fomo could not be caused only by paypall

1

GundamNewType Tin 2 weeks ago

PayyyyyConnect!!!!!

1

FatterAsteroid Tin 2 weeks ago

Wish they allowed to/from transfers though, instead of just buy/sell

1

Osemka8 To the moon! 2 weeks ago

I'm counting on this as a top signal. CNBC also reporting about Bitcoin price.

5

bitcoinkang Tin 2 weeks ago

pomp it bois

2

cdb9990 Tin 2 weeks ago

Don’t put all of your moon hopes and dreams on PayPal guys. Get real.

2

KidInOldManBody 2 weeks ago

It's just another box ticked + more legitimising and decentralization

2

jacksonfire13 Tin 2 weeks ago

I bought a bit of ETH and BTC on PayPal just to try it out. If they do move forward with POS transactions perhaps my purchasing power has doubled

1

Pussy_Prince Tin 2 weeks ago

Does anyone educated/familiar in the crypto field think there will be a decent sized dip from whale sell-offs once the next round of stimulus drops maybe in February-March? Going up 6,400 in a months time seems wild. Long term, I know BTC will hold its value but I’m curious if anyone else anticipates a future sell off in early 2021

1

holykamina Bronze 2 weeks ago

To the moon we go..

On a serious note, this is quite good for the crypto market in general. More folks would be able to buy and sell and get some exposure to the industry as a whole. Hopefully this pushes for crypto adoption and its use becomes more mainstream.

1

Tofan_ Tin 2 weeks ago

This just goes against the basic premises of why crypto currency was created in the first place. To make private, secure and seamless transactions without the bureaucracy of the normal financial institution framework.

I don't care if more people like crypto or not, this is an absolutely horrible move from a fundamental viewpoint.

Edit: Google does not own PayPal, I am unsure why my brain thought that. None the less, PayPal has taken an aggressive approach to merchant categories and even banned them because of industry. Thank you Poster for correcting me.

2

b0urner Platinum | QC: BTC 72, CC 15 2 weeks ago

Google doesn't own PayPal.

3

Tofan_ Tin 2 weeks ago

Fixed. Zero clue why I even thought that. Maybe I somehow put eBay to PayPal and then google. Either way I fixed it, hit opinion remains the same that PayPal is the opposite of what crypto should be.

1

SwapzoneIO Gold | QC: BTC 32, CC 16 2 weeks ago

Would be great if they allow withdrawal of Crypto!

1

aartif 2 weeks ago

I want those good old days back where every alt was also mooning with BTC.

1

3 2

9 2

mqrasi 2 weeks ago

Folks are unleashing their displeasure by down voting this post ... LOL

2

aminok Platinum | BTC 1321, ETH 1101, CC 422 | TraderSubs 2 weeks ago

That's left-wing establishment shills for you. Always FUDing about any technology that holds the potential to enable people to interact without paying fees at their tollgates.

Every one of these corrupt clowns is a Democrat.

0

The_RabitSlayer 2 weeks ago

The only reason they are against it according to the article is because they believe the legislature has more important business it should be addressing currently. Like the economic crisis going on due to COVID. Crap title.

1

aminok 2 weeks ago

This is the regulator (the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) doing this, not the legislature. These legislators are wasting their time attacking this regulator instead of focusing on more important things. And I strongly suspect that they're attacking crypto because crypto reduces the power of Big Gov types over the private sector. The private sector is hurting bad from the lockdowns, and to try to obstruct a measure to give the private sector more financial tools is inexcusable. So you misread the article.

1

The_RabitSlayer 2 weeks ago

Its not the overall legislature, sure. However; the reasoning is still the same, priorities under current circumstances.

1

aminok 2 weeks ago

The OCC is not part of the legislature. The Members of Congress diverting their attention from COVID, to disrupting financial innovation and private sector initiatives, *ARE* part of the legislature. The criticism you levied against the OCC applies 100% to these left-wing Members of Congress.

1

W944 2 weeks ago

OCC should laugh and tear that letter Pelosi style.

1

lj26ft Platinum | QC: XRP 76, CC 73 2 weeks ago

What stupidity, their critique is so off the mark it's like they have no idea what crypto even is or you know could do to benefit Americans during pandemic. Would be a whole lot easier for people to get stimulus money with it and it's not covered in viruses and handled during a pandemic.

2

ChillinsVillain Tin 2 weeks ago

That’s some next level hypocrisy.

Members of Congress taking the time to bloviate about someone else’s priorities during COVID is fucking laughable. Last I checked, they were the ones holding up the stimulus because of the election.

Also, wouldn’t investing in fin tech and crypto be beneficial in a pandemic? Talib is just a professional crybaby at this point. She offers nothing but gripes and virtue signaling.

