Maxim Orlovsky

I was asked many times “what’s you will build next after RGB”. This is what’s next. We have started back in 2017. Today we are still on track. RGB was just the first component of the ultimate digital sovereignty we imagined at @pandoraprime_ch. Now, we nuclear-power it with Prime, scalable computing (Prometheus), able even to run neural networks in a trustless decentralized setup and data availability layer Storm. Nearly decade of research and dozen of papers will come to reality with @UVioletAI

关于RGB要明确的事情 我可以接受RGB协议有v0.12和v0.11.1两个版本 我也可以接受RGB项目不同的开发风格，重pr亦或重代码 我还可以接受未来协议走向不同的方向或者走向相同 我甚至能接受将稳定币作为RGB协议最大叙事的噱头 但是我不能接受的是：对于真正贡献者的混淆视听！ 我要向所有关心RGB协议的人明确两个事情： 1. RGB协议的概念提出者是 @giacomozucco ▪️2016年，Giacomo Zucco基于Peter Todd在2016年提出的**单次使用封印（single-use seals）和客户端验证（client-side validation）研究，首次设想了RGB协议 ▪️2017年BHB Network推出了早期MVP原型 2. RGB协议主要开发者是 @dr_orlovsky ▪️自2019年起，Dr. Maxim Orlovsky 成为RGB协议的首席架构师和主要贡献者 ▪️他主导了协议的全面重新设计、当前版本的实现（包括AluVM虚拟机、智能合约支持等），并完成了协议95%以上的代码和规范工作 ▪️RGB协议的稳定版主要由他推动开发和维护 任何试图改变这两个事情的人都是在撒谎，协议的发展是有历史记录的 写此推，以正视听！！！ #BTC #RGB

@giacomozucco Strange that humans talk about sovereign individual and try to hide its will behind collective irresponsibility. If not hypocrisy, what is that? I understand that as a scam targeting government. I do not understand that scam when it targets cypherpunks.

@dr_orlovsky You can still minimize such elements. My Bitcoin life is not the same as my fiat life was, in this sense, clearly.

And my livelihood doesn't depend on grants, so I can tell it like it is without fear of social retribution. Sure, it is a bit professionally damaging, for me, to be ostracized or unfairly smeared by famous Bitcoin pioneers and authority figures just for telling the truth, since my daily job also consists of explaining their work and inviting them over as guest speakers. Still, I'm sure I have friends&cousins who stacked some sats privately, so even if I remain unemployed indefinitely I will be able to count on the charity of generous anonymous fans sending sats my way. :)

Google DeepMind researcher argues that LLMs can never be conscious, not in 10 years or 100 years. "Expecting an algorithmic description to instantiate the quality it maps is like expecting the mathematical formula of gravity to physically exert weight."

The whole LLM story and modern “AI” showcases the retadeness of “californianl artificial intelligence (artificial idiotism, actually). They re-invented evolutionary search (gradient descent) with a poor error function (predicting what average human would expect as an answer). At the same time intelligence is quite simple to do - but nobody even tried to replicate the real knowledge-producing intelligence. Nobody even tried to define what intelligence is, before “implementing” it.

@giacomozucco Other than quantum, there is this Ai hype with mega-datacenters, memory chip shortage etc. They replicated average “educated” often STEM professional thinking they represent a case of “intelligence”. No, they are not. It is worse than shitcoins. It is shitintelligence.

It's amazing how the ideal, most vulnerable target to the Quantum FUD, is *exactly* isomorphic to the ones susceptible to Climate-change FUD and Covid19 FUD. Identikit: - US/UK/EU middle class, - 85Terjemahkan

English

12

16

118

10.5K

8

Most important: the amount of energy one can get from Cazimir effect is bound: it is up to the “quantum of energy”, coming from the discreteness of space-time (and yep it is many orders of magnitude smaller than ħ). More, to harness that energy one have to spend energy to construct the small (nanostructured) cavities. So the old first law of thermodynamics is still in place. Btw, black holes are such “harvesters”, polarized ones.

There is no “negative density” nor “negative energy”, neither there is no “empty” space. There is a permanent ongoing background computational activity. Since it happens everywhere, we assume it as a “zero level” (of density or energy or even gravity). It is the same thing which defines curvature or Lambda-constant, or “dark energy”. It is not indefinite, just quite high. If, due to some reasons, the amount of background computational activity reduces, the space as we perceive it becomes more straight and we feel it as a “negative pressure” - the same way as air around airplane has “negative pressure” compared to the insides of the plane. That’s basically the Casimir effect (with a small nuance that it is not about just any computations, but computations with distortions, perceived by us as electromagnetic phenomena). The moment physics start to think any other way they instantly will end ip with paradoxes like “ultraviolet divergencies” and apply renormalizations to get rid of infinities of vacuum energy. But in reality they just have to accept that there is mo continuities, just discrete computational events, and all paradoxes and infinities disappear.

