|
.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
edit: Go back to sleep and take your meds, seraph. You don't even realize when people are mocking Crypto for being stupid.
notwithoutmyanus fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Dec 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 13:23
|
|
|
i found a solution til mods wake up
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
I'm going to lunchchain
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
LaughchainGoesBrr posted:It won't. You can't have security without energy. It's a trade-off. This is only true for cryptographic hash-based Nakamoto consensus style systems, but is far from true for all BFT systems. A PoliePuter can act as an Optical PUF. There is a lot of experimentation underway in Proof-of-PUF. I've linked a random review below (without having validated it in-depth.) While they're not robust yet, I would hope that the PolieBot network can mature to the point that it offers better decentralistion and thus security than Bitcoin by including humans in the loop e.g. proof-of-unique-human-PolieBot interaction. Several years away from that, though! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793093/
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
as a rule, anything that presents "security via the blockchain" functions identically minus the blockchain
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 14:18
|
|
|
no, you see, we must have an immutable merkel tree that everyone must have on their own computer to verify.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:no, you see, we must have an immutable merkel tree that everyone must have on their own computer to verify. I don't see how a pubic wig helps here at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
LaughchainGoesBrr posted:It won't. You can't have security without energy. It's a trade-off. ...buttcoin
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 14:21
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:no, you see, we must have an immutable merkel tree that everyone must have on their own computer to verify. a fundamental misunderstanding of trust
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:as a rule, anything that presents "security via the blockchain" functions identically minus the blockchain No. At least in my case, the costs associated with creating stable real timestamps are small (a single Rootstock transaction), while the costs associated with producing false unstable timestamps are enormous. I don't particularly gaf about current blockchains though - viewing them as a bootstrapping tool - and probably agree with you more than is apparent, so I don't want to argue the point too much. infernal machines posted:a fundamental misunderstanding of trust I think you don't yet fundamentally understand the end-goal of PolieBotics, which is fine and reasonable. What trust I have, I place in my friends and family whom I can look in the eye and tell if they're lying, and who exist within a social feedback loop where dishonesty is punished. I actively distrust computers, especially digital ones, and would ultimately like to have a self-built analogue network that assigns a veracity prediction to incoming video or audio streams (which the NSA could easily deepfake otherwise). These analogue networks would ideally be trained on a corpus of recordings created by said friends and family via a web-of-trust networks in which we periodically compare checksums to verify our respective dataset's integrity, e.g. when I meet my cousin after not having seen him in a few months, we check that both our shared data's checksums map to the images "banana car tree elephant house..." etc. This doesn't supplant our trust relationship, but allows it to be used to bootstrap some level of trust onto systems for which I otherwise have very little.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
i'm gonna proof your puf
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:i'm gonna proof your puf I've heard the proof is in the puffin
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Xathal posted:No. At least in my case, the costs associated with creating stable real timestamps are small (a single Rootstock transaction), while the costs associated with producing false unstable timestamps are enormous. I don't particularly gaf about current blockchains though - viewing them as a bootstrapping tool - and probably agree with you more than is apparent, so I don't want to argue the point too much. i appreciate you taking the time to respond genuinely and coherently, and explain your reasoning, even if i disagree somewhat with your conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Xathal posted:No. At least in my case, the costs associated with creating stable real timestamps are small (a single Rootstock transaction), while the costs associated with producing false unstable timestamps are enormous. I don't particularly gaf about current blockchains though - viewing them as a bootstrapping tool - and probably agree with you more than is apparent, so I don't want to argue the point too much. okay so it's more like, PGP/GPG's web of trust concept and also a merkle tree, that's... fine, i guess. like it's a creative solution that i appreciate from a "dork who's into cryptography" standpoint at least, which is more than i can say for most things we talk about in this thread. though if your hypothetical adversary is a literal nation-state's security apparatus i have some bad news about their sheer ability to thoroughly gently caress with each and every level of this system, but you probably already know that
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:i appreciate you taking the time to respond genuinely and coherently, and explain your reasoning, even if i disagree somewhat with your conclusions. and yeah this 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