8

madfires Strapped for moon & cash 2 weeks ago

There are just old people ruling the new world. It needs a change

3

scrapmoneybenny Tin 2 weeks ago

Don't worry, it's coming. :)

2

scoobysi Platinum | QC: CC 141 2 weeks ago

Retards

1

iAmSaurabhWani Tin | EOS 5 2 weeks ago

🤔

1

AutoModerator 2 weeks ago

Hello, u/HashMoose. If this submission was flaired inaccurately, click here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

6 2

Agitated-Rub-9937 2 weeks ago

intel really cant catch a break can they

1

asdfkjlhdasjklfhaasd 2 weeks ago

While PLATYPUS attacks Intel processors, the researchers said that onboard energy meters in competing chips can likely also be abused to carry out similar attacks. The interface in modern AMD CPUs, for instance, measures power at the individual core level. What’s more, for AMD Rome CPUs running on Linux kernel version 5.8 and above, it required no privileges for access. An update to the Xen virtual machine on Tuesday now requires privileges to access RAPL on both Intel and AMD CPUs.

8

ConcreteState 2 weeks ago

Good on them for recognizing this applying to general advanced power monitoring. For a long time AMD has escaped scrutiny because of being so much smaller and absent from the server room.

2

VACWavePorn 2 weeks ago

Zen 2 or Zen 3?

1

asdfkjlhdasjklfhaasd 2 weeks ago

That's kind of missing the point here. Any cpu that allows for precise power measurements will be affected. The only way to mitigate this kind of attack, is to do what Intel did with their microcode update, which is to return power measurements based off of a model rather than the exact power measurement.

2

mcoombes314 2 weeks ago

EPYC Rome is Zen 2. Zen 3 for servers will be EPYC Milan.

2

pastari 2 weeks ago

We exploit the unprivileged access to the Intel RAPL interface exposing the processor's power consumption to infer data and extract cryptographic keys.

I'd hate to be a cpu designer. Researchers are getting really good with side channel attacks. Fucking sneeze and someone might use it to infer data about your crypto keys.

29

darkmagic133t 2 weeks ago

Holy then i need to get zen 3. These security are out of control and many people will br saying its fine will require physical access . time for data center to dump Xeon

0

alyxms 8750H -130mv | GTX 1080 2 weeks ago

Your entire post history in r/intel is to shit on intel. Seriously, just go somewhere else.

1

asdfkjlhdasjklfhaasd 2 weeks ago

> While PLATYPUS attacks Intel processors, the researchers said that onboard energy meters in competing chips can likely also be abused to carry out similar attacks. The interface in modern AMD CPUs, for instance, measures power at the individual core level. What’s more, for AMD Rome CPUs running on Linux kernel version 5.8 and above, it required no privileges for access. An update to the Xen virtual machine on Tuesday now requires privileges to access RAPL on both Intel and AMD CPUs.

1

KBAC99 2 weeks ago

AMD’s SEV isn’t any better than SGX. It’s a really hard problem to solve for a very niche audience. The only real-world use case I’ve seen for SGX is Signal’s password recovery protocol.

2

jorgp2 2 weeks ago

Do you even know what any of this is? Can you even read it?

3

discwars 2 weeks ago

For those wondering, this also affects the AMD Zen platform.

EDIT: I meant the vulnerability which is exploited. Not SGX. I guess the original statement was open to interpretation.

10

asdfkjlhdasjklfhaasd 2 weeks ago

Here's the relevant quote from the article for anyone looking for it: > While PLATYPUS attacks Intel processors, the researchers said that onboard energy meters in competing chips can likely also be abused to carry out similar attacks. The interface in modern AMD CPUs, for instance, measures power at the individual core level. What’s more, for AMD Rome CPUs running on Linux kernel version 5.8 and above, it required no privileges for access. An update to the Xen virtual machine on Tuesday now requires privileges to access RAPL on both Intel and AMD CPUs.

9

Photogurt 2 weeks ago

AMD doesn't have SGX support.

6

farnoy 2 weeks ago

https://platypusattack.com/

8

2 2

7 2

4 2

17 5

stevenflamming redditor for 3 months 1 week ago

Probably they find bitcoin to be more profitable and better than gold.

1

Alexmoore01 redditor for 3 months 2 weeks ago

I’m doing this because this was exactly how I saw recommendation from a friend and I decided to give it a short now my $700 I invested has turn to $10000 within one week. Thanks sir @Huthcryptocurrency

1

c12022 2 weeks ago

Strong sell signal

1

keivan123 2 weeks ago

The herd is coming

1

elitefishy85 3 weeks ago

Is this u.today site legit? Do we have another source?

1

Jabbs95 3 weeks ago

Time to sell

1

UnavailablePod 3 weeks ago

JP [manipulated gold prices] (https://fortune.com/2020/09/30/spoofing-jp-morgan-cases-manipulation/) and they'll do the same with btc.

1

SkepticalDreams 3 weeks ago

I recently sold 2 gold watches on Ebay to convert the funds to BTC. Ebay was my best bet to get fair value, as local shops will always offer a lot less. It took about 2 weeks to sell the first watch and 3+ to sell the second. Then I had to wait 21 days AFTER delivery for PayPal to release my funds. Thank God that I didn't need the money right away. Let's not talk about the 13% I paid in fees to Ebay and PayPal.

I'll still hold some metals but I prefer BTC because it's as liquid as cash and scarcer than any precious metal. IMHO.

