Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The Google and Caltech quantum papers demonstrated 2 breakthroughs: that Bitcoin cryptography is much easier to break than previously thought, and that far fewer logical qubits may be necessary for physical qubits. Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden explains: "These two papers are not necessarily about a quantum computer that's...

tbpn's profile picture

TBPN

912,993 subscribers

16,456 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsEducationScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

"Because blockchains like Bitcoin fundamentally rely on cryptography, it's existential for them." Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden on the Google and Caltech quantum papers: "Everything's on the line here. We have to solve it for chains like Bitcoin to have a future."
1:45

"Because blockchains like Bitcoin fundamentally rely on cryptography, it's existential for them." Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden on the Google and Caltech quantum papers: "Everything's on the line here. We have to solve it for chains like Bitcoin to have a future."

TBPN

10,193 views • 3 months ago

6,100-Qubit Processor Shatters Quantum Computing Record | David Nield, ScienceAlert Another major quantum computing record has been broken, and by a considerable margin: physicists have now built an array containing 6,100 qubits, the largest of its type and way above the thousand or so qubits previous systems contained. It's the work of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, who used cesium atoms as their qubits, trapping them in place with a complex system of lasers that acted as tweezers to keep the atoms as stable as possible. Qubits differ from the classical bits of traditional computers by exploiting what's known as a superposition: not just binary states of 1 or 0, but a spread of probabilities that allows for algorithms that can solve problems considered out of reach of conventional computing methods. Related: Quantum Advantage: A Physicist Explains The Future of Computers A lot of qubits will be needed to make quantum algorithms practical, however. One reason for these large arrays is error correction, which helps overcome the inherent fragility of the qubit by providing a surplus to double-check the machine's operation. "This is an exciting moment for neutral-atom quantum computing," says physicist Manuel Endres. "We can now see a pathway to large error-corrected quantum computers. The building blocks are in place." There was no single breakthrough that enabled this jump in qubit numbers, but rather a series of engineering advancements in many key areas – from the laser tweezers to the ultra-high (very low pressure) vacuum chamber. Stability has also been a problem for quantum computing systems. The innovations in this latest array kept qubits in a superposition state for almost 13 seconds – almost ten times longer than previous configurations had managed. What's more, individual qubits could be manipulated with 99.98 percent accuracy, establishing a significant benchmark in the programmability of quantum technology. "Large scale, with more atoms, is often thought to come at the expense of accuracy, but our results show that we can do both," says physicist Gyohei Nomura. "Qubits aren't useful without quality. Now we have quantity and quality." To make quantum computers a practical alternative to modern supercomputers, more qubits and even greater levels of stability will be required. Experts are tackling the problem from several different angles, which is why records for some types of quantum computer don't necessarily apply to others. Next, the researchers need to work on exploiting entanglement, which will enable the system to make the leap from storing information to actually processing it. Not too far in the future, we could be using these computers to discover new materials, matter, and fundamental laws of physics. "It's exciting that we are creating machines to help us learn about the Universe in ways that only quantum mechanics can teach us," says physicist Hannah Manetsch. Read more:
1:54

6,100-Qubit Processor Shatters Quantum Computing Record | David Nield, ScienceAlert Another major quantum computing record has been broken, and by a considerable margin: physicists have now built an array containing 6,100 qubits, the largest of its type and way above the thousand or so qubits previous systems contained. It's the work of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, who used cesium atoms as their qubits, trapping them in place with a complex system of lasers that acted as tweezers to keep the atoms as stable as possible. Qubits differ from the classical bits of traditional computers by exploiting what's known as a superposition: not just binary states of 1 or 0, but a spread of probabilities that allows for algorithms that can solve problems considered out of reach of conventional computing methods. Related: Quantum Advantage: A Physicist Explains The Future of Computers A lot of qubits will be needed to make quantum algorithms practical, however. One reason for these large arrays is error correction, which helps overcome the inherent fragility of the qubit by providing a surplus to double-check the machine's operation. "This is an exciting moment for neutral-atom quantum computing," says physicist Manuel Endres. "We can now see a pathway to large error-corrected quantum computers. The building blocks are in place." There was no single breakthrough that enabled this jump in qubit numbers, but rather a series of engineering advancements in many key areas – from the laser tweezers to the ultra-high (very low pressure) vacuum chamber. Stability has also been a problem for quantum computing systems. The innovations in this latest array kept qubits in a superposition state for almost 13 seconds – almost ten times longer than previous configurations had managed. What's more, individual qubits could be manipulated with 99.98 percent accuracy, establishing a significant benchmark in the programmability of quantum technology. "Large scale, with more atoms, is often thought to come at the expense of accuracy, but our results show that we can do both," says physicist Gyohei Nomura. "Qubits aren't useful without quality. Now we have quantity and quality." To make quantum computers a practical alternative to modern supercomputers, more qubits and even greater levels of stability will be required. Experts are tackling the problem from several different angles, which is why records for some types of quantum computer don't necessarily apply to others. Next, the researchers need to work on exploiting entanglement, which will enable the system to make the leap from storing information to actually processing it. Not too far in the future, we could be using these computers to discover new materials, matter, and fundamental laws of physics. "It's exciting that we are creating machines to help us learn about the Universe in ways that only quantum mechanics can teach us," says physicist Hannah Manetsch. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

43,078 views • 9 months ago

Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden says China may be 6-12 months behind the US in quantum computing at most: "[China has] made quantum computing a priority. What that means in China is — there used to be a lab at Tencent, Baidu, and a few other places. And at some point, a CCP official came in and said, 'Guess what, you guys all work for us now, you're all working together, and you're not allowed to talk about it anymore." "There's a legitimate question about how far back they are. The best estimates that we have — we have a quantum physicist who's an advisor to Project Eleven that tracks resource estimates across the world, and their view is that China may be 6-12 months behind at most." "Can we expect the CCP, which is maybe more willing to crush dissent in places like Hong Kong, to care as much about the philosophical principles of Bitcoin and decentralization if it serves their purposes to do otherwise? I don't think we can." "It's better to be safe than sorry. We need to prepare today to prevent the crisis tomorrow."
1:55

Project Eleven CEO Alex Pruden says China may be 6-12 months behind the US in quantum computing at most: "[China has] made quantum computing a priority. What that means in China is — there used to be a lab at Tencent, Baidu, and a few other places. And at some point, a CCP official came in and said, 'Guess what, you guys all work for us now, you're all working together, and you're not allowed to talk about it anymore." "There's a legitimate question about how far back they are. The best estimates that we have — we have a quantum physicist who's an advisor to Project Eleven that tracks resource estimates across the world, and their view is that China may be 6-12 months behind at most." "Can we expect the CCP, which is maybe more willing to crush dissent in places like Hong Kong, to care as much about the philosophical principles of Bitcoin and decentralization if it serves their purposes to do otherwise? I don't think we can." "It's better to be safe than sorry. We need to prepare today to prevent the crisis tomorrow."

TBPN

17,623 views • 3 months ago

Platner: I think that if we are going to have a politics that is going to be representative of regular people, if we are going to have a politics that's going to allow us to move past the polarization and frankly, the division that we find ourselves in, we really need to understand that people are capable of changing. We need to we need to keep hope alive, that people that we may disagree with today, that we can find common ground with. Like if you listen to what I've been saying on the campaign trail across the state, that's what I'm trying to talk about. It is important to me that we realize that most of us, most Americans, have far more in common than we think we do, and we need to give each other grace, and we need to give each other space to grow and to evolve. Because if we can't do that, then I'm not really sure what the purpose of any of this is.
1:37

Platner: I think that if we are going to have a politics that is going to be representative of regular people, if we are going to have a politics that's going to allow us to move past the polarization and frankly, the division that we find ourselves in, we really need to understand that people are capable of changing. We need to we need to keep hope alive, that people that we may disagree with today, that we can find common ground with. Like if you listen to what I've been saying on the campaign trail across the state, that's what I'm trying to talk about. It is important to me that we realize that most of us, most Americans, have far more in common than we think we do, and we need to give each other grace, and we need to give each other space to grow and to evolve. Because if we can't do that, then I'm not really sure what the purpose of any of this is.

Acyn

147,957 views • 8 months ago

Arteta on the players battling a physical strain: “Yes, but when I see them track back, when we lose the ball and the habits that they have, it's just amazing. That's why I know what they are doing, these players. There is a reason why we are the only English team in the competition, because this league and this schedule takes the hell out of you and it's very difficult to do what we've done. “We are not perfect, we need to improve things, that's for sure, we recognise that, but let's value what these players have done because they deserve it.”
0:36

Arteta on the players battling a physical strain: “Yes, but when I see them track back, when we lose the ball and the habits that they have, it's just amazing. That's why I know what they are doing, these players. There is a reason why we are the only English team in the competition, because this league and this schedule takes the hell out of you and it's very difficult to do what we've done. “We are not perfect, we need to improve things, that's for sure, we recognise that, but let's value what these players have done because they deserve it.”

Connor Humm

55,160 views • 3 months ago

[Q]: Would Ukraine be forced to give up land that Russian forces have not yet conquered? [Steve Witkoff]: Well, the president has said that the only one who can make that decision are the Ukrainians. That's President Zelensky's call. And and I think that that they have indicated that it's a more complicated decision than just giving up land. You have to they have to understand what the security guarantees are and they're entitled to understand those things. They have to make sure that this can never happen again. That's that is them being a fiduciary for their people. So we have to address all of those things. But we understand that we have technical teams working on it. And we're hopeful that by the end of this year, we actually and maybe quite a bit sooner, we actually can find the ingredients to get to that peace deal.
10:36

[Q]: Would Ukraine be forced to give up land that Russian forces have not yet conquered? [Steve Witkoff]: Well, the president has said that the only one who can make that decision are the Ukrainians. That's President Zelensky's call. And and I think that that they have indicated that it's a more complicated decision than just giving up land. You have to they have to understand what the security guarantees are and they're entitled to understand those things. They have to make sure that this can never happen again. That's that is them being a fiduciary for their people. So we have to address all of those things. But we understand that we have technical teams working on it. And we're hopeful that by the end of this year, we actually and maybe quite a bit sooner, we actually can find the ingredients to get to that peace deal.

Anton Gerashchenko

53,163 views • 10 months ago

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.
3:08

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,913 views • 1 year ago

Trump is babbling complete nonsense “Hopefully they'll be able to get these expensive computers going. You know, the reason you use computers is to make time so that it's like fast. You don't use them so that you have to come up with an answer three days later. And that's a little scary when they say what, what are they doing? You use a computer because it calculates quickly and you use paper because you save cost, but the paper turns out to be much quicker than the computer”
0:30

Trump is babbling complete nonsense “Hopefully they'll be able to get these expensive computers going. You know, the reason you use computers is to make time so that it's like fast. You don't use them so that you have to come up with an answer three days later. And that's a little scary when they say what, what are they doing? You use a computer because it calculates quickly and you use paper because you save cost, but the paper turns out to be much quicker than the computer”

Headquarters

1,599,470 views • 1 year ago

BITCOIN RAILS #61: QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR BITCOIN | with Dan Boneh Dan Boneh 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: One of the most prolific and influential cryptographers in the world, it’s difficult to fully quantify the impact that Dan Boneh has had on Bitcoin and digital assets more broadly. Through both his own research and his mentorship of some of the space’s most important contributors — e.g. Andrew Poelstra, Benedikt Bünz ☕️, and Robin Linus — few people have done more to shape the cryptographic foundations underlying modern blockchains and digital finance. More recently, Dan co-authored Google's widely discussed paper, “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities,” which reduced prior estimates of the resources required to run Shor’s algorithm against the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin. The paper reignited debate around quantum computing timelines and the long-term security assumptions behind modern cryptocurrencies. In this episode of Bitcoin Rails, Dan and I discuss the current state of quantum computing, its potential implications for Bitcoin, and how he believes the Bitcoin community should think about preparing for a post-quantum future over the coming decade and beyond. And yes, Dan shares his take on the “when quantum” question in the interview, among other key perspectives. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by my NEW sponsors: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin Defi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro and Dan’s history with cryptography and Bitcoin 11:44 — Shor's algorithm: how a 1994 paper became cryptography's most important threat 16:39 — Building a quantum computer: superconducting qubits vs neutral atoms 25:37 — When should we start worrying about quantum computers? The timeline debate 31:51 — Have we already reached quantum computing's “ahá” moment? 39:09 — Inside the Google paper: how Shor's algorithm was optimized 49:57 — The Bitcoin mempool attack and the 10-minute window 59:21 — Mitigation: what should Bitcoin do to prepare for quantum? 1:11:54 — Hash-based vs lattice-based signatures: Dan's case for lattice 1:23:15 — ZK proofs, BIP361, and what to do with Satoshi's coins 1:31:52 — Encrypted mempools and MEV 1:38:29 — Why Bitcoin will survive quantum and Dan's message to Bitcoin builders
1:44:02

BITCOIN RAILS #61: QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR BITCOIN | with Dan Boneh Dan Boneh 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: One of the most prolific and influential cryptographers in the world, it’s difficult to fully quantify the impact that Dan Boneh has had on Bitcoin and digital assets more broadly. Through both his own research and his mentorship of some of the space’s most important contributors — e.g. Andrew Poelstra, Benedikt Bünz ☕️, and Robin Linus — few people have done more to shape the cryptographic foundations underlying modern blockchains and digital finance. More recently, Dan co-authored Google's widely discussed paper, “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities,” which reduced prior estimates of the resources required to run Shor’s algorithm against the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin. The paper reignited debate around quantum computing timelines and the long-term security assumptions behind modern cryptocurrencies. In this episode of Bitcoin Rails, Dan and I discuss the current state of quantum computing, its potential implications for Bitcoin, and how he believes the Bitcoin community should think about preparing for a post-quantum future over the coming decade and beyond. And yes, Dan shares his take on the “when quantum” question in the interview, among other key perspectives. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by my NEW sponsors: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin Defi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro and Dan’s history with cryptography and Bitcoin 11:44 — Shor's algorithm: how a 1994 paper became cryptography's most important threat 16:39 — Building a quantum computer: superconducting qubits vs neutral atoms 25:37 — When should we start worrying about quantum computers? The timeline debate 31:51 — Have we already reached quantum computing's “ahá” moment? 39:09 — Inside the Google paper: how Shor's algorithm was optimized 49:57 — The Bitcoin mempool attack and the 10-minute window 59:21 — Mitigation: what should Bitcoin do to prepare for quantum? 1:11:54 — Hash-based vs lattice-based signatures: Dan's case for lattice 1:23:15 — ZK proofs, BIP361, and what to do with Satoshi's coins 1:31:52 — Encrypted mempools and MEV 1:38:29 — Why Bitcoin will survive quantum and Dan's message to Bitcoin builders

Isabel Foxen Duke⚡️

112,906 views • 1 month ago

Usually when there was a correction in the market all of the alt coins and there are thousands of them, would have a large correction but they would bounce back. This time, they're not bouncing back and the reason that is occurring is very simple. Investors have figured out you only need to own two positions to capture 97.5% of all the alpha of all crypto. That's Bitcoin itself and Ethereum. If you own those two, it doesn't matter what happens anywhere else because everything else is moving with a much higher vol to the downside and not recovering anymore because they have no use case.
3:39

Usually when there was a correction in the market all of the alt coins and there are thousands of them, would have a large correction but they would bounce back. This time, they're not bouncing back and the reason that is occurring is very simple. Investors have figured out you only need to own two positions to capture 97.5% of all the alpha of all crypto. That's Bitcoin itself and Ethereum. If you own those two, it doesn't matter what happens anywhere else because everything else is moving with a much higher vol to the downside and not recovering anymore because they have no use case.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

278,146 views • 7 months ago

We don't have a seller yet. However the syndicate ends up, we don't know. This is a complicated deal. Two factors to consider: Number one, we need Xi and Trump to agree they're gonna be a buyer and a seller. That's number one. Number two, we need to figure out a way to take care of Senator Cotton's concerns around the algorithm and many others who are not going to give an indemnification for using the original algorithm. We have to solve for that too. My bet, not to sound arrogant, is I will be there at the table at the end.
0:41

We don't have a seller yet. However the syndicate ends up, we don't know. This is a complicated deal. Two factors to consider: Number one, we need Xi and Trump to agree they're gonna be a buyer and a seller. That's number one. Number two, we need to figure out a way to take care of Senator Cotton's concerns around the algorithm and many others who are not going to give an indemnification for using the original algorithm. We have to solve for that too. My bet, not to sound arrogant, is I will be there at the table at the end.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

35,678 views • 1 year ago

The Idea of NHI on Earth. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ 🔥"The gravity of it goes up a whole lot if it goes from the theoretical to the verified." ~Dr. Phil 🔥 "There have been people that have reported being abducted over the years. What's the intent behind that? Is it medical? Is it more nefarious?" ~BZ to Dr. Phil (I'm so glad Bryce went there.) "There will be people...who likely are going to need some some assistance to help deal with this because it is so far-reaching and for some people, potentially, very frightening." ~Mellon ~ Dr. Phil: "We know in the last 80 years there have been no overt hostile acts that we know about. That doesn't mean there could be things happening that are attributable to these forces that we don't know about. But, we certainly don't have any attacks that we can attribute to these UAPs or whatever." (Well, there's Colares in 1977. If that was non-human in nature, I'd say that qualifies as overt. And the Thomas Mantell incident in 1948 where he crashed and died after pursuing a UFO. Was that overt? Unfortunately, we don't know what happened and probably never will.) Dr. Phil: "And if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, I think people can take some comfort in knowing that if they were gonna melt us with a ray gun or something of that nature, they've had ample opportunity to do that. "They may have been here 1000 years before we were here. Who knows what the situation is? But we do know that as long as we've been monitoring this and tracking it, there have been no overt hostile acts and I think people can take some comfort in that, and should." (See the work of Peter Levenda for a deeper look at that. "They might have been attacking us for centuries already, in ways that make sense to them... What if they are attacking us through the manipulation of consciousness? ~Peter Levenda More... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ ~ (I'm glad Bryce pushed back a bit.) Bryce Zabel: "They should. The only thing I would say is, if we're dealing with a non-human intelligence - or an NHI, as we like to say now - we'd have to assume that they think differently than us. So even in our own world, in the United States, we tend to think in four-year terms because of presidential terms, right? So you can't get something off the ground if it can't get done right away. The Chinese may think in 100-year terms when they think about Taiwan or whatever. "It's possible there are alien or non-human intelligences that think in a different time frame. If their time frame was 1000 years, then they could just be getting started. "And on the topic of the nuclear issue, which I share concern of. I mean, I think the nuclear issue means it is at least a national-security issue of some kind. Now, I've heard people talk about this, Dr. Phil, two different ways. Some people say, 'Well, you know, they're looking at our nuclear capabilities because they want to protect us from ourselves.' "Okay, that's great, I hope that's true. But the other would be: what do you do before you actually go to war with anybody, is you do reconnaissance. You try to find out what the other guy has. What are their assets? What are their capabilities?" (That may freak out some people but all angles should be considered.) Zabel: "So, I think the problem that we need to overcome in this country is getting to a place where we understand this phenomenon that we're encountering enough that we can at least start to figure out intent. What is the intent? "There have been people that have reported being abducted over the years. What's the intent behind that? Is it medical? Is it more nefarious? What is it? And so, we got a lot of work to do, and I think that's why I am so supportive of your current efforts because you're, basically, saying, 'Let's get started, people. Let's really take this seriously. Let's quit fooling around and stigmatizing people that want to take it seriously, and let's get to work.' But let's get to work as a human race. Let's start sharing what we know and let's make progress. That's where I'm coming from, too." (Bringing up abductions is important because it IS part of this discussion and it shouldn't be avoided. Kudos to Bryce!) Dr. Phil: "I saw a study that said 71% of Americans believe that there are aliens that have been or are in our earthly space. And it's interesting...I read that in one context, it said, 'Look, this is not going to be such a big deal if this gets verified.' "You know, there's one thing to say that in the abstract, like, 'Yeah, I think yeah probably there are.' It's a whole other different situation if you turn around and see somebody standing there. The gravity of it goes up a whole lot if it goes from the theoretical to the verified. (100%. That's my favorite part of the interview and it's so true.) Dr. Phil: "And I hope that we are going to put enough context around this, particularly knowing that there are segments of our population that are very vulnerable. There are some elderly folks that aren't up on technology and might be overwhelmed by the reality of this. "We have certain populations that might be easily disoriented or destabilized in the mental emotional fringes of the population. And I worry about those that are easily exploitable. You know, you need to get out of the urban areas, buy our buried school bus in the mountains, and you'll be safe forever. You know the con artists and the scammers are going to find every opportunity to prey upon those that are concerned and worried about this. "And I think we need to be prepared to take care of those that might be destabilized by this information that's coming out right now, we can't pretend they aren't there. We've made those mistakes in the past, like during COVID, for example. There are those that are more impacted than others, and we need to be prepared to handle that." Christopher K. Mellon: "We, recently, commissioned a study by a group of six psychologists, PhD psychologists, on this topic of how the public would receive this information. And it was generally very encouraging. And what they found was that the great bulk of the population, as they have in the past with other epical changes such as the Copernican principle, or evolution, or general relativity, it takes people a while to process this information. There's a period of resistance. But most people will get up, get out of bed, go to work the next day. They're not devastated, even though there's nothing quite comparable to this, perhaps." (There's no perhaps. A government or respected figure admitting that we're not alone on this planet would be unprecedented and there is NOTHING we can compare it to.) Mellon: "What the study did find is that there is likely, however, to be a subset of people, maybe 15% of the population, that are going to need some help. And that we are not necessarily prepared in our present state to provide that kind of assistance, and we need to be doing more to get ready for that." (If he's talking world population, that's about 1.2 BILLION people who are going to need some help dealing with this. Holy crap. 😬) Mellon: "And also, to work on the messaging. The messaging is so important, clear and consistent messaging from the government, trying to develop trust with the American people so that the information is is accepted and acted on." (For me, I want the whole truth more than the right "message.") Mellon: "A lot of the difference will be people who can't get their head around it, even though they really understand it. But because of their own belief structure, the architecture of their own belief structure, for some reason, in their particular individual case, it's particularly threatening or disruptive. "So there will be people who fall into that category, according to this study, who likely are going to need some some assistance to help deal with this because it is so far-reaching and for some people, potentially, very frightening."
7:10

