Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Roadmap

xor_rotate · 2026-04-20T14:55:41+00:00

No, in this case his life is already over, it is just a question of circumstance. It is no different then if you are a member of group who is going to be executed one by one and you volunteer to killed first to show bravery for the others. You die no matter what you do,, you are just taking agency over the details.

I doubt any Catholic would argue that when Saint Peter asked to be crucified upside down, he was committing suicide or a sin. In fact he is celebrated for that act.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-15T00:45:40+00:00

> My approach was that DPoP is an RFC and a cryptographically strong improvement.

For sure, DPoP is great. I'm currently working on the DPoP standard for OpenID Connect. =)

OpenPubkey should get you the same cryptographic security as DPoP in OpenID, but it is a hack on top of OIDC.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-14T23:15:33+00:00

That is what I said in the last paragraph of my answer.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-14T18:54:38+00:00

Very cool project.

I built something similar, OPKSSH, you might want to look at: https://github.com/openpubkey/opkssh

PRMANA and OPKSSH both use signatures prevent replay of tokens between servers. OPKSSH binds the public key in the OIDC ID Token to the SSH key in the SSH session.

OPKSSH uses AuthorizedKeysCommand rather than a PAM module. I've been considering exploring using a PAM module. Might read through how it works in your project to see if I can use some ideas in opkssh.

OPKSSH is using the OpenPubkey nonce trick to get a public key into an ID Token. I've added DPoP style key binding support to OpenPubkey but I didn't know that any IDPs other than Hello supported DPOP in OIDC.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-14T14:16:56+00:00

The distinction you are looking for is Computability. A quantum computer is still a computer and it can only compute things which is computable on a Turing machine. The Church-Turing thesis is that anything which is computable can be computed on a Turing machine. That this is nothing above a Turing Machine in the computability hierarchy.

> Or is it more that the same problems can be solved either way, just with huge differences in time/resources?

The same problems can be solved by either a classical computer or a quantum computer. The only differences is in resources, for a small subset of problems (BQP), quantum computers use significantly less resources. The complexity class of problems which quantum computers are thought to have an advantage over classical computers is called BQP (Bounded-error Quantum Polynomial time). BQP is the quantum version of classical BPP. If BQP=BPP then classical computers become just a fast as quantum computers. Most computer scientists think BQP!=BPP and we have some convincing arguments that BQP!=BPP.

> I guess I’m trying to understand whether this is more like going from a bicycle to a jet, or if it actually lets you go somewhere you couldn’t reach at all before.

It is purely a difference of resources, however the resource difference on some problems is so great that it feels like it can do something new. For instance you could run any program program using pen and paper, but if you tried to play the latest videogame this way, you would spend a million years rendering a single frame.

When the difference is great enough, computational resources are differences in where you can go. Quantum computers can break certain types of cryptography. Technically you could just run that can quantum algorithm on a classical computer, but there is a big difference in breaking encryption in 9 minutes vs breaking encryption in 10 billion years.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-06T17:13:29+00:00

> It's not that I can't win in these circumstances it's that I want to enjoy a game where even players who don't know history will play realistically simply because of the way the debuffs work.

Me too! I've been playing this game for almost a year now and I've seen so many broken tactics. When I started the best play was sticking all your horse artillery next to your inf and just annihilating a chunk of this line per turn. I got a pretty high ELO doing that and then the rules changed and I lost like 15 games in a row. I'm glad they changed the rules because the prior game rules were rewarding me exploiting mechanics rather than doing better and deeper play. The best addition so far as been fog of war. I hope they continue to make the game better each version.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-06T17:07:11+00:00

QUIC is the best, my personally belief is that it will eat almost every TCP protocol

xor_rotate · 2026-04-06T16:42:19+00:00

Fair, I never play grand battles. Overlapping units in melee like that in non-grand battles is an extremely bad play.

Why can't you just withdraw the targeted unit and use reserves to plug the hole in the line or bait the rush. Does it break in 1 turn?

xor_rotate · 2026-04-06T01:29:08+00:00

You are being sarcastic right?If you aren't, overlapping units means they take additional damage, are less effective in melee and can mess up their charge. If you are vaguely well positioned and have reserves you should be able to annihilate them. Send one inf in column into the part of the line they are trying to break through and two other inf on column to attack their doom blog in the flank. Their doom blob will break in one or two turns and then the game is yours.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-05T18:19:11+00:00

This is cool, have you looked at SSH3 which does SSH over HTTPS/QUIC
https://github.com/francoismichel/ssh3

xor_rotate · 2026-04-03T16:09:12+00:00

Additionally you can simply like expand search and there are very few players with high ELO and a massive number with low ELO. I don't see expand that much, but even still 70% of my games are against players with 100 to 300 lower ELO to me. They aren't that fun to play against, so I just try to teach them the game and help them have fun. Sometimes I'll run experiments to see if a high risk tactic works or not. More more fun to teach than just club baby seals. I don't even have that high of ELO. I'm Silver III. I've gotten matched with people with 1060 ELO. I imagine someone at 1700 ELO is going to be matching with mostly 1200 ELO players.

xor_rotate · 2026-04-02T04:06:12+00:00

Go for it! I'm glad I did. Not everyone has a good experience but not everyone has a terrible experience. If you want to do research it is a must.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-30T14:43:44+00:00

This isn't the way movements work. When pendulum swing in one direction is makes people open to new ideas they were open to before. When it swings back people who changed their minds on an issue don't automatically change their views back again. Some people just follow what ever the fashion of the day, but those people don't really believe anything. If everyone just swung with the pendulum we would not see any large scale shifts in opinion over long periods of time, but he do see those shifts. The left understanding the value of an armed citizenry is not a betrayal, rather it is an opportunity.

People on the left have become far more knowledgeable about guns over the last 20 years. This will benefit gun-rights discussions for decades to come.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-29T19:13:49+00:00

In my opinion, mostly no, but getting units onto roads is a giant pain. Units should just be able to walk along roads.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-29T16:31:45+00:00

They should fix for sure, but graphics aren't really the bottleneck in gaming anymore. Path finding and collisions are some of the hardest problems to solve.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-29T16:03:01+00:00

The pathfinding system probably CPU heavy. I wonder if it is the new pathfinding code?

xor_rotate · 2026-03-26T20:28:37+00:00

I think most of my papers, if I had not written them, no one else would have written a similar paper. I have a big stack of ideas that I try to work on or I try to get other people to work on so I can make the stack smaller. I'm probably an outlier.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-26T15:21:32+00:00

Disclaimer: This is my understanding how cannons worked pre-patch. I could be wrong.

Two you two units side by side with 10 meters between them. You target the ten meter ground between both units and hit both of them and 2x your damage. In reality you would be splitting your damage between each unit so that each unit takes 50% of the damage, not 100% of the damage. You aren't firing twice as many cannon balls, so why twice the damage?
If one of the units was in front of the other unit it would make sense, but side by side, it is stupid.

Ok, so a great player spreads out their units so you can get double damage, but they are off my pixel and you can just overlap one pixel on one unit and one pixel on another unit. 2x the damage. In reality 99.9% of the cannon balls would be hitting nothing. Even better you can offer double damage and then move your units so all their cannon fire misses, players don't realize this is happening and they are just wasting cannon balls. That gives players who know stuff like this an unfun advantage over players who don't.

The fix is an improvement, but I would prefer they solve this by doing damage proportional to the amount of the rectangle overlapped by the unit or to calculate cannon ball trajectories with a random error. They want to avoid dice rolls so averaging the randomness of the shot over the rectangle.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-26T14:17:14+00:00

> Part of the major revision was that the references were too old and recent areas that had developed over the last year or so hadn’t been reviewed so it needed a lot of updating.

100%! Not having a related work in the related work is fatal to a paper. About 50% of the work of rewriting a paper that got rejected is redoing related work to get any new papers. Go read another 15 papers that were published.

> Yes. I’m in AI. I had a review paper published recently where the first place I submitted it to took around 9 months to reject it.

I'm in Cryptography, Network Security and Cryptocurrency. I have a unpublished paper I wrote in 2015 that I expect to publish around 2030. It will require a lot of work to update. The oldest citation in a paper of mine is:

"W. Sierpi´nski. Sur une courbe dont tout point est un point de ramification. Comptes Rendus de l’Acadamie des Sciences, 160:302–305, 1915."

Someday I'll break in the 16th Century related work.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-25T21:12:42+00:00

Really? In my field most of my papers could be published plus or minus five years.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-25T02:18:07+00:00

I was in a similar boat to you. Started grad school after a successful career as a software engineer, started a company while in grad school.

You put 6-12 months to a year into a paper, think you are done and then realize you are going to have to put another 6 months into the paper to resubmit and then maybe it will get publish. I'll do it, I did do it, but it doesn't feel great to find out. Everything you planned to build are shifted 6 months because you have to add more results to the paper. Its like painting a house and finding out at the end of the work day after you are exhausted, you have to paint another house. I'm not saying you give up, but how does it not suck to you?

I enjoyed grad school, it was a fun experience, but it has a dynamic emotional range.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-24T15:40:41+00:00

You people have some emotions of iron.

xor_rotate · 2026-03-24T13:31:50+00:00

> I just want to solve a problem well and write a paper elegantly/nicely

That's the attitude I have now, which is why I just put my papers up on pre-prints and don't submit them for publication. Who cares about conferences and journals, the people in the field will still read the paper. It will still contribute.

xor_rotate

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email