Username: Lauda
Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

Evidence

Post 1:

Quote from: Lauda on April 16, 2015, 12:30:55 PM

Your English levels are under those of a 5th grader. Consider taking a course, because you complicate things and usually make no sense.
I never said that SHA256 for a normal computer wasn't SHA128 for a quantum one. You didn't explain it because it can't be explained well i.e. what you said effectively makes no sense. A quantum computer can't beat SHA 256 (i.e. SHA 128). Actually if SHA gets broken the problem will be on a much larger scale where Bitcoin will be irrelevant (unless globally adopted). A lot of things use SHA, for example banks.

What I'm trying to say is:
For SHA256, it effectively becomes SHA128 to a Quantum computer. Now the question remains, can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256?
With out current technology and for the near future, we still can't build a real Quantum computer that can even begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160204084145/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026125.0

Quote from: AzN1337c0d3r on May 01, 2012, 01:13:26 AM

Shor's Algorithm applies to prime factorization, which SHA256 doesn't use.
What you're looking for to crack SHA256 is Grover's Algorithm. Basically under classical models of computation the optimal way to find a matching hash is to simply search through the entire space yielding O(n). Under Quantum Computing the optimal time is O(n^0.5), which means effectively you have halved the key-length.
For SHA256, it effectively becomes SHA128 to a Quantum computer. Now the question remains, can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256?
With our current technology and for the foreseeable future, we still cannot build a Quantum computer that can yet begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it in a time within our lifespan. Thus SHA256 is considered "secure enough" for now.

http://web.archive.org/web/20190105172604/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78693.0

Post 2:

Quote from: Lauda on April 16, 2015, 06:10:49 PM

I see no information about 128 bit keys being broken. Any information found on stackexchange has no guarantee to be correct. It confirms what I said. SHA can't be reversed; it has to be brute forced.
It clearly indicated that quantum computers are more powerful than the computers of today, which is logical. There is no information on there internet about this. You're talking out of a hat.
Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster to bruteforce than 256 bit. This doesn't mean that it is vulnerable when used.
It's obvious that people are commenting without proper knowledge in quantum related technology. The computers are not nowhere near ready to do any complicated jobs.
The main challenge in a Qcomputer is to make sure that the qubits are entangled (if you're familiar with Schrödinger’s cat you will know what I'm talking about; look that up). The computer must stay in this state (for the cat - it can't be simultaneously dead or alive) long enough to perform calculations and get results. The ones that we have can keep the state for miliseconds or maybe a couple of seconds. That's not long enough to do something useful. To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits. Existing quantum computers operate with 14 qubits at maximum.
I have not forgotten about D-wave though. The company D-Wave claims that it has produced a 512 qubit Qcomputer. That is not a real quantum computer because it uses quantum annealing effect and can't demonstrate full properties of one. It is basically set to do a few specific tasks and represents no danger to encryption.
To summarize: You're wrong. Existing implementations have not shown that they can beat 128bit encryption. They aren't even close. That's the current situation. I'm not saying that in 5 years we won't have better technology. We might operate with 1400 qubits or be stuck at 140. Nobody really knows.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160204084306/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026125.40

Quote from: https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/quantum-computers-and-the-end-of-security/2852/

Quantum computers don’t reside on the desktop of every other teenage hacker wishing to eavesdrop on his classmates’ Facebook sessions for good reason. Creation of a full-scale quantum computer involves many engineering challenges that some specialists consider to be impossible to accomplish.
The main challenge is making sure qubits are entangled, because each quantum system tends to collapse into a classical state, lacking valuable undetermined properties. We can’t avoid mentioning the long-suffering Schrödinger’s cat here, which eventually can’t stay both dead and alive simultaneously – a quantum computer, however, must maintain this miraculous state for a long enough time to perform calculation and measure results. Modern prototypes can keep this state for milliseconds, and in some cases, a couple of seconds. The task becomes more and more complicated when the qubit count rises too. To break cryptosystems, computers must have 500-2000 qubits (depending on the algorithm and key length), but existing quantum computers operate with 14 qubits at maximum.
That is why today’s quantum computers are not usable for breaking your SSL certificate, but the situation may change in 5 years.
Against this background, Canadian company D-Wave brassily claims that it produces 512-qubit quantum computers. Moreover, these devices are available for sale. Many experts say that the D-Wave computer is not “real,” because it utilizes a quantum annealing effect and can’t demonstrate full properties of a quantum computer.