2

bitcoin_asap redditor for 3 months 3 weeks ago

Watches aren’t liquid. Not that bullion is either but it’s slightly more liquid.

2

jcoinner 3 weeks ago

Sometimes they are... ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJTiATTuj1k

1

SkepticalDreams 3 weeks ago

You're right. And I have some "re-balancing" to do.

3

futrcryptomillionair 3 weeks ago

I'm a Gold Bug who jointed the bitcoin party in 2016. I own gold etf's among other precious metal assets.
GLD up 27% YTD SLV up 42$ YTD Bitcoin up approx 114% I'm ok owning all 3 (Bitcoin, Gold, Silver). I don't understand why it has to be one or the other.

40

HydraGene 2 weeks ago

Because imagine what the price would be if everyone moved their wealth from assets like gold into Bitcoin. I hope now you'll understand. ;)

1

bitusher 2 weeks ago

you can invest in gold ... it just doesn't make much sense to invest in paper gold that is highly fractional and manipulated. own the gold outright and control it physically or don't at all. same with bitcoin ... control the private keys or don't bother. This is the distinction between registered value and bearer assets

1

futrcryptomillionair 2 weeks ago

I own physical gold, silver, gold and silver etf's and mining companies. I've been doing it almost 20 years. I'm only in bitcoin because it attracted my attention when it was around the gold price (2016-2017). People were calling it digital gold. I think it makes sense to make money any way you can but I do agree that it's best to have physical gold and control the private keys with bitcoin.

1

krom1985 2 weeks ago

It doesn't, and you're quite right. There's tards on both sides of the argument, while the smart kids sit well spread in the middle... :-)

1

Vigilias 3 weeks ago

So, the physical gold is your private key and if you don't hold it, you don't own it.

3

3rdeyeperception redditor for 3 months 3 weeks ago

I have considered getting into gold, but have no idea what gold etf is. Is that different than buying actual gold? I've considered buying it, for tangibility, but all I see are shady looking shops and random businesses that I feel a bit hesitant purchasing from.

2

futrcryptomillionair 2 weeks ago

> I've You can buy it online. There are places where you can buy and also they will buy at back from you if you need to sell it. Gold etf's would be IAU or GLD, silver would be SLV.

2

JerusalemAngel redditor for 3 months 3 weeks ago

Who cares what the coke runners JPMORGAN says, their currency is cocaine

6

sunbro43va 3 weeks ago

BTC gold and silver here too. Its pretty exciting

4

bitcoin_asap redditor for 3 months 3 weeks ago

Same

7

SwapzoneIO 3 weeks ago

The FOMO is here...

5

CoarseLogic redditor for 3 months 3 weeks ago

lol so they are ditching their manupiluated gold/silver precious metals prices for something almost guaranteed to rise in price... they found their lower risk ark.

3

SuperJew113 3 weeks ago

I own both...glad Im heavy on bitcoin and not gold

1

Sun_Of_a_Beach_ 3 weeks ago

Who needs 2 kidneys anyway.

5

Primander 3 weeks ago

JP Morgan investing in Bitcoin is equivalent to the Pope investing in Science

16

BullRun03 3 weeks ago

They're not really investing. They're salesmen.

6

Primander 3 weeks ago

No they are middle men, both of them

5

BullRun03 3 weeks ago

Yeah but seeing this article and others like it in context. JP Morgan are talking about Bitcoin because they now have Bitcoin services to sell. They're doing sales. This is marketing.

4

Primander 3 weeks ago

My point entirely, it is as ludicrous as the catholic church promoting gnosticism. They are erroding their own relevance by doing so.

2

SPCEMember593 redditor for 5 weeks 3 weeks ago

This is Bitcoin FOMO 2020. This time its going to be bigger. Once Paypal blessedly blessed the coin the 50+ investors are looking at Grayscale. Wallets too hard.

4

A1_Power redditor for 7 weeks 3 weeks ago

Somebody send this to Peter Schiff.

7

BTC_Forever 3 weeks ago

FOMO
I have many years in Bitcoinlandia and all the time I see "news" like this with banksters "in love" with Bitcoin, that smells really bad, they are cooking something.

So you should prepare your bags to BTFD (buy the fucking dip), it's going to be really fun this time...

23

fillingstationsushi redditor for 3 months 3 weeks ago

Can’t be that many years

1

ZeusFinder 3 weeks ago

BTFD!! And HODL long term!

2

BTC_Forever 3 weeks ago

[We will never forget, The Great Bitcoin Crash of 2018 :)](https://www.bitchute.com/video/K8pAACDlirGM/)

9

atrueretard 3 weeks ago

V shaped recovery for Bitcoin

39

hamspamblamtram redditor for 6 weeks 3 weeks ago

Hockey stick shaped. (exponential)

6

mach5mach 3 weeks ago

Sounds more lopsided. Like a check mark shaped recovery. Lol.

28

ramblerandgambler 3 weeks ago

The Nike model

5

distorter1 2 weeks ago

Just FOMO

5

Miladran 3 weeks ago

✓

27

2 3

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

© 2020 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

© 2020 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily