Then if you had one of those computers, wouldn't you also be able to crack bank passwords, email passwords, and everything else? Any type of online encryption would be useless and the internet itself would become useless.
Bitcoin: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History
- Thread starter productionhead
- Start date
Then if you had one of those computers, wouldn't you also be able to crack bank passwords, email passwords, and everything else? Any type of online encryption would be useless and the internet itself would become useless.
Man this is hilarious. You are posting a commercial banks analysis of a product they want to sell.
Think about this. Bank of America is a business that wants to make money. It sees people want to invest in this new product called "BTC" and Bank of America gets people to give them money to invest in something they profit.
So BofA tasks some people with doing any "analysis". Do you think that analysis is ever going to come back with anything but the conclusion that there is potential for investors? Do you think there is a chance in hell BofA would put out an analysis that said, "BTC is pure speculation and not good for any investor that prefers to avoid huge unpredictable risk and you should go else where if you want to invest in it."
All the customers that are interested in BTC would just go find the company that is telling them it's a good investment and are happy to take a cut for getting them into the market.
That "analysis" has about as much absolute math in it as a modern art painting. It's just a report with plenty of numbers put out by guys with expensive educations that serves no other purpose but to get people to invest in BTC with BofA. It's just another kind of marketing aimed at people that like to think of themselves as smart.
And here you are posting their marketing material. As I said it's hilarious really.
this is very deep research. theres not one single application i could point to that directly uses this. its fundamental.
when topologists find something "interesting", its often a very strong fact that has to rinse through more application based sciences. "we" were able to find proof of a certain kind of partial differential equation being solvable. without that, some of the more advanced imaging technologies (like MRI) would not exist. just an example.
are you attacking the language itself? its not made to seem difficult because we want to feel exclusive. behind most of these letters hides lots of definitions that if you were to write them out, youd get nowhere. its just efficient. you could compare that to defining a function somewhere in your program and then just calling that when you need it.
this particular paper, i know nothing about. i havent even read it. it was just the most recent on arxiv. but they all look the "same" anyway.
when you read the poincare papers, youd probably ask the same question. then this einstein dude comes along and revolutionizes physics. you think of him as some badass but hes just the guy who took poincares shit and applied it to physics.
to answer your question directly: we do these things for ourselves. as far as i am concerned, i could not care less about technological advancement, cures for diseases or any kind of shit. but theres a lot of hamster circling going on in most of the sciences and when we figure something out, its usually permeating into fields that are more or less based on the branch of mathematics its happened and then the hamster circling ends and you get a cool new device like lazors.
yea well, if everyone had those computers, you could figure out something some media dickhead would call "quantum encryption".
you wont see some scientist go rogue and steal a lot of money. people who are employed as scientists at top tier universities arent in it for the money. i know some guy who was "not good enough" to keep his job. hes then talked to a couple companies he thought he could do cool shit for, got interviews, told them why they needed him, got hired on his terms and is now figuring out where to dig for oil. academics is like the most competitive job market in the world.
From:A Short History of Financial Euphoria (Penguin business) by by John Kenneth Galbraith
URL: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/History-Financial-Euphoria-Penguin-business/dp/0140238565]A Short History of Financial Euphoria (Penguin business): John Kenneth Galbraith: 9780140238563: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
The perennial features are these. Some seemingly new and desirable artifact or development captures the financial imagination of a large number of people (say, group 1). The arrival of tulips in Western Europe, gold in Louisiana, the advent of joint-stock companies (corporations), real estate in Florida, or the economic designs of Reagan are all examples. The price of the object of speculation goes up. The object when bought today is worth more tomorrow. This attracts new buyers and assures a further price increase. Those in group 1 are persuaded that the new price-enhancing circumstance is under control, and expect the market to stay up and go up, perhaps indefinitely. The individual or institution that discovered the novelty (in group 2) is thought to be ahead of the mob. Fewer in number, individuals of group 2 perceive the speculative mood of the moment, try to get the maximum reward from the increase as it continues, and plan to be out before the eventual crash. The affluence of group 2 is wrongly associated, by group 1, with a miraculous financial genius. When something triggers the ultimate reversal, group 2 decides now is time to get out. Group 1 finds its illusion abruptly destroyed. Both groups sell or try to sell. The market collapses.
Galbraith observes that, in this process, `speculation buys up the intelligence of those involved'. The crowd converts the individual in group 1 from possessing reasonable good sense to stupidity. Those in group 2 also make errors of vanity by thinking they will beat the speculative game. It seems that `all people are most credulous when they are most happy'. Reputable public and financial opinion reinforces euphoria by condemning those who express doubt or dissent by warning of a crash. The celebrated Yale economist Irving Fisher, for instance, spoke out sharply against Roger Babson, who foresaw the crash of 1929. But the critic must wait until after the crash for any approval, Galbraith laments.
URL: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/History-Financial-Euphoria-Penguin-business/dp/0140238565]A Short History of Financial Euphoria (Penguin business): John Kenneth Galbraith: 9780140238563: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
The perennial features are these. Some seemingly new and desirable artifact or development captures the financial imagination of a large number of people (say, group 1). The arrival of tulips in Western Europe, gold in Louisiana, the advent of joint-stock companies (corporations), real estate in Florida, or the economic designs of Reagan are all examples. The price of the object of speculation goes up. The object when bought today is worth more tomorrow. This attracts new buyers and assures a further price increase. Those in group 1 are persuaded that the new price-enhancing circumstance is under control, and expect the market to stay up and go up, perhaps indefinitely. The individual or institution that discovered the novelty (in group 2) is thought to be ahead of the mob. Fewer in number, individuals of group 2 perceive the speculative mood of the moment, try to get the maximum reward from the increase as it continues, and plan to be out before the eventual crash. The affluence of group 2 is wrongly associated, by group 1, with a miraculous financial genius. When something triggers the ultimate reversal, group 2 decides now is time to get out. Group 1 finds its illusion abruptly destroyed. Both groups sell or try to sell. The market collapses.
Galbraith observes that, in this process, `speculation buys up the intelligence of those involved'. The crowd converts the individual in group 1 from possessing reasonable good sense to stupidity. Those in group 2 also make errors of vanity by thinking they will beat the speculative game. It seems that `all people are most credulous when they are most happy'. Reputable public and financial opinion reinforces euphoria by condemning those who express doubt or dissent by warning of a crash. The celebrated Yale economist Irving Fisher, for instance, spoke out sharply against Roger Babson, who foresaw the crash of 1929. But the critic must wait until after the crash for any approval, Galbraith laments.
im not attacking the language --guess that's just the way shit is. great reply dude.