The Idea of NHI on Earth. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ 🔥"The gravity of it goes up a whole lot if it goes from the theoretical to the verified." ~Dr. Phil 🔥 "There have been people that have reported being abducted over the years. What's the intent behind that? Is it medical? Is it more nefarious?" ~BZ to Dr. Phil (I'm so glad Bryce went there.) "There will be people...who likely are going to need some some assistance to help deal with this because it is so far-reaching and for some people, potentially, very frightening." ~Mellon ~ Dr. Phil: "We know in the last 80 years there have been no overt hostile acts that we know about. That doesn't mean there could be things happening that are attributable to these forces that we don't know about. But, we certainly don't have any attacks that we can attribute to these UAPs or whatever." (Well, there's Colares in 1977. If that was non-human in nature, I'd say that qualifies as overt. And the Thomas Mantell incident in 1948 where he crashed and died after pursuing a UFO. Was that overt? Unfortunately, we don't know what happened and probably never will.) Dr. Phil: "And if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, I think people can take some comfort in knowing that if they were gonna melt us with a ray gun or something of that nature, they've had ample opportunity to do that. "They may have been here 1000 years before we were here. Who knows what the situation is? But we do know that as long as we've been monitoring this and tracking it, there have been no overt hostile acts and I think people can take some comfort in that, and should." (See the work of Peter Levenda for a deeper look at that. "They might have been attacking us for centuries already, in ways that make sense to them... What if they are attacking us through the manipulation of consciousness? ~Peter Levenda More... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ ~ (I'm glad Bryce pushed back a bit.) Bryce Zabel: "They should. The only thing I would say is, if we're dealing with a non-human intelligence - or an NHI, as we like to say now - we'd have to assume that they think differently than us. So even in our own world, in the United States, we tend to think in four-year terms because of presidential terms, right? So you can't get something off the ground if it can't get done right away. The Chinese may think in 100-year terms when they think about Taiwan or whatever. "It's possible there are alien or non-human intelligences that think in a different time frame. If their time frame was 1000 years, then they could just be getting started. "And on the topic of the nuclear issue, which I share concern of. I mean, I think the nuclear issue means it is at least a national-security issue of some kind. Now, I've heard people talk about this, Dr. Phil, two different ways. Some people say, 'Well, you know, they're looking at our nuclear capabilities because they want to protect us from ourselves.' "Okay, that's great, I hope that's true. But the other would be: what do you do before you actually go to war with anybody, is you do reconnaissance. You try to find out what the other guy has. What are their assets? What are their capabilities?" (That may freak out some people but all angles should be considered.) Zabel: "So, I think the problem that we need to overcome in this country is getting to a place where we understand this phenomenon that we're encountering enough that we can at least start to figure out intent. What is the intent? "There have been people that have reported being abducted over the years. What's the intent behind that? Is it medical? Is it more nefarious? What is it? And so, we got a lot of work to do, and I think that's why I am so supportive of your current efforts because you're, basically, saying, 'Let's get started, people. Let's really take this seriously. Let's quit fooling around and stigmatizing people that want to take it seriously, and let's get to work.' But let's get to work as a human race. Let's start sharing what we know and let's make progress. That's where I'm coming from, too." (Bringing up abductions is important because it IS part of this discussion and it shouldn't be avoided. Kudos to Bryce!) Dr. Phil: "I saw a study that said 71% of Americans believe that there are aliens that have been or are in our earthly space. And it's interesting...I read that in one context, it said, 'Look, this is not going to be such a big deal if this gets verified.' "You know, there's one thing to say that in the abstract, like, 'Yeah, I think yeah probably there are.' It's a whole other different situation if you turn around and see somebody standing there. The gravity of it goes up a whole lot if it goes from the theoretical to the verified. (100%. That's my favorite part of the interview and it's so true.) Dr. Phil: "And I hope that we are going to put enough context around this, particularly knowing that there are segments of our population that are very vulnerable. There are some elderly folks that aren't up on technology and might be overwhelmed by the reality of this. "We have certain populations that might be easily disoriented or destabilized in the mental emotional fringes of the population. And I worry about those that are easily exploitable. You know, you need to get out of the urban areas, buy our buried school bus in the mountains, and you'll be safe forever. You know the con artists and the scammers are going to find every opportunity to prey upon those that are concerned and worried about this. "And I think we need to be prepared to take care of those that might be destabilized by this information that's coming out right now, we can't pretend they aren't there. We've made those mistakes in the past, like during COVID, for example. There are those that are more impacted than others, and we need to be prepared to handle that." Christopher K. Mellon: "We, recently, commissioned a study by a group of six psychologists, PhD psychologists, on this topic of how the public would receive this information. And it was generally very encouraging. And what they found was that the great bulk of the population, as they have in the past with other epical changes such as the Copernican principle, or evolution, or general relativity, it takes people a while to process this information. There's a period of resistance. But most people will get up, get out of bed, go to work the next day. They're not devastated, even though there's nothing quite comparable to this, perhaps." (There's no perhaps. A government or respected figure admitting that we're not alone on this planet would be unprecedented and there is NOTHING we can compare it to.) Mellon: "What the study did find is that there is likely, however, to be a subset of people, maybe 15% of the population, that are going to need some help. And that we are not necessarily prepared in our present state to provide that kind of assistance, and we need to be doing more to get ready for that." (If he's talking world population, that's about 1.2 BILLION people who are going to need some help dealing with this. Holy crap. 😬) Mellon: "And also, to work on the messaging. The messaging is so important, clear and consistent messaging from the government, trying to develop trust with the American people so that the information is is accepted and acted on." (For me, I want the whole truth more than the right "message.") Mellon: "A lot of the difference will be people who can't get their head around it, even though they really understand it. But because of their own belief structure, the architecture of their own belief structure, for some reason, in their particular individual case, it's particularly threatening or disruptive. "So there will be people who fall into that category, according to this study, who likely are going to need some some assistance to help deal with this because it is so far-reaching and for some people, potentially, very frightening."

Joe Murgia

26,955 views • 1 day ago

Google says quantum will break Bitcoin in 9 minutes. They need 500,000 qubits. They have 72. Your bank OTP, UPI, Aadhaar all of that is more vulnerable than Bitcoin. Closed systems, legacy code, zero transparency. Bitcoin is open source. The whole world audits it. It has been preparing for quantum for years. 17 years of FUD. Bitcoin is still here. Don’t sell. That’s exactly what this headline wants you to do. #Bitcoin #QuantumFUD #QuantumvsBitcoin #QuantumComputer #BitcoinFacts
2:52

Google says quantum will break Bitcoin in 9 minutes. They need 500,000 qubits. They have 72. Your bank OTP, UPI, Aadhaar all of that is more vulnerable than Bitcoin. Closed systems, legacy code, zero transparency. Bitcoin is open source. The whole world audits it. It has been preparing for quantum for years. 17 years of FUD. Bitcoin is still here. Don’t sell. That’s exactly what this headline wants you to do. #Bitcoin #QuantumFUD #QuantumvsBitcoin #QuantumComputer #BitcoinFacts

CryptoWala

181,272 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk: We had to print out 25,000 pages of paper to start Tesla's factory in Germany. Alice Weidel: “We need to free our firms, our companies, and the individuals of these obnoxious bureaucratic conditions here [in Germany]. Do you know how long it takes, how many days it takes to get a business permit in Germany?” Elon Musk: “As it turns out, I do, because we built a gigantic car factory just near Berlin. We had many, many challenges. To be clear, we actually had a lot of support, a lot of local support, a lot of local support from the local government, from the national government. And despite all that support, just the sheer number of rules that the people in the government are required to follow is completely crazy. I think our permit was 25,000 pages, and it had to be all printed on paper. I think maybe more than that in the end. There has to be many, many copies made. It literally was a truck of paper. We were like, surely we can make this electronic? Isn't that better for everyone? And they said, no, it has to be paper. This is crazy. This was only a few years ago. It's not the distant past. We're a quarter of the way through the 21st century. It's like, guys, 25,000 actual printed pages ... I believe every page needed to be stamped with a physical stamp. Honestly, it's going to really tire somebody out to do so much stamping. They're going to get some sort of repetitive stress injury. They will end up in the hospital, I mean, that's too much. But I'm not trying to blame the individuals who are doing this because they are just following the rules. So, we have to change the rules.” Conversation with Alice Weidel, January 9, 2025
2:13