The Casimir pressure is the only practical way we know how to harness negative energy from virtual particles in the vacuum energy. @DrSonnyWhite demonstrated Casimir cavities last year that produced microamps of current. They're like little antennas that can passively and asymmetrically harness the vacuum density, which he showed had acoustic variations, mirroring other oxymoronic physics terms such as subatomic particles. How can you have something smaller than that which is said to be indivisible? How can you get something from nothing? Turns out we often get bogged down in the words we use to describe things, which is a cognitive bias that can often blind us to remarkable insights. Turns out, not only can atoms be split, but those nucleons also can be split too. Similarly, the vacuum isn't really empty, nor is it perpetual energy in the way we think of "getting something from nothing". Not only is there a real physics term called vacuum density, there are variations in that density that are almost acoustic in nature. Turns out, the smaller the cavity, the more energy it produces. What produces a millionth of an amp today could one day make batteries obsolete and make bleeding edge process nodes like High NA EUV and even Hyper NA economically feasible. The Casimir force scales with 1/d^4. And because the cavity is smaller, more can fit, also scaling volumetrically, 1/d^3. With combined Casimir pressure and volumetric scaling, this could address a problem with the economic feasibility of ASML's new, enormous and expensive High NA EUV machines. TSMC hasn't achieved viable yields yet, and Intel isn't using them yet for 18A, but maybe 14A, instead opting for multi-pattern Low NA exposures. There is a chicken and egg problem here that White's work could help solve with a technology that could give us an application for silicon-based passive energy generation but without the 25% capacity factor limitation of terrestrial photovoltaics. The same technology that could help us harness electricity day and night could also bootstrap semiconductor yields on bleeding edge process nodes, and it can even lead to warp drives that are far more efficient than Alcubierre's 1994 paper. We are on the eve of a technological singularity that will arrive far sooner than anyone is predicting.

@wizard23 And no, if you listen to physics - and not physics podcasts, it is not “just a scaling problem” in no way. It is a fundamental problem

@dr_orlovsky neither are undefined...we just don't know. And we already have quantum computers so it's just a scaling problem which will be solved in the next 10 years if you listen to physicists. I did not study physics so I trust my friends in academia about such topics.

This is quantum resistent #Bitcoin: QR Bitcoin. It was created using the zillion of open-claw AI agents running the latest balanced ternary quantization of the leaked Anthropic Claude AI! Just show it to each quantum computer - and your funds will be safe.

@wizard23 We do not know = undefined for us. Nothing else matter.

I am pretty sure the probabilities are the same as with the black hole: undefined, with no scientific (statistical) way of estimation. No statistical way -= no computable probability. So nobody knows what will happen during our lifetime: black hole arrives, QC, both or neither. It is just beliefs, not knowledge. And I do not argue about beliefs

@dr_orlovsky 😂 no black hole will arrive within our lifetime...I agree. But we seem to have a totally different guess about when quantum computing will arrive. I'm pretty sure it will be here within 10 years...so yes I take precautions ;)

@wizard23 What will happen once a black hole will eat the Earth? The answer is “sorry, have more problems to care about”.

@dr_orlovsky I like the idea...but worried because of the date? 😅 Seriously though: what will happen to bitcoin once quantum computing arrives???

I think today threat is very low, and we do not exactly know which form it would take, so pointless to change anything basing on hype and absence of clear understanding of the shape of the threat. Research is alsways good (into post-quantum cryptography with reasonable signature size), but it exactly what @blksresearch is doing! Nothing else than research should be done at this stage, no consensus changes are advised.

@dr_orlovsky @giacomozucco @_Checkmatey_ @dr_orlovsky I appreciate the reply. In your opinion do you think CRQC will ever be a threat to Bitcoin? Or do you think we are perfectly safe to leave things unchanged long term?

A few thoughts on quantum: The debate around "if" vs "when" a CRQC comes to market is a fruitless one. You won't convince either side to switch, because there is little observable progress, and the risk is there may not be until its too late. The risk a CRQC comes to market is existential if Bitcoin doesn't have a credible plan of action. Risk is probability x consequence, and even if the probability is low, the consequence is 100%. Thus any sane actor should see developing a plan as worth the effort. Arguments that Bitcoin devs are doing nothing appear to be false. Arguments that 'we're all good, do nothing' are also mistaken. Reality is in between, it's a solveable issue, folks are working on it, AND we do NOT have a credible plan yet. Rushing PQ-cryptography is a massive risk, and is the wrong approach. Not developing a credible set of BIPs, is also a mistake. Coinbase and Nic absolutely have an incentive...to protect their bags and business models, which are massively long Bitcoin. They may also have incentives which are misaligned with Bitcoin, and yet that still doesn't disqualify their opinions. Coinbase has millions of BTC folks, they are the 'longest' entity in the world. Question them yes, but assuming pure malice without considering that they are capitalists looking after their interests, is frankly retarded. I'm a Bitcoiner who is massively long the asset (holdings and business), and I try my best to adopt a reasonable middle ground opinion of things. The two extremes of 'emergency' and 'no problem' are both wrong, because they do not understand the simple equation of risk = probability x consequence. I fully support the development of PQ BIPs for Bitcoin. I very much look forward to learning about the proposals, discussing the trade-offs, and doing what little I can to form consensus, and parse the complexities. Having a plan, and not needing it, is far better than needing a plan, and not having one. The truth is in the middle, and there is little benefit to debating in the quagmire of 'will-it, won't it' ever show up. A CRQC may never show up. In that case, the plan stays in the BIP repo as copy and unmerged, but fully reviewed code. What is a totally fucked result, is if we assume a CRQC won't show up, and then it does. Don't fuck this up, the middle ground is the correct path to walk. Probability x Consequence. Small number x 100% loss == take it seriously.

No, you are kot doing your best working out what is true. “Don’t trust, verify” means “do not trust whatever LLM is hallucinating”, that’s simple. Just use old ways of working out what’s true: learn science, do experiments, in the worst case ask human experts with no conflict of interests and proven reputation.

@dr_orlovsky @giacomozucco @_Checkmatey_ I’m just doing the best I can to work out what is true. I have no problem being wrong, just seeking truth. If you think I’m flat out wrong and can point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated 👍

@ben0000888 @giacomozucco @_Checkmatey_ Just put the fucking key into a fucking tapscript - and you have the same quantum protection as with P2WSH, but still less onchain footprint and better security.

@giacomozucco @_Checkmatey_ Problem is that existing taproot addresses expose public keys and are worse than standard Native Segwit. We need BIP360 (P2MR) which is basically taproot with a hidden public key. We don’t necessarily need quantum resistant sigs right away, but BIP360 lays the groundwork.

@giacomozucco @ben0000888 @_Checkmatey_ Unholy fuck, people believe that LLM trained on blogs, reddit and tweets can generate scientifically-correct answers to questions :) Idiocracy is coming…

@ben0000888 @_Checkmatey_ Yeah, if LLM slop tells you to run some consensus fork, go for it. I'm staying with Bitcoin.

Somehow people assume that all physical system have the same time, which is untrue. So even in GR while closed timeline curves are possible, they are not the same as “I am going to see the dinosaurs and kill a butterfly, changing future of everyone”. They are “I am ending in the loop of recursive computation which I can’t escape, and everyone see that I got stuck in it”.

Plus, unlike imaginary CRQCs, time machine will affect as sooner even if they are built later. :)

Observer can’t observe oneself, otherwise you have an infinite loop - and Universe doesn’t have infinities. Basically “observing oneself” is a non-terminating process, so you never can get a definite result. There is an observer since otherwise there will be nothing at all - and we clearly have something since we talk.

@dr_orlovsky @cryptoquick @grok @matthew_pines @dallairedemers @RokoMijic @giacomozucco @dr_ukolova @resistancemoney @thetrocro As far as I'm concerned I find myself locked in a riddle. If I'm the only one defining meaning for myself I still don't know why there's an observer instead of no observer at all, or why there's something instead of nothing? Did I observe myself in existence?

couldn't sleep, may have uncovered the meaning of the universe with @grok gonna tag some smarter people than me if they want to dive deeper grok.com/c/75b9edb3-20b… @matthew_pines @dallairedemers @RokoMijic @giacomozucco @dr_orlovsky @dr_ukolova @resistancemoney @thetrocro

@giacomozucco @cryptoquick @bitcoin_eagle With qbism, you either: - accept multiple subjective universes, as a consequence of multiple independent observers; - or collapse qbism into solipsism. Thus, qbism implies multiple universe interpretation of David Deutch, and is compatible with Wolfram model.

@cryptoquick @bitcoin_eagle The plus side of qbism is that I can claim gender is a social construct. Just like electrons, gravity, etc.

If such computers existed in the real world, this would be cool!