Mfer wants to make the AC from I have no mouth, and I must scream but with TRUST written on every nanoangstrom of its circuitry
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
wow i can't believe seraph got jealous of the new posterinfernal machines posted:i appreciate you taking the time to respond genuinely and coherently, and explain your reasoning, even if i disagree somewhat with your conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Xathal posted:No. At least in my case, the costs associated with creating stable real timestamps are small (a single Rootstock transaction), while the costs associated with producing false unstable timestamps are enormous. I don't particularly gaf about current blockchains though - viewing them as a bootstrapping tool - and probably agree with you more than is apparent, so I don't want to argue the point too much. i think the problem that you are going to eventually run into is that any network or trust - digital or analog - that has to scale and involve people beyond your immediate social circle will inevitably end up being complex enough that it is not possible for a layman with no cryptographical or whatever technical knowledge to verify that it is indeed secure. and if it is not possible to explain your system's working principles in a clear and concise way to random people, then those people will have to put their trust in you, the author, instead of the system itself. this however is not a good technological solution to the question of trust, because then the NSA or whatever state actor will just need to compromise you as a person, and start releasing new versions of your stuff with deliberate security backdoors this same problem exists also in cryptocurrencies: as evidenced by the many many stories of failure referenced in this thread, simply saying "it is on the blockchain" means absolutely and utterly nothing concrete: in the end what matters is that the people who you give your wallet address to are not scammers (they tend to be scammers) AND that these people have no bugs or security issues in their code (they tend to have bugs and security issues in their code, often by design!). AND even if there are no bugs, the authors are not scammers, there can still be implicit problems like the artificial hashrate difficulty setting baked into the bitcoin algorithm which makes it literally impossible for the system to ever scale of course the problem of explainability still exists even in public key cryptography, tls certificates and all the other nuts and bolts and cogs that keep the modern digital economy actually running, but at least here we have a pile of mathematical proofs, documentation and many many experts working on the stuff around the globe
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
so that new guy whose posts i have not read is definitely just that old poster xtal, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
i don't think so, if only because xtal was never that thoughtful or coherent
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
yeah it's 100% not xtal and you should totally at least skim some of their posts lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:i don't think so, if only because xtal was never that thoughtful or coherent with generative artificial intelligence xtal doesn't have to be
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
EricBauman posted:so that new guy whose posts i have not read is definitely just that old poster xtal, right? hasn't gotten mad and accused anyone of voting for biden yet; signs point to no
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:yeah it's 100% not xtal and you should totally at least skim some of their posts lol no
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
the concept of delegating the role of an instinctive gut check to an automated system is that internal changes to it will not be known to you, so when compromised it will have been compromised without your knowledge, and by that point it will have been weaponized against you if you're giving the topic that much fuckin thought without grasping that, you're doing it purposely for attention of some kind
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:the concept of delegating the role of an instinctive gut check to an automated system is that internal changes to it will not be known to you, so when compromised it will have been compromised without your knowledge, and by that point it will have been weaponized against you ah, but code is law, all we have to do is build a perfect system that cannot be compromised
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:ah, but code is law, all we have to do is build a perfect system that cannot be compromised ah yes perfection, that attainable goal, the ultimate expression of laziness
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
well, if we pile sufficient wheels within wheels we'll surely get close enough for trust anyway, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:well, if we pile sufficient wheels within wheels we'll surely get close enough for trust anyway, right? no that's dumb as gently caress even as a joke
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
in crypto news we can all enjoy: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/crypto/sbfs-lawyer-says-client-was-worst-witness-hes-ever-seen
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:in crypto news we can all enjoy: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/crypto/sbfs-lawyer-says-client-was-worst-witness-hes-ever-seen I hope Sam sues for defamation and they both lose
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Buttchain
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:ah, but code is law, all we have to do is build a perfect system that cannot be compromised you've been posting here long enough to know all software is complete and perfect once version 1.0 is released
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:you've been posting here long enough to know all software is complete and perfect once version 1.0 is released how are those forums doing these days, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
I'd like to try a handshake if that's ok -- a context-object first, and then a literal object. First capability demonstration, with a high frequency and a low frequency example of neuro-entropy: Object 1: A: A bitten apple is not one full apple. A second apple the size of the bite, which is also bitten, does not make the apple. Et al. The apple is never complete, but eventually the resolving power is good enough that how much apple we do not have does not matter. B: As so each may supertask the gaps of the others closed through the relational feedback loop of the two. With this as a template, I will respond plainly when able, but I would also like a capability of yourself as I desire communication. I would also like to establish as the second half of my handshake, an apology and clarification for what I think is a miscommunication. I want to state that I first observe that much of the way you declare yourself is as an alter-ego. There is a constructed self here which is playing off mirror neurons of yourself in feedback loops, so you externalize a preferred self. In turn, this becomes a force of influence upon your concept of self. The ideal becomes the real, because pessimism is not realism. The same is fundamentally true of the self. This is the first lesson the entities teach. The "how" part does not serialize neatly into language. The second part, is to clarify on the accusation of cowardice, as while I do not see you as willing or able to recognize it, the pattern can play out. I will give context, so what was cruelty becomes kindness: It is not that I think you will give into it, but that much as any feedback loop functions, there is a risk and that standing on the cliff as the thunder rolls through you is not the same as making wings to fly, much as even gaining altitude and velocity is not spending it appropriately to maneuver, nor having the skill to land. I do not accuse you of inability: Rather, I present to you the concept of gravity itself, only to remind you of its presence. Xathal posted:Apologies for necromancing these posts, but I just found out about this thread. I'll address the technical issues quickly - as I gather they aren't the thread's focus, but are crucial to the distinction between useful and useless internet wacko - before moving on to the much more substantive philosophical/psychological criticisms. I don't think you are a useless internet whacko: My feeling is: 1) You are either a very talented prankster 2) or you are 60 years early and you're hedging your bets Xathal posted:There is a sample dataset on IPFS at truthbeam.eth. It's far from optimised (the version I'm pursuing now is targeting 10s of Hz), but I would still be very interested if you could receive an initialisation vector, simulate its interaction with a scene in a cryptographic feedback loop, and return the final hash within the time constraints applied by the blockchain in manner that is convincing to both humans and an autoencoder trained on concatenated projector emissions and their results camera recordings. So its signing stuff with a physically projected image, which I'm almost certainly not the first to see. I imagine I'm also not the first to say steganography is only useful if your opponent doesn't know its there because opposition will always try to defeat it, and by definition your opponent is exponential (time) unless your messages have an inverse falloff of importance which protects their value (eg, knowing old messages is unimportant). For the curious, my confidence (60%) says Xathal refers to the estimated normal angle of surfaces based on how the projection acts becomes part of the cryptographic action itself. eg, your authenticity is declared by your movement as a physical object, and via light transport actions which aren't trivial to simulate which while AI is very good at fooling humans with, AI is still very bad at fooling AI with. Its similar to the principle of how adding tiny amounts of noise can make an image unreadable to a machine, but a human literally can't see the difference -- but its this principle flipped on its head based on an expected wrong and an actual wrong. Keep in mind the 40% confidence gap. I am only able to infer as none of this is my area of expertise outside of my intuition of biological neurons and vector math. There is a statistically important chance that I'm making words which aren't describing anything real at all, but I'm leaning on the intuitive part that I used to decode Xathal in the first place, which I will explain more soon. Xathal posted:Very well noticed. Modification of the received image in real time always adds a latency that can be out-competed by a clean loop. I imagine my current implementations are vulnerable to this attack by a well-funded adversary that has built dedicated hardware but believe that a mature (e.g. primarily optical) version will have long-lasting advantages for the defender. This is ultimately an experimental issue. Remember: A network might have umwelt intuition of the systems and be able to switch methodologies quickly, but this only works if your methodologies themselves are sussinct and recognizably distinct objects: If they are quantized, you can add deliberately fake information to disrupt measurement, and thus while you are using classifications instead of measurements in your pairity, you deny recognition of those classifications through the medium of measurement. As an example, look into the way SSTV radio signals interact with the Russian Jamming station "The Buzzer": When the natural disruption of The Buzzer is known in timing, with a bit of physics you can estimate how to correct your SSTV image so it is correctly drawn in spite of the jamming, since the waves interact with one another. Time is