http://web.archive.org/web/20190507194853/https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/quantum-computers-and-the-end-of-security/2852/

Post 3:

Quote from: Lauda on August 21, 2014, 11:58:27 AM

Exactly how is spreading FUD related to retardation?
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) = is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.
At least he is not spreading any FUD about Bitcoin. The altcoins matter no less. How about you take a look at OP? Those 2 threads in Bitcoin Discussion truly amazed me. Roll Eyes

http://web.archive.org/web/20160225063655/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=729053.140

Quote from: https://www.ideateinc.com/blog/2013/08/fear-uncertainty-doubt-in-buying

People say all is fair in business - win at all costs. One strategy some competitors use is to confuse the buying/selling process through infusing fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the buying/selling decision.
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear. (Wikipedia).

https://web.archive.org/web/20200520044610/https://www.ideateinc.com/blog/2013/08/fear-uncertainty-doubt-in-buying

Post 4:

Quote from: Lauda on May 10, 2015, 04:54:16 PM

Well this is actually an advanced view of the matter. This is what I expect from people who aren't from Bit-X and DaDice. You've written this very nicely. It is making them reject reasoning and critical thinking.
Religions such as Christianity are absurd. This is an objective opinion. Just think about it. How would it be if you had never heard of any religion till you were grown up and actually though for yourself? If we take Christianity for an example; you believe in an invisible man who allegedly lived over 2000 years ago. He was killed by religious zealost and then he magically raised from the dead just after three days. In addition to that, they believe in other invisible being such as angels and demons. Meanwhile, another invisible Spirit (the Holy Spirit) is constantly at work behind the scenes around the earth, keeping the whole thing straight and intervening whenever he can. The words 'whenever he can' have been specifically used because since he exists why should he save the little children from abuse and rape? Roll Eyes

http://web.archive.org/web/20160202021047/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.40

Quote from: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2015/02/06/a-conservative-christian-finally-admits-his-faith-makes-no-sense/

From an outside observer’s standpoint, Christianity is kind of absurd. Think about it. We believe in an invisible man who lived over 2,000 years ago in a series of backwater towns in the Middle East, was killed by some religious zealots, and then was magically raised from the dead three days later, after which he floated up into the sky and disappeared, thus becoming the invisible man we now believe in and pin all our hopes to. Oh, and on top of that, we believe in other invisible beings: angels and demons — who are all around us, helping and influencing us. Meanwhile, another invisible Spirit (the Holy Spirit) is constantly at work behind the scenes around the earth, keeping the whole thing straight and intervening whenever He can. When put that way, even I think it sounds crazy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200518082744/https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2015/02/06/a-conservative-christian-finally-admits-his-faith-makes-no-sense/

Post 5:

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2015, 05:15:35 PM

Is this supposed to be a real discussion or some troll thread? You can't really find scientific proof for something like this to not to exist. If there is no proof that it exists then it should be assumed that it does not.
What one can do is explain how the Bible and whole religion is messed. As an example take praying.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. What will happen when we pray? Nothing.
I'm not exactly sure from which part this is but I know that it exists "Ask and it will be given to you". If we all ask for cancer to be cured it definitely will. Roll Eyes

http://web.archive.org/web/20160205222449/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035211.0

Quote from: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/why-wont-god-heal-amputees.70716/page-32

What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way: Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Will anything happen? No. And the fact that nothing happens proves to us that God is imaginary. Here's why: Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. The fact that those promises are untrue tells us that God is imaginary.

http://web.archive.org/web/20181017072746/https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/why-wont-god-heal-amputees.70716/page-32

Post 6:

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2015, 06:06:57 PM

This was not easy to understand for someone who's not native to English. People believe in something because they need to, hence hope exists. This doesn't affect it being true or not.
We used to think something(X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160205222449/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1035211.0

Quote from: https://the-orbit.net/greta/2008/09/15/the-ten-main-reasons-i-dont-believe-in-god/

Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural or religious one? The number of times humankind has said,
“We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it’s actually caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul”?

https://web.archive.org/web/20190331065516/https://the-orbit.net/greta/2008/09/15/the-ten-main-reasons-i-dont-believe-in-god/

bitcoinchan

Posts

Merits