linhares

Epstein

But nothing from nvidia, correct?

what makes you say something like this?

Which language/tools were they using? Serious question. I highly doubt your statement.

double-spend is now a feature, it's called rbf.

Nice of you to completely change the subject; google "ignoratio elenchi" for your self-improvement.

it's OSS...

to presume that in 2008 someone would be doing this "with the intention of having it fail" is a little far-fetched, isn't it?

Very very unlikely (if you ask me), generally a contender is unable to even see radically new technologies after they're up-and-coming. That they would design it, design it properly, and launch without fanfarre is extremely unlikely to me.

you are two or three years out of the loop, buddy

this is not cracking, the guy has brainwallets and told all the clues to get into to them.

Well you have to consider that:

* CBs are monetizing enormously; and if they stop the stock market crashes; they are also promising inflation;

* the Libor conspiracy might bring down one TBTF in London

* Bankia and Santander are under stress and might fail

* There's a full-blown currency war going on with competitive devaluations

* People are placing billions of dollars betting that the Japanese bonds & yen will collapse

* there are reasons Germany is repatriating their gold

I could go on, but bitcoin is oblivious to all that; in some ways it is less risky than the int'l banking system.

Finally, just as an example, the Fed is printing $800,000 new usds per each new bitcoin created. I'm not saying that bitcoin is going to be that valuable, of course, but if you look at the numbers involved you might as well consider putting some savings completely out of an interconnected banking system that is the contrary of the internet: it needs all nodes to be up and running to survive.

Use bitcoin for anything that's not tied up in an inverted totalitarian regime.

And Dan, look up, check out for the drones.

You realize how much freedom people like you take from regular people? PayPal makes the Sopranos look kind and caring, as do he TBTF banks.

"Doesn't sound legit".... I hope you're caught into the other side of "inverted totalitarianism" and just maybe you might be able to see what the mirror has to show you.

For digital goods you use bitcoin, always and everywhere. please fix this as soon as your next release, God what are you thinking? The USSA has become a beacon of INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM. google that.

Never ask why Eduardo Saverin burnt his us passport and went to Singapore.

all that would do is to enable the attacker to double-spend their own btc. Not much else.

Hello internet people,

I've known Harry for a long time. Extremely intelligent. Amazing scientist. Hardcore pacifist. We are friends, we have been roommates, we have traveled together in the US, and in Greece. Good times.

He has taken a principled stance against AI, which I disagree with, but it's his decision. And I do respect it.

Every person that takes a principled stand will be called crazy.

This is sad, because if/when the time comes for YOU, dear reader, to take a principled stand on X, be sure they will call you crazy.

Anyways, I think his case isn't well put in the article. He provides a single scenario for a brutal use of AI. I think a better case can be put--scary stuff we are working on; AI is dangerous. I myself worry much more about Orwellianism and "We" and "Brazil" scenarios than the nuke stuff. But I don't think we should stop the work; I think the only route is to try to get more influence in the direction things may go.

I told Harry, back in the day when he wrote this, which is years ago (2006, probably), that I disagreed with his position, the nuke cat is out of the bag, we had a nice discussion about it, and that was that.

Is he crazy? Not by a longshot. I would leave my firstborn with him and travel around the world without a shred of worry.

So would my wife.

But wtf do I know; I'm just another crazy guy on the internet, right?

One reason for consumers is built-in deflation. Money has to be scarce; 21million is a ridiculously low number, and bitcoins are very scarce.

What should happen if you use iPhone tethering? Could it top into the vast people on that network? (I have absolutely no idea). If this is the case, the internet will have a panic attack in 2 days max.

please don't tell 4chan

P!=NP if and only if P=1 and N=1.

http://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?q=%2B%22np+complete%22+...

The problem with these grandiose statements is that they forget the word formal. You have to be searching on a space that's formally defined to make optimization=verification if P=NP. When we do art and creativity, the space is not formally defined a priori. Hell, even theorem-proving isn't. Look at the breakthroughs in mathematics and most of them, a really large majority, came from applying some new ideas or operations (e.g., ricci flows) to problems that all others simply could not see as applicable. There are no "profound philosophical implications" if P=NP (which I doubt) other than our universe lets us have polynomially bounded algorithms for a huge cluster of problems.

As of now, if I remember correctly, China has over 2 Trillion greenbacks. It's _impossible_ to win a trade war. We're talking about something _very_ much like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Financial_pressure

It is easy to be protectionist. But a major selloff of the USD by China would create the mother of all confidence crises, and, while _everyone_ would lose, the world's reserve currency, the USD, would be forever damaged.

This is not a war you can realistically fight to win. I really expected more from someone of Grove's intellect. Much much more.

One thing that makes me crazy is how americans tend to place labels in people since their teens: that's a loser, two nerds, three jocks, four yuppies, etcetcetc. Once people are stigmatized with those, it's hard to backtrack, and my feeling is that they tend to go all the way with others' expectations of them.

When you have confidence (in other words, if you are really good and you know it), the incentive to look good goes down. You have a track record. Smart people know who you are.

Your casual remarks impress those that haven't thought things through as much as you have.

You can be yourself, using the same vocabulary and tone of voice you would use at home. On the other hand, people that are insecure or down on the status ladder have a huge incentive to impress others. Some of them will work hard to improve their situation; others will work hard to improve their looks--eventually becoming phony and disbertesque (but only the really good will be able to tell them apart; average people may be blind to it).

The mere tone of voice and choice of words tells it all. If you cannot believe they use these words and tone of voice at home, that's a good sign they're striving for the stereotype.

The other day I was interviewing this guy. He looks straight to me and talks as if we're equals (even though he's climbing that darn status ladder). His tone of voice and choice of words are informal, smoothly flowing. Finally, he brings up a thing or two I haven't thought. That's impressive; a sign that the guy _is really_ good, not posing.

He's on the team now. And poor me, for I have to keep it up to keep him on.

You are right on spot. PG really should update with full disclosure. I didn't click on the link, and it crossed my mind that it could be that Dilbertesque piece of software, but PG's credibility with me made me discredit the thought. This is an obviously blatant conflict of interest... isn't it supposed to be just an "essay"?