Elon Musk: We had to print out 25,000 pages of paper to start Tesla's factory in Germany. Alice Weidel: “We need to free our firms, our companies, and the individuals of these obnoxious bureaucratic conditions here [in Germany]. Do you know how long it takes, how many days it takes to get a business permit in Germany?” Elon Musk: “As it turns out, I do, because we built a gigantic car factory just near Berlin. We had many, many challenges. To be clear, we actually had a lot of support, a lot of local support, a lot of local support from the local government, from the national government. And despite all that support, just the sheer number of rules that the people in the government are required to follow is completely crazy. I think our permit was 25,000 pages, and it had to be all printed on paper. I think maybe more than that in the end. There has to be many, many copies made. It literally was a truck of paper. We were like, surely we can make this electronic? Isn't that better for everyone? And they said, no, it has to be paper. This is crazy. This was only a few years ago. It's not the distant past. We're a quarter of the way through the 21st century. It's like, guys, 25,000 actual printed pages ... I believe every page needed to be stamped with a physical stamp. Honestly, it's going to really tire somebody out to do so much stamping. They're going to get some sort of repetitive stress injury. They will end up in the hospital, I mean, that's too much. But I'm not trying to blame the individuals who are doing this because they are just following the rules. So, we have to change the rules.” Conversation with Alice Weidel, January 9, 2025

ELON CLIPS

5,576,342 views • 1 year ago

Arteta: “We need everything. We need the first of all, we need everybody fit and available. So the ones that are not involved, the ones that are not with us, that are really big, important players, we need them immediately with us because then we're going to be much stronger. “And then, the other ones, they need to stand up me, the first one and embrace this challenge and go for it. So today we have to suffer. It's painful. It's a terrible feeling. But tomorrow is a different day and if somebody would have said to me in August, 'You are in this position right now in April,' I'm sure we would all take it.”
0:48

Arteta: “We need everything. We need the first of all, we need everybody fit and available. So the ones that are not involved, the ones that are not with us, that are really big, important players, we need them immediately with us because then we're going to be much stronger. “And then, the other ones, they need to stand up me, the first one and embrace this challenge and go for it. So today we have to suffer. It's painful. It's a terrible feeling. But tomorrow is a different day and if somebody would have said to me in August, 'You are in this position right now in April,' I'm sure we would all take it.”

Connor Humm

59,679 views • 3 months ago

People are losing their minds over the idea of quantum computing breaking Bitcoin, but the panic is largely detached from reality. If you listen to Eric Yakes, the fear-mongering is completely off base. The theoretical threat relies on quantum computers factoring large prime numbers fast enough to crack current cryptography. To date, the largest number a quantum computer has successfully factored is 15. "Neven's Law" says quantum power grows at a doubly exponential rate. It's a projection people are using to raise money for their projects, rather than a measurement we are seeing in real life. Compare that to Moore's Law, which we actually watched happen in real time. While physical qubits are increasing and error rates are slowly declining, there is a massive technical hurdle: error rates scale exponentially with qubit count. Adding more power creates more "noise," making the machine harder to stabilize. "But institutional capital is worried!" That's fine. Institutional capital has been wrong about Bitcoin for a decade. If they're selling on quantum FUD, that's cheap sats for the rest of us. Bitcoin devs have been on this for years and are taking steps to mitigate the risk. BIP-360 was just merged into the Bitcoin GitHub repository and Chaincode Labs has published plenty of serious research. If a real threat emerges, every stakeholder is incentivized to adopt quantum-resistant signatures and consensus won't be the obstacle people think it is. Start paying attention to what's actually being built and take your finger off the panic button. Full breakdown 👇
10:13

People are losing their minds over the idea of quantum computing breaking Bitcoin, but the panic is largely detached from reality. If you listen to Eric Yakes, the fear-mongering is completely off base. The theoretical threat relies on quantum computers factoring large prime numbers fast enough to crack current cryptography. To date, the largest number a quantum computer has successfully factored is 15. "Neven's Law" says quantum power grows at a doubly exponential rate. It's a projection people are using to raise money for their projects, rather than a measurement we are seeing in real life. Compare that to Moore's Law, which we actually watched happen in real time. While physical qubits are increasing and error rates are slowly declining, there is a massive technical hurdle: error rates scale exponentially with qubit count. Adding more power creates more "noise," making the machine harder to stabilize. "But institutional capital is worried!" That's fine. Institutional capital has been wrong about Bitcoin for a decade. If they're selling on quantum FUD, that's cheap sats for the rest of us. Bitcoin devs have been on this for years and are taking steps to mitigate the risk. BIP-360 was just merged into the Bitcoin GitHub repository and Chaincode Labs has published plenty of serious research. If a real threat emerges, every stakeholder is incentivized to adopt quantum-resistant signatures and consensus won't be the obstacle people think it is. Start paying attention to what's actually being built and take your finger off the panic button. Full breakdown 👇

