9 ms·

Most of the scarcity in artificial economies like CS is (just as with trading card games) manufactured and vulnerable. Seeing what happens with a rug-pull in

by pryce 1y ago

Most of the scarcity in artificial economies like CS is (just as with trading card games) manufactured and vulnerable. Seeing what happens with a rug-pull in a billion dollar artificial economy like this is a valuable lesson for anyone watching. If/when the huge Satoshi bitcoin stash gets traded in, we'll see similar outcomes there too.

pprotas 1y ago
What makes this (or cypto) economy ‘artificial’, and why is our real-world economy not artificial? Plenty of market manipulation and rug pulls happening on the regular stock market as well
- rkomorn 1y ago
  They wrote the scarcity is artificial. I'd say that's true: if you have one skin, there's virtually zero production cost to making more copies of said skin. It's not that different for many things in the real world, I suppose (eg: if you sell way above cost, then your cost is also arguably zero), but I'd say it's magnified in the digital world (or even with NFTs).
breppp 1y ago
Probably the biggest possible investment for quantum computing today is all the abandoned bitcoins wallets ripe for taking
- rkomorn 1y ago
  If you can get abandoned wallets, can't you just get any and all wallets? Edit: minus some race conditions of people changing passwords/moving/emptying wallets.
  - toenail 1y ago
    Actually, no. Even a perfect quantum computer can only attack a key if its public key has already been revealed on-chain, which is only the case for a small amount of coin. The other QC attacks rely on cracking a private key after it was broadcast, and before the transactions make it into a block.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      You lost me... What is the difference between an abandoned wallet and a non-abandoned one in this scenario?
      - toenail 1y ago
        Technically, "abandoned wallets" is not something that exists, all you have are "unspent outputs" of transactions. For QC attacks to work the public key to a private key has to be revealed, for modern addresses that only happens when you spend coins, not when you send them somewhere. I guess some people call early P2PK (pay to public key) addresses "abandoned", but we simply don't know if somebody still controls them.
        wildzzz 1y ago
        Interesting. So as long as your wallet has only received Bitcoin, it's untouchable but the moment you transfer any of it, it's at risk of being emptied. The only way to protect any of the funds is to simply move it to another new wallet. We would be in a situation where any wallets (with known keys) can only be sold off in their entirety to prevent theft. However, who is going to want to buy any Bitcoin if the potential buyer's market decreases with each user exiting the market? The inherent value immediately drops to zero because each successive sale would be less than what it was purchased for. Kind of a Schrodinger's wallet, do you really own any Bitcoin if you can never withdraw from it?
        toenail 1y ago
        The attack when sending a transaction has a time constraints. It will take many any years to go from being able to crack private keys in years/month to doing it in minutes.
  - breppp 1y ago
    I am making a lot of assumptions here which are not backed by much knowledge about bitcoin: 1. It's easier to extract funds from abandoned wallets without being noticed 2. There will be a transition to wallets with post-quantum cryptography 3. The abandoned wallets won't be able to make that conversion because these need new wallets/keys
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      Right, but that just sounds like the race conditions I added in my edit.
- highwaylights 1y ago
  Why would that only apply to abandoned wallets? In a scenario where you have a powerful enough quantum computer and are able to break the encryption you can access any wallet (I.e. the system would be done, and the value would be zero).
  - ozim 1y ago
    Showing that you have access to all wallets will surely kill the market but silently getting abandoned ones and selling off would seem better choice. But on the other hand there are people looking at those abandoned wallets and if money start to flow out from them someone will ask questions.
    - hparadiz 1y ago
      It's a dumb analysis of the situation that ignores what would actually happen: A new wallet cert would be created that uses more bits. Enough that a brute force even with a quantum CPU would take too long. Then you transfer the funds to the new wallet. Abandoned wallets might be claimed during this transition but overall the deflationary trend of btc won't really be effected long term.
    - phatfish 1y ago
      I think having Trump whisper in your ear before the next Truth Social post is the least effort way to win at Crypto. Inventing a viable quantum computer seems like way too much effort for the bros.
- yard2010 1y ago
  Honest question why would anyone harvest Bitcoin after this? Wouldn't it lose all its value since everyone has everyone key now?
  - stOneskull 1y ago
    maybe it could be turned into a game.. hide the satoshis from the quantum ghosts
  - Ray20 1y ago
    After? There is no reason. But between "only you have the keys" and that "after" there is literally tens of billions of dollars.
- jen729w 1y ago
  I weep for humanity if that's the best use we can think of for quantum computing.
  - breppp 1y ago
    Isn't most of our technology based on technologies invented to maximize killing in world war 2, or alternatively as a way to maximize monetization in sleazy ways?
    - eru 1y ago
      World War 2 took at most about a decade (depending on who you ask). The history of development of our technology is much, much longer. I doubt 'most of our technology' is based on anything that happened in WW2.
      - breppp 1y ago
        The general sentiment is still true, the reasons for engineering and (often science) are not always nobel (pun intended)
        eru 1y ago
        Sure. I'm just objecting to connecting everything to WW2.
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        It's just that technologies are all connected, so if you want to make them look bad you can do so. Is fixation of nitrogen into ammonia something that improved billions of lives through fertilizer, or something that enabled manufacture of many millions of tons of explosives? It's both.
        eru 1y ago
        Sure, no question about that. I'm just objecting to connecting everything to WW2. There were plenty of other wars before and after and even at the same time.
wincy 1y ago
I got really into Lorcana last year, spent $40 on a particular rare card I needed for a deck. Out of curiosity I bought some cards for $3 each from Aliexpress, and got myself a jewelers loupe. The cards were literally indistinguishable even with the loupe. I quit buying cards after that. It’s a suckers game if I can’t tell the difference between a $50 and a $3 card even when I know one is fake. Sure enough, a few months later the prices have absolutely cratered for the cards. The only ones they couldn’t copy exactly seemed to be the “enchanted” cards, which sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars.

