Clippy noticed that Bitcoin seems to make it easier for software agents to earn money, convince humans to do jobs for them, and optimize the universe in a paper-clip friendly direction.
If Clippy is right, is it a problem?
Singularity Institute visiting fellow Thomas McCabe is running GetBitcoin, a notable money handling service.
If you read the Wikipedia article, you should know that I didn’t create Bitcoin but only described a similar idea more than a decade ago. And my understanding is that the creator of Bitcoin, who goes by the name Satoshi Nakamoto, didn’t even read my article before reinventing the idea himself. He learned about it afterward and credited me in his paper. So my connection with the project is quite limited.
What does he think of of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general? (Still mining?)
Scott Aaronson recently published a technical paper on quantum money, unrelated to Bitcoin. Would implementing this scheme require keeping qubits stable for an indefinite timespan, for the money not to go poof?
Gwern wrote an article arguing that Bitcoin is an ugly protocol : Bitcoin is Worse is Better. What does gwern think today?
I actually finished that a month or two ago, so it reflects my current sentiments. No events have substantially changed my opinion, and some reinforce them—for example, I thought it was very stupid for anyone to engage in finalization on Silk Road (releasing your money from escrow to the vendor before receiving anything), and indeed, a big vendor recently scammed buyers out of something like a hundred thousand plus dollars worth of bitcoins by requiring finalization and then absconding.
As with quantum computing itself, storing quantum money would require low enough error rates that you could successfully apply quantum error-correction (if error rates are too high, you introduce more errors during error-correction than you can correct). Before you hit this point you can’t do the computations anyway, and after this point it is only a tiny bit harder to keep qubits around indefinitely. (Modern QKD works because you don’t have to do any computations on the qubits, in addition to not having to store them.)
If you read the Wikipedia article, you should know that I didn’t create Bitcoin but only described a similar idea more than a decade ago. And my understanding is that the creator of Bitcoin, who goes by the name Satoshi Nakamoto, didn’t even read my article before reinventing the idea himself. He learned about it afterward and credited me in his paper. So my connection with the project is quite limited.
Needless to say, this is what Wei Dai / Satoshi Nakamoto would say if they were the same person.
Clippy noticed that Bitcoin seems to make it easier for software agents to earn money, convince humans to do jobs for them, and optimize the universe in a paper-clip friendly direction.
If Clippy is right, is it a problem?
Singularity Institute visiting fellow Thomas McCabe is running GetBitcoin, a notable money handling service.
Does he have any insights to share?
Gwern wrote an article arguing that Bitcoin is an ugly protocol: Bitcoin is Worse is Better
What does gwern think today?
How should one extend or rework the protocol to make Bitcoin, or a successor more appealing?
Wei Dai is quoted in the original whitepaper. He writes:
What does he think of of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general? (Still mining?)
Scott Aaronson recently published a technical paper on quantum money, unrelated to Bitcoin. Would implementing this scheme require keeping qubits stable for an indefinite timespan, for the money not to go poof?
I actually finished that a month or two ago, so it reflects my current sentiments. No events have substantially changed my opinion, and some reinforce them—for example, I thought it was very stupid for anyone to engage in finalization on Silk Road (releasing your money from escrow to the vendor before receiving anything), and indeed, a big vendor recently scammed buyers out of something like a hundred thousand plus dollars worth of bitcoins by requiring finalization and then absconding.
Damn fine writing in that essay. Some of the only intelligent criticism I’ve seen of the protocol.
Thanks.
As with quantum computing itself, storing quantum money would require low enough error rates that you could successfully apply quantum error-correction (if error rates are too high, you introduce more errors during error-correction than you can correct). Before you hit this point you can’t do the computations anyway, and after this point it is only a tiny bit harder to keep qubits around indefinitely. (Modern QKD works because you don’t have to do any computations on the qubits, in addition to not having to store them.)
Needless to say, this is what Wei Dai / Satoshi Nakamoto would say if they were the same person.
Needless to say, this is what Will_Newsome / Satoshi Nakamoto would say if they were the same person.
(Sorry. Played Resistance for the first time yesterday evening.)
Needless to say,