Bitcoin News

15,241 views • 5 months ago

"If you have ambitions to be a Professor at Yale, Harvard, or one of these big institutions, the way you do that is mostly by getting funding for research. It's by getting a lot of publishing - a lot flying around the world to talk about something. You need all of these things to bolster your reputation as an international expert in this area. Now, the best way to do that, at least in psychiatry but I suspect in other areas of medicine, is actually to collaborate with pharmaceutical companies to run clinical trials. They write the publications for you - most of it, they do a lot of the grunt work, they give you the protocols, and then, essentially, they fund you and fly you around the place. I used to remember, as a junior doctor, looking up to the Professors. And they would say, 'These drugs are safe and effective. There's not a lot of problems there.' ...What I've seen more and more is that they've been compromised, and that they have incentives tied to the money and to career advancement. That means that they can't be as forthright as they ought to be about these things. And it's gotten to a problem where these are the Professors who are training the doctors who are setting the tone for what is acceptable care out there. And I think that's one of the biggest problems out there." - @taperclinic
7:15

"If you have ambitions to be a Professor at Yale, Harvard, or one of these big institutions, the way you do that is mostly by getting funding for research. It's by getting a lot of publishing - a lot flying around the world to talk about something. You need all of these things to bolster your reputation as an international expert in this area. Now, the best way to do that, at least in psychiatry but I suspect in other areas of medicine, is actually to collaborate with pharmaceutical companies to run clinical trials. They write the publications for you - most of it, they do a lot of the grunt work, they give you the protocols, and then, essentially, they fund you and fly you around the place. I used to remember, as a junior doctor, looking up to the Professors. And they would say, 'These drugs are safe and effective. There's not a lot of problems there.' ...What I've seen more and more is that they've been compromised, and that they have incentives tied to the money and to career advancement. That means that they can't be as forthright as they ought to be about these things. And it's gotten to a problem where these are the Professors who are training the doctors who are setting the tone for what is acceptable care out there. And I think that's one of the biggest problems out there." - @taperclinic

Jan Jekielek

43,499 views • 1 year ago

More from Trump and Qatar gift: "I think this is just a gesture of good-faith." "It'll go to my library... I thought it was a great gesture." He says he would NOT use the plane himself after leaving office. It would basically sit in his library. "I think what happens with the plane is that, you know, we're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One. You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame. You look at some of the Arab countries and the planes they have parked alongside of the United States of America plane, it's like from a different planet." "When I came back, I said, by the way, what's going on with the Boeings that are coming in? 'Well, sir, they're way behind.' And they are way behind." "I think Qatar, who has really, we've helped them a lot over the years in terms of security and safety. I think they, and very, very nicely, and I have a lot of respect for the leadership and for the leader, Qatar. And I think they knew about it because they buy Boeings, they buy a lot of Boeings. And they knew about it and they said 'we would like to do something,' and if we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they're building the other ones - I think that was a very nice gesture." "Now, I could be a stupid person and say, oh, no, we don't want a free plane. We give free things out. We'll take one, too. And it helps us out because, again, we're talking about we have 40-year-old aircraft. The money we spend, the maintenance we spend on those planes to keep them tippy-top is astronomical."
3:24

More from Trump and Qatar gift: "I think this is just a gesture of good-faith." "It'll go to my library... I thought it was a great gesture." He says he would NOT use the plane himself after leaving office. It would basically sit in his library. "I think what happens with the plane is that, you know, we're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One. You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame. You look at some of the Arab countries and the planes they have parked alongside of the United States of America plane, it's like from a different planet." "When I came back, I said, by the way, what's going on with the Boeings that are coming in? 'Well, sir, they're way behind.' And they are way behind." "I think Qatar, who has really, we've helped them a lot over the years in terms of security and safety. I think they, and very, very nicely, and I have a lot of respect for the leadership and for the leader, Qatar. And I think they knew about it because they buy Boeings, they buy a lot of Boeings. And they knew about it and they said 'we would like to do something,' and if we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they're building the other ones - I think that was a very nice gesture." "Now, I could be a stupid person and say, oh, no, we don't want a free plane. We give free things out. We'll take one, too. And it helps us out because, again, we're talking about we have 40-year-old aircraft. The money we spend, the maintenance we spend on those planes to keep them tippy-top is astronomical."

Open Source Intel

118,783 views • 1 year ago

🚨ELON MUSK: "We need to have fire breaks and we need to clear the brush back away from houses and we need to make sure the reservoirs are full but due to a bunch of environmental rulings you can't do that in California because it might hurt some red-legged frog or something like that. There's a fish called the Smelt and we have far more fresh water runoff into the ocean than we should on the theory that it helps this one little fish that likes this fresh/salt water mix. But there's no evidence of this. So we should have more fresh water. This is just an example, but we would have saved a lot of trouble if we had done that."
1:35

🚨ELON MUSK: "We need to have fire breaks and we need to clear the brush back away from houses and we need to make sure the reservoirs are full but due to a bunch of environmental rulings you can't do that in California because it might hurt some red-legged frog or something like that. There's a fish called the Smelt and we have far more fresh water runoff into the ocean than we should on the theory that it helps this one little fish that likes this fresh/salt water mix. But there's no evidence of this. So we should have more fresh water. This is just an example, but we would have saved a lot of trouble if we had done that."

Autism Capital 🧩

850,624 views • 1 year ago