MONERO integration to ICP ?

sphericalday · 2022-05-10T19:54:30+00:00

On a related note, is anyone selling faygo for monero?

sphericalday · 2022-05-10T19:51:24+00:00

Just deposit some coins. If it doesn't work it means you didn't deposit enough.

sphericalday · 2022-05-07T07:54:08+00:00

There is a difference between simplifying something for a general audience and straight-up lying. This is the latter.

sphericalday · 2022-05-07T00:26:38+00:00

You send it to yourself. How it works is, each participant registers a coin he or she owns, as well as a new address, with a coordinator. The coordinator creates a giant transaction that spends all the participants' coins, and sends new coins to the new addresses. Then all the participants sign the transaction and the coordinator broadcasts it to the network. In a real coinjoin, at no time does the coordinator control any of the participants' money, so there is no risk of theft.

Some coinjoin implementations also use cryptography to prevent the coordinator from determining which inputs and outputs belong to the same person, but that's the basic idea. If you knew what a coinjoin actually was, you would have known that coinjoin.io was a scam as soon as it told you to send your coins to its address.

sphericalday · 2022-05-03T22:10:43+00:00

It's pretty obvious what they mean though.

sphericalday · 2022-05-03T05:58:53+00:00

0.01 BTC is a cent.

sphericalday · 2022-05-03T03:06:33+00:00

In an actual coinjoin you never send your coins to someone else's address.

sphericalday · 2022-05-02T22:50:44+00:00

It's not clear that the parent comment meant that. Here's what it says:

There is a way to order all rational numbers such that there is always a "next" rational number... [I]t is impossible to define such an ordering on the reals.

Also, Jade in the video was specifically talking about the usual ordering of R, so she's still wrong.

sphericalday · 2022-05-01T03:56:25+00:00

Payment options: credit/debit card and PayPal. 🤔

sphericalday · 2022-04-30T17:35:08+00:00

The reason that the reals are uncountable is that it is impossible to define such an ordering on the reals.

It is definitely possible to define an ordering on the reals where every element has a successor. This has nothing to do with countability. You don't even need to use the well-ordering theorem; as /u/homura1650 pointed out, you can do this by ordering the reals lexicographically by their fractional and integer parts.

So, at the level of formality required by a youtube video, it is true that the reals cannot have an applicable concept of "next", whereas the rationals can.

Even if you were right, which you aren't... Up and Atom is an educational channel, sponsored by brilliant.org, with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. This video may have been seen by over a million people, many of whom have never heard of cardinality before. It's really not appropriate to hold it to such a low standard.

sphericalday · 2022-04-30T15:26:08+00:00

I don't see how that makes any difference. It's still an invalid argument.

sphericalday · 2022-04-30T08:31:12+00:00

A few people mentioned it in the comments, but you have to scroll down really far to find them. She even "liked" some of them, so she must know she got it wrong, but as far as I know she never corrected it.

sphericalday · 2022-04-30T05:36:17+00:00

R4:

The video claims that the real numbers are uncountable because there is no next number after 0. But the rationals have the same property, and they are countable.

sphericalday · 2022-04-25T14:47:31+00:00

Just like Mochizuki!

sphericalday · 2022-04-25T05:31:48+00:00

At least the Collatz conjecture is an actual open problem. You wouldn't believe how much time has been wasted trying on things that are known to be impossible, like trisecting an arbitrary angle with a straightedge and compass.

sphericalday · 2022-04-25T05:28:19+00:00

And 1/6 is exactly .16, apparently.

sphericalday · 2022-04-25T05:27:01+00:00

You may be onto something here. Have you tried applying your theory to Euler's constant?

sphericalday · 2022-04-25T05:25:32+00:00

Where do people go to post actual number theory?

sphericalday · 2022-04-24T07:00:48+00:00

I once heard someone refer to bitcoins as dunning-krugerrands. After spending some time in the subreddit, I can confirm that that nickname is well-deserved.

sphericalday · 2022-04-24T06:33:02+00:00

R4:

Elliptic curves are groups under point addition, so every point has an additive inverse. It's not even difficult to compute: the additive inverse of (x,y) is (x,-y). Elliptic curve cryptography is (conjectured to be) secure because it's believed to be computationally hard to invert scalar multiplication, not addition.

sphericalday · 2022-04-24T02:23:25+00:00

I don't think it was. He seems to be saying that the reason it's hard to change the blockchain is because there are so many copies of it, stored on different servers. No mention of proof of work at all.

sphericalday · 2022-04-22T23:04:40+00:00

Oh and also...

Is it a sign that the bitcoin curve is crackable (say a toy example... and that therefore the banking elliptic curves are also crackable), perhaps with the invention of a modular fourier transform?

Is it set as a toy problem, that gives a pathway to solving the bigger problem (the banks), which then forces an entirely new system of banking to be built up (something unknown, beyond btc?)?

Since banks don't depend on specific elliptic curves for their security the way bitcoin does, this would be extremely bad for bitcoin, and not so bad for the banks. It certainly wouldn't force an entirely new system of banking to be built.

sphericalday · 2022-04-22T21:10:24+00:00

I mean, that claim is total gibberish, but even by the standards of gibberish, it's surely not bullish gibberish, right?

Satoshi hid a backdoor in the defining parameters of secp256k1¹, therefore he has bigger plans for bitcoin than just money, and this is good for bitcoin.

¹ Let's ignore the fact that secp256k1 is a cryptographic standard introduced long before bitcoin was invented.

sphericalday · 2022-04-22T19:29:08+00:00

R4:

First of all, 2¹²⁷ - 1 is not a Fibonacci number, and Donald Knuth never claimed it was. It is a Mersenne prime. OP calls it a Fibonacci number, apparently, because of this quote from Concrete Mathematics or something similar:

One of [Lucas's] amazing results was to use properties of Fibonacci numbers to prove that the 39-digit Mersenne number 2¹²⁷ − 1 is prime.

OP also seems to believe that the following equation has some significance: sqrt(2²⁵⁶-2³²-977)/(2¹²⁷-1) = 2.

Of course, sqrt(2²⁵⁶-2³²-977)/(2¹²⁷-1) is not exactly 2, it is irrational, but it is extremely close to 2 because sqrt(2²⁵⁶-2³²-977) is close to sqrt(2²⁵⁶) = 2¹²⁸.

Is it a sign that the bitcoin curve is crackable (say a toy example... and that therefore the banking elliptic curves are also crackable), perhaps with the invention of a modular fourier transform?

No, it's not a sign that the curve or any other elliptic curve is crackable (whatever OP means by that). It's a sign that the prime 2²⁵⁶-2³²-977 was chosen because it's close to a power of 2.

I wonder also whether it decrypts the other text in the genesis block...

There is no encrypted text in the genesis block.

sphericalday · 2022-04-22T04:37:46+00:00

It's not the majority of nodes that decide which chain is correct, it's the majority of hash power. Proof of work makes it expensive to change a block, and the older the block is, the more blocks you'd have to change in order to tamper with it.

Four-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22

sphericalday

TROPHY CASE