BITCOIN

Scottex99

Also it HAS to be price somewhat surely, I get why people could never accept it as investing and that it’s only gambling (at what risk/reward metric is that defined?) but at the end of the day the intention is to make gains.

Ofc you could get very lucky and make 1000% in a week on one trade, convince yourself you’re a great trader and go on to lose it all but in a trillion dollar market, over years of trading and thinking about your positions is it not acceptable to make money and give yourself a pat on the back.

The same commentary as above was super interesting because I didn’t know that the 7 mega stocks are 30% of the S&P500, even with recent stock rally, it would be down without them, so if they did turn “bad” people would be forced into single stock picking, or going outside of US of course

Pre crypto 6 years ago I literally knew nothing about the stock market and I’ll know only a fraction of what some in here do but it’s interesting to learn from one to the other and see the correlation, or dislocation between both, plus factoring in higher than usual interest rates makes it an interesting dilemma on how to use your wealth to attempt to make more 

thegentleway

Scottex99 said:

Yeah you’re right it doesn’t delegitimise it but that’s generally the intention the way that it’s framed. That I need to convince someone to take it off me. And I know why stocks aren’t zero sum but also in highly liquid markets you trade the order book, you have no idea what algo or MM or individual is behind the other side, all you know is that the price is there to be taken (or made with limit order).
I think it’s the idea that it’s conniving in some way for me to dump my BTC on someone at $70k but it’s all noble and moral to sell Apple or Google at their ATH.

Makes sense. It usually used to attack the ethics of pro-bitcoiners but I think it's warranted for the guys that do push it hard. But it's not really fair to question the ethics otherwise. It's no different to investing in gold, which I would argue is zero sum as well. Where you see similar dynamic; unscrupulous people encouraging everybody they can to buy as much gold as possible. Although I'm not convinced they (all) do it intentionally.

Scottex99 said:

Also it HAS to be price somewhat surely, I get why people could never accept it as investing and that it’s only gambling (at what risk/reward metric is that defined?) but at the end of the day the intention is to make gains.

For me the line between investing and gambling is just the risk. I consider picking individual stocks gambling as it's very risky. 

The intention is to make gains in the accumulation phase but afterwards the intention can reverse, i.e. not lose money. 

RolandFlagg

Is anyone else having issues passing the New UK regulations Test on Coinbase?

I have a tiny amount of BTC on there but would the option to buy more in future.
Never had an issue in the past but for the life of me I can't pass this test, even though I'm putting that I only invest 1% of my net worth in "High Risk Assets".

In fact any answer I give it tells me that I can no longer trade with them.

PloughmansLunch

RolandFlagg said:

Is anyone else having issues passing the New UK regulations Test on Coinbase?

I have a tiny amount of BTC on there but would the option to buy more in future.
Never had an issue in the past but for the life of me I can't pass this test, even though I'm putting that I only invest 1% of my net worth in "High Risk Assets".

In fact any answer I give it tells me that I can no longer trade with them.

Passed 2nd time around using:

Yes
0%
Yes
0%

Looks like my 34p is safe for now

silvercue

RolandFlagg said:

Is anyone else having issues passing the New UK regulations Test on Coinbase?

I have a tiny amount of BTC on there but would the option to buy more in future.
Never had an issue in the past but for the life of me I can't pass this test, even though I'm putting that I only invest 1% of my net worth in "High Risk Assets".

In fact any answer I give it tells me that I can no longer trade with them.

I have not done this on Coinbase but have on a number of other exchanges and they seem to vary in difficulty of the questions.   Do they ask the same questions every time?   

Scottex99

It’s all to do with FinProm rules and a new version of it. 

UK super strict on protecting consumers now so exchanges are having to “vet” all users and have banners all over their websites.

Protect people from scams all good but now some people might have to jump through hoops to buy £100 of BTC, yet they can walk into any casino (with a membership) and drop £50k in a night in cash?

masonic

Was wondering what people's take on the recent progress in quantum computing was. It seems not so long ago they were heralding being able to factor an odd number larger than 21. Now they have 48 logical qubits to work with. IIRC bitcoin uses 256-bit ECC for its keypairs, requiring >906 qubits to break in a quantum attack. If nothing else I found the language in the abstract of the article quite entertaining as a non-physicist, suspect the key was perfecting the feedforward entanglement teleportation   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06927-3

IvanOpinion

masonic said:

Was wondering what people's take on the recent progress in quantum computing was. It seems not so long ago they were heralding being able to factor an odd number larger than 21. Now they have 48 logical qubits to work with. IIRC bitcoin uses 256-bit ECC for its keypairs, requiring >906 qubits to break in a quantum attack. If nothing else I found the language in the abstract of the article quite entertaining as a non-physicist   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06927-3

Could you not find an english version of that article?

Malthusian

ChatGPT to the rescue:

The paper focuses on a significant advancement in quantum computing, specifically addressing a major challenge: errors. In quantum computing, information is processed using qubits, the basic unit of quantum information. Unlike classical bits that can be either 0 or 1, qubits can exist in multiple states simultaneously due to the principles of quantum superposition and entanglement.

Errors pose a substantial challenge in quantum computing due to the delicate nature of quantum states. Quantum systems are highly susceptible to interference from their surroundings, leading to errors in information storage and processing. Unlike classical bits, which are robust and deterministic, qubits are incredibly fragile and prone to decoherence—a phenomenon where quantum information gets lost or corrupted due to interaction with the environment. Additionally, quantum operations are inherently probabilistic, and errors can propagate rapidly, jeopardizing the accuracy of computations.

To mitigate errors in quantum computing, the researchers developed a quantum processor using logical qubits. These logical qubits are encoded across multiple physical qubits, providing redundancy and error-correction capabilities. The aim is to create a stable computational platform despite the inherent fragility of quantum states.

Their quantum processor integrates up to 280 physical qubits to support the operations of logical qubits. This system demonstrates better error detection and correction compared to individual physical qubits. By implementing various logical operations and fault-tolerant algorithms, they've showcased the potential of this processor to outperform classical computers for specific tasks.

The architecture they've devised utilizes a zoned setup with atom arrays. This design enables better control and scalability for these logical qubits. The approach involves segregating the processor into different zones: storage, entangling, and readout. This segmentation allows for more efficient handling and manipulation of quantum information.

Their experiments include testing logical operations, fault-tolerant algorithms, and the implementation of complex circuits. They've demonstrated the scalability of their approach by performing tasks involving multiple logical qubits, showcasing the potential for larger-scale, error-corrected quantum computers.
Overall, this advancement represents a promising step towards realizing practical quantum computers capable of performing complex computations with significantly reduced error rates.

Take this with a grain of salt as ChatGPT can make mistakes when summarising. 

Scottex99

masonic said:

Was wondering what people's take on the recent progress in quantum computing was. It seems not so long ago they were heralding being able to factor an odd number larger than 21. Now they have 48 logical qubits to work with. IIRC bitcoin uses 256-bit ECC for its keypairs, requiring >906 qubits to break in a quantum attack. If nothing else I found the language in the abstract of the article quite entertaining as a non-physicist, suspect the key was perfecting the feedforward entanglement teleportation   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06927-3

I honestly have no idea. It’s been raised over the years and debunked I think. 

But obviously relevant as computer power gets super strong in the future.

Same way it’s been debunked that NFTs boil the ocean or 1 Bitcoin block uses the same electricity as the whole of Canada or whatever, although I have no sources to hand, that narrative has almost completely vanished