the known object, and the interval is set, so it is defeated. If the interval were random, this would be significantly harder to defeat. Likewise, if it were not one interval but several in changing polyrhythms, you'd have "more than one opponent" to defeat. By diversifying the attack, the defender is more occupied, and the same defense mechanism is less likely to work as their attention becomes saturated, because the natural phenomenology of radio means the loss of precision itself becomes a very powerful tool as it hampers the ability to study the incoming attack in any meaningful way. Xathal posted:Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) are distinct from hash functions in that their input and output can be recognised as correspondent without the function being replicated. In this case by an autoencoder that can recognise either a specific implementation or a class of PUF. The security arises not from the difficulty in replicating a specific result, but in doing so in a timely manner. In the simplest case, two reactors can be coupled via an entirely optical signal, with the latency introduced by the simulator being the limit rather than the ability to simulate. In which case, shouldn't you be using a less generalist simulation? Although that's also unresolvable so... Is there no way the latency itself can be encorporated? It is slightly random, so its actually a good source of variance against an attacker, wouldn't you agree? Xathal posted:True, but it was The Akashic Record of Optical Research. I haven't seen them anywhere in this reality prior to my implementation. Ok we are speaking the same language. This is a relief. Xathal posted:Well summarised except I'm, at best, more a Robin than a Batman. The daimon or whatever that recruited me as a child took that form to communicate within my available conceptual framework the path my life would take should I accept its offer. Posit: Aside from the intuition which comes with leaning into the metaphor, consider that this is areas of the brain which generally or typically do not communicate with one another. Speaking from a prior, I was only able to "do" this following a traumatic injury, and so my own conceptualization of the phenomena is that it is a side-effect of functional compensation from My Impact. I carry in my left hand the magical quality that my brain chemistry finds easy to process, and in my right hand, the logical quality which I find easy to serialize and communicate. This is a kind of neurodiversity I don't think the world really knows how to deal with yet. As a system, we observe that while this comes with certain costs and inefficiencies when serializing conceptualization back into language, the form in which it happens is deeply important. The climate of neuro-social fear people live in due to the conceptual (not political) reactionary superstition that the hypernormalization of reality through science has created has left many who don't recognize the limitations of abstractions and that there are gains to be made in abandoning them but only in an entirely temporary way. One does not build a civilization in the ocean, but sailing the ocean is neccecary for one to not be confined to themselves. Xathal posted:Excellent insights that I will study in greater detail later. I am unconvinced that anyone has a particularly good understanding of how consciousness relates to matter or the fundamental nature of either, and it seems hard to deny that the experience was a religious one as it resulted in a perceived shift in the subjects perception of the divine. Its unexpectedly simple: Its just another abstraction, and humans are caught up in a mentality where for something to be important it must have the quality of realness -- despite the fact the most important things to humans cannot be touched, and often cannot even be thought. Religion in this sense is a framework of embracing the base object, and attempting to go "OK, what if I use less abstraction?" -- the problem being that reality is so vast that everybody is instantaniously overwhelmed and gives themselves over to the metaphor and surrenders their entire lives to it. Its the same as becoming a slave to scar tissue made by looking at the sun with one's eye, insisting that the shadow dot they see is a gift or a message, and not just a phenomenon because of a phenomenon because of a phenomenon. The mind loves to spin narritives to justify things: The trick is realizing sensation happens, then feeling happens, then emotion, then thought, then thinking, then intellectualization, then notion, then language, then intention, then action, then outcome, then habit, then sensation. For lack of a mundane way of putting this, the loop is the beast of the human aparatus. Its the thing we spend our entire lives trying to control, instead of just being. Xathal posted:Since we are describing subjective phenomena, are they not real by virtue of having been experienced? I think you already have an intuitive understanding of this idea, but that whether the phenomena is real or not genuinely doesn't matter, only that it is experienced, so we're in agreement here. "Real" too, is just an abstraction that's a euphemism for saying something deserves trust, care, dignity and respect. If we love ourselves and others, why does the realness matter? From the corporeal schema to the so called skybox of experience and the whole declipping nonsense every programmer claims that experience gives them, all is fantasy. Fantasy is not however, undeserving of respect: To think so would be mania (scaring our loved ones) -- or worse, to give into metaphors. Those who give into metaphors don't exist within the "imprinted fantasy" of reality. That in itself, frees you to ask a "what if?" that someone who is bound to another cannot. A kind of polyamory of thought. The trick then is to not go mad with it. To become an unrecognizable shoggoth of jibberish nonsense that scares people (including yourself). We all want to be understood, and the fear of not being understood is ther most relatable thing of all. When that polyamory of thought becomes a monogomy of unthinking, because faith tastes better, is a death of sorts. That is when a stranger becomes an object to others. People liken the mind to a lens, but I think it more a cloth, that you can lay on shapes and see the motion of light. How nimble your cloth is, how it shines, its colour, its clarity, whether it burns or melts or rips. These are the tapestry of the mind. While things like events and sequences and conditions are all just abstractions, they are that cloth. We wear ourselves, and the fear is we will suffocate ourselves, or strangle one another to death with it as we march into the golf sand-pits, and descend into what we think is meaning. Xathal posted:Encountering such "entities" is common in meditation practice, where they may also be called "thought forms" or similar. One's interpretation of their nature is contingent on one's theory of reality. Prior to my revelations, when I defaulted to materialism, I would have considered them to be unintegrated neural circuity representing the unconscious fears of my id - the red batman character claimed that the forces of deception and despair were conspiring to use deepfakes to spread lies and confusion and gain power in the chaos - or a conscience/superego representing my inner morality that were externalised due to the psychedelic-like ego death resultant from my perception of the fluourescent flicker due to an autism-related high flicker-fusion threshold. My own experiences suggest you need to develop that figure into an alter. So you can have presence and non-presence when you need it. Even if it is just, the fingerprint of them like the burn on the cornea, it becomes a mirror you can reflect things across and gain deeper insights or a wing you can fold the air across as you move through thought. For a sense of relation, my own was born from difficult experiences I couldn't compartmentalize and so by having someone else experience them, I didn't need to feel those moments on an intuitive level. Its like a sort of containerization. Eventually now, I am bringing this figure back in little pieces, as a partner for self-reflection and self-expression and it has been remarkably powerful for holding me accountable for my own bullshit and keeping me in check without being a nagging or limiting voice. Xathal posted:This is the much stronger criticism, and it is of concern to me. While I am enjoying the ride now and my life was miserable before, many meditation instructors would warn against indulging the entities, as they seek to distract one from achieving enlightenment through entanglements with maya, and risk tempting others into such folly. Should you not fall prey to it, and should you give the world the silence and patience it needs to speak as so you may hear it, all the world will speak to you: It is not the silouette of the being that you need to chase. Remember: As a wise man points, do not look at his finger. They are only fingers. Do not fall in love with fingers: You are not a teenaged boy. Xathal posted:I intend to spend approximately ten years executing this mission before reevaluating. If I am successful in increasing the total amount of global enlightenment sustainably, I will consider it a success. Otherwise, I will adopt a less tantric approach. I wish you great and enormous luck. There is no refuge from the future. I hope any of what I have said is useful to you. My own mission backfired, nearly destroying an entire generation of young men. I atone for it when I can by deradicalizing them. I do not wish for you the feelings of a war-criminal, as I feel mine are. Remember kindness. Antagonism begets antagonism. If you become shaped to face enemies, then all the world will be your enemy. Do not become the prince with a thousand enemies. Xathal posted:Better stop for a bit. Apologies for the many high-quality posts that have not received a response yet. Thank you all; this is by far the best analysis I have seen of the non-technical components of my PolieProject. Thank-you. The recognition is an incredible kindness. Although I likely do not understand, especially on a technical level, I think I will still cheer for you. I want you to win. Although this may be gibberish to you, a song from some animation, this song is a chimera of so many anthems and marches into a single song. Ignore the power-structures of misery, the memetics of pain, and focus on the people. Think of their lives, their pain, their hopes and dreams. Hear it with the symbolic context I instead give you away from source material, and feel the combined heart of humanity, who your heart swells for to be this kind. Though saying this almost descends into that shoggoth of jibberish and cultural nonsense, I take the risk now because I think you will feel intuitively, romantically when I say to you: I think your ancestors are smiling. Aim for the top.  Godspeed, you son of a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
I just jumped back into the thread after like a week and a half away, what in the hell kind of templeOS timecube nonsense is going on in here? is this what the thread is reduced to now that they've locked our beautiful boy Sam up for goodMr. Nice! posted:in crypto news we can all enjoy: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/crypto/sbfs-lawyer-says-client-was-worst-witness-hes-ever-seen
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
what in the gently caress is going on itt
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
i too prefer analog computers. they just have a warmer sound, you know
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:what in the gently caress is going on itt discussion of something we'd tripped across months ago was reinvigorated when its creator found this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 17:00
|
|