by pryce 1y ago

pprotas 1y ago

What makes this (or cypto) economy ‘artificial’, and why is our real-world economy not artificial? Plenty of market manipulation and rug pulls happening on the regular stock market as well

rkomorn 1y ago
They wrote the scarcity is artificial. I'd say that's true: if you have one skin, there's virtually zero production cost to making more copies of said skin. It's not that different for many things in the real world, I suppose (eg: if you sell way above cost, then your cost is also arguably zero), but I'd say it's magnified in the digital world (or even with NFTs).

breppp 1y ago

Probably the biggest possible investment for quantum computing today is all the abandoned bitcoins wallets ripe for taking

rkomorn 1y ago
If you can get abandoned wallets, can't you just get any and all wallets? Edit: minus some race conditions of people changing passwords/moving/emptying wallets.
- toenail 1y ago
  Actually, no. Even a perfect quantum computer can only attack a key if its public key has already been revealed on-chain, which is only the case for a small amount of coin. The other QC attacks rely on cracking a private key after it was broadcast, and before the transactions make it into a block.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    You lost me... What is the difference between an abandoned wallet and a non-abandoned one in this scenario?
    - toenail 1y ago
      Technically, "abandoned wallets" is not something that exists, all you have are "unspent outputs" of transactions. For QC attacks to work the public key to a private key has to be revealed, for modern addresses that only happens when you spend coins, not when you send them somewhere. I guess some people call early P2PK (pay to public key) addresses "abandoned", but we simply don't know if somebody still controls them.
      - wildzzz 1y ago
        Interesting. So as long as your wallet has only received Bitcoin, it's untouchable but the moment you transfer any of it, it's at risk of being emptied. The only way to protect any of the funds is to simply move it to another new wallet. We would be in a situation where any wallets (with known keys) can only be sold off in their entirety to prevent theft. However, who is going to want to buy any Bitcoin if the potential buyer's market decreases with each user exiting the market? The inherent value immediately drops to zero because each successive sale would be less than what it was purchased for. Kind of a Schrodinger's wallet, do you really own any Bitcoin if you can never withdraw from it?
        toenail 1y ago
        The attack when sending a transaction has a time constraints. It will take many any years to go from being able to crack private keys in years/month to doing it in minutes.
- breppp 1y ago
  I am making a lot of assumptions here which are not backed by much knowledge about bitcoin: 1. It's easier to extract funds from abandoned wallets without being noticed 2. There will be a transition to wallets with post-quantum cryptography 3. The abandoned wallets won't be able to make that conversion because these need new wallets/keys
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Right, but that just sounds like the race conditions I added in my edit.
highwaylights 1y ago
Why would that only apply to abandoned wallets? In a scenario where you have a powerful enough quantum computer and are able to break the encryption you can access any wallet (I.e. the system would be done, and the value would be zero).
- ozim 1y ago
  Showing that you have access to all wallets will surely kill the market but silently getting abandoned ones and selling off would seem better choice. But on the other hand there are people looking at those abandoned wallets and if money start to flow out from them someone will ask questions.
  - hparadiz 1y ago
    It's a dumb analysis of the situation that ignores what would actually happen: A new wallet cert would be created that uses more bits. Enough that a brute force even with a quantum CPU would take too long. Then you transfer the funds to the new wallet. Abandoned wallets might be claimed during this transition but overall the deflationary trend of btc won't really be effected long term.
  - phatfish 1y ago
    I think having Trump whisper in your ear before the next Truth Social post is the least effort way to win at Crypto. Inventing a viable quantum computer seems like way too much effort for the bros.
yard2010 1y ago
Honest question why would anyone harvest Bitcoin after this? Wouldn't it lose all its value since everyone has everyone key now?
- stOneskull 1y ago
  maybe it could be turned into a game.. hide the satoshis from the quantum ghosts
- Ray20 1y ago
  After? There is no reason. But between "only you have the keys" and that "after" there is literally tens of billions of dollars.
jen729w 1y ago
I weep for humanity if that's the best use we can think of for quantum computing.
- breppp 1y ago
  Isn't most of our technology based on technologies invented to maximize killing in world war 2, or alternatively as a way to maximize monetization in sleazy ways?
  - eru 1y ago
    World War 2 took at most about a decade (depending on who you ask). The history of development of our technology is much, much longer. I doubt 'most of our technology' is based on anything that happened in WW2.
    - breppp 1y ago
      The general sentiment is still true, the reasons for engineering and (often science) are not always nobel (pun intended)
      - eru 1y ago
        Sure. I'm just objecting to connecting everything to WW2.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      It's just that technologies are all connected, so if you want to make them look bad you can do so. Is fixation of nitrogen into ammonia something that improved billions of lives through fertilizer, or something that enabled manufacture of many millions of tons of explosives? It's both.
      - eru 1y ago
        Sure, no question about that. I'm just objecting to connecting everything to WW2. There were plenty of other wars before and after and even at the same time.

wincy 1y ago

I got really into Lorcana last year, spent $40 on a particular rare card I needed for a deck. Out of curiosity I bought some cards for $3 each from Aliexpress, and got myself a jewelers loupe. The cards were literally indistinguishable even with the loupe. I quit buying cards after that. It’s a suckers game if I can’t tell the difference between a $50 and a $3 card even when I know one is fake. Sure enough, a few months later the prices have absolutely cratered for the cards. The only ones they couldn’t copy exactly seemed to be the “enchanted” cards, which sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars.