Avatar
imnuso
bef724f6f1f6cb54930c23aaa23f639b8bab67d12d4f37c53b48e8892930f78c
main() { printf(„hello, world“); }

💯 IPR is a scam in general

Bitcoin price.

Nostr usage.

Hope.

Legacy Media Developing Full Trump Psychosis. Every article: TRUMP.

JFC, if these people hate him so much, why not refrain from making him the only topic on planet earth!

If you think getting things done is hard, try not doing anything at all. #wuwei

Agreed.

It's hard to discard a way of thinking that's 99% true, I guess. However, discrediting this model just means you don't like any kind of model in general. Doesn't get more fundamental than that imo.

It boils down to, "Bro, what if bitcoin stops behaving the way it has for the last 15 years?"

Yeah that’s called uncertainty. Live with it. lol

LMAO

nostr:note14dw8x0qj3enkpek200dedcsu8ld2l6h8za28ykr9dhkqgh5s30lqgsr537

Everyone at their own pace I guess lol

Fair enough, but it's just painful to read. On the other hand, it's nice because it makes adoption a little more predictable. A little more time to stack is appreciated. 😅

Time for a haiku:

One might indeed say

A #Bitcoin at100k

Is not far away

Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

The robustness of a cryptographic protocol is based on knowing what the algorithm does, making it public and being tested, like a peer review but in real life.

The more times a cryptographic protocol has been tried to be attacked and failed, the more valid it is to be used in production.

Right now there are accusations that the NSA and NIST are hiding the development of new post-quantum cryptographic protocols.

"Daniel Bernstein at the University of Illinois Chicago says that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is deliberately obscuring the level of involvement the US National Security Agency (NSA) has in developing new encryption standards for “post-quantum cryptography” (PQC). He also believes that NIST has made errors – either accidental or deliberate – in calculations describing the security of the new standards. NIST denies the claims."

“NIST isn’t following procedures designed to stop NSA from weakening PQC,” says Bernstein. “People choosing cryptographic standards should be transparently and verifiably following clear public rules so that we don’t need to worry about their motivations. NIST promised transparency and then claimed it had shown all its work, but that claim simply isn’t true.”

The key here is that NIST will approve them for use in industry, industry will accept them because oh my god, the quantum age has arrived, and they will discard secure algorithms for insecure and poorly tested algorithms, a perfect strategy.

Quantum computing is currently a fallacy just like fusion energy, it is just a public money grabber.

On the other hand, it was recently discovered in the snowden papers that Cavium, which was then one of the main manufacturers of cryptographic coprocessors for VPN devices, had a backdoor introduced by the NSA in its chips, these chips were used for years by most manufacturers such as CISCO.

And some still recommend hardware wallets with secure elements that are closed source 😂.

Robust cryptography can only and only be opensource, you understand? from the beginning to the end.

Good take. Some things only work if they're general and open.

nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j has talked a lot about the role of a large enough anonymity set for some privacy tools to work properly.

I think this is a similar effect. From that point of view, there was no alternative to opening Tor to the public. Makes perfect sense.

Btw, using hardware wallets instead of standard hardware increases risk for the same reason: it marks you as part of a relevant and smaller subset.

PSA: Don't become so fiat poor that you can't afford to charter the boat you need to have an accident with.

"Bitcoin won't last, but blockchain technology on the other hand..." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