I remember times in 90's when we planned a software system in UML powered tool called Rational Rose. Oh my god its was clumsy and slow process. But yes, sequence diagrams are very useful tool.
It may be dumb question, but is there any realistic use case to use this vulnerability to reveal SHA-3 hashed secrets? Or is it just that attacker can crash systems with suitable input?
I’ve shown how this vulnerability in XKCP can be used to violate the cryptographic properties of the hash function to create preimages, second preimages, and collisions. Moreover, I’ve also shown how a specially constructed file can result in arbitrary code execution, and the vulnerability can also impact signature verification algorithms such as Ed448 that require the use of SHA-3. The details of these attacks will be made public at a later date.
The code for the functions is vendor agnostic. Vendor lock-in comes from the integrations the code that runs in the cloud ends up consuming, and the developer experience one acquires. The nature of cloud development is that one invariably becomes an expert in a cloud or stack, and that's the real lock in / why it's expensive to move in practice.
Exactly… the projection that datacenters' demand for computing power won't be offset by silicon efficiency improvements is somewhat speculative; the projection that Bitcoin's demand for computing power won't be offset by silicon efficiency improvements is obvious and is by design of the fucking system.
bitcoin mining provides an opportunity for anyone, anywhere to convert their computing resources into value. the competitive pressure is to have more efficient energy usage than your competitors
so in reality, bitcoin provides an direct incentive for more efficient computing (the kind that can't be handle with by building smaller, more efficient processors). it might do more to boost computational efficiency (and reduce emissions) than all the millions of pages of blogger platitude-ing flooding the internet
I'm sorry, what? Bitcoin mining has spawned an entire new industry focused solely on converting a scarce shared resource (electrical energy) into perceived personal profits. It is wasteful pollution on a global scale: a single bitcoin transaction consumes as much power as an average U.S. household does in 77 days (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)
It's a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. The energy already wasted on bitcoin mining will never be recuperated by the efficiency gains you so eagerly (and without merit) ascribe to bitcoin.
So when bitcoin hits it's schedule max limit and can't be mined anymore, is the point moot?
I guess the question is: how much of a total energy bill will it have racked up before we get to that point, and should we consider the likely improvements to computing efficiency when we start speculating about the long term impact
"converting a scarce shared resource (electrical energy) into perceived personal profits" (1) is this entirely new?, and (2) it doesn't just exist for increasing profits, it provides a service: a digital cash infrastructure
Absolute bullshit. Bitcoin does not even use processors for mining, it uses massively specialised hardware that is absolutely useless for anything else. No advances in bitcoin mining will translate to gain in anything else.
It also massively increases emissions and does nothing to decrease them. The difficulty adjustment algorithm of bitcoin will ensure that you always have to keep wasting more resources to mine, and will cancel out any gains you ever make. By design. Bitcoin is explicitly built to waste resources.
by specialized hardware, you mean GPUs? which are extremely useful for graphics, machine learning, and large-scale mathematical calculations? the gains to society that GPUs brought can't be understated. how do you think they run the climate-projection models? [1]
and my argument is about second-order effects. even if bitcoin mining remains inefficient, the technological gains of directly incentivising lower energy usage than your competitors carries over to other markets / enterprises
plus, bitcoin is scheduled to run out. so eventually the mining issue is moot
a second-order prediction is obviously more noisy and holds less weight without any direct evidence, but 'lack of direct evidence' characterizes much of this debate
That hasn't been the case for most of the decade. I already told you what does: Completely custom-built hardware that can do nothing but bitcoin mining, such as Antminers.
alright, in that case you're right, the processors seem wasteful
though interestingly, the specialized processors alkso seem like an example of a second order effect of bitcoin: driving innovation towards more energy efficiency. (though the tradeoff here seems to be wasting materials versus wasting energy)
Harping on about how individuals can reduce energy usage in computing but not talking about Bitcoin is directly comparable to pushing lame individual recycling efforts but ignoring coal power plants and industrial scale methane leaks.
The good thing about Bitcoin is that we can just ban it, since nobody actually uses it for anything important. It could be turned off tomorrow and nothing of value would be lost.
except all the goods and services that it currently stands in as a reference for (given people had to buy it with their own money, which they provided some service to obtain)
but hey,
just because bitcoin wasn't directly involved in a transaction doesn't mean it isn't standing in for economic value
if I steal an ancient coin worth $10,000 dollars from you, and you're upset about it, am I making a good rebuttal by saying: "it's not like you could buy anything at the grocery store with it anyways"
except all the goods and services that it currently stands in as a reference for (given people had to buy it with their own money, which they provided some service to obtain)
We should reduce pollution, not panic about weather. Seas are full of plastic and organic waste, dry land too, rain forests are burned down to make more field. I don't claim that human would not affect to climate, but it is extremely difficult to prove statistically when the data we have is something like 100 years from the full 5 billion years of existence of earth. How can you take all factors into account in this kind of statistical analysis?
I developed software professionally over 20 years and I get impression that I would not have survived any of these interviews. I remember the times in 90's when I had most of the Java classes & methods in my "working memory", but after that came syntax helpers and search engines. That ruined whole concept of programming with just text editor. I don't know if anyone else has similar experiences.
> That ruined whole concept of programming with just text editor.
What "ruined" it for you, "made" it for me :)
I absolutely hated my CS courses in undergrad and dropped the major after 2 classes. Didn't get back around to programming until a few years later - using Google makes it way more doable.
Actually I agree with you as I would not be able to program much without Google today. But many reported here about interview situations where they had like white paper and task to develop something. It is something they never face in real work.
