FHE will probably take a while to become practical. Remember, the first schema was published only in 2009, which is very recent in cryptography standards.
Secure multi-party computation can achieve similar objectives (compute on encrypted data-sets), but is much more mature research-wise (first schema dates back to the 70s) and can be practical for large algorithms today. See http://enigma.media.mit.edu/ (disclosure - I'm one of the founders)
Yes, that is exactly the case. The idea is to let 3rd parties use the data without ever having direct access to it. They can't reconstruct it, and only get the result of the computation.
1) More electricity it used, but it has some benefits. What is the social and financial cost of data breaches and identity theft? Hopefully at scale a system like Enigma can help with that.
2) At scale, you are correct. Blockchain scaling is a problem that a lot of people are working on, hopefully it will be solved in one way or another. If it doesn't, we'll need to find another solution or Enigma will fail.
I don't think the bot is responsible for either bubble.
But, if it was, the bitcoin world owes everything to Mark Karpeles. Because of the price surges it got all the media attention, VC investments, hundreds of companies popping up, millions of users...
These kinds of market manipulation shenanigans only reduces trust in bitcoin, so no, we don't owe that fuckwad anything.
I did gain (ever so slightly) from the higher price, and I didn't have any money with MtGox so no loss there. But I'm still unhappy about it, because I want to see bitcoin succeed in the long term.
Unfortunately every market is highly manipulated... And in any market you deal with people who have more information than you. The game is trying to understand the manipulation.
I don't hate, but you guys (which vested interest in Bitcoin, like, holding a couple of bitcoins waiting for them to be worth a million dollars) surely do hate people who don't resonate with you and you feel threatened by those who can get in the way of your pipe dreams.
As someone who works out regularly but never cycles, this seems difficult to believe. Surely the cardiovascular benefits outweigh any negatives from "muscle shortening" (first I've heard of this) compared to no activity.
Unless your point is "some types of exercise are better than cycling" in which case, sure.
Fact - cycling creates short leg muscles, hamstrings in particular. For those of us who have tight hamstrings, which is most males (according to my subjective, biased observations), this is not good. Creates back problems later on.
I agree that some cycling is better than no activity. But I would say that going to a hooker every night is also better for you health wise than staying in and watching tv, as long as you wear at least 2 condoms.
As someone who has put in tens of thousands of km's on bicycles over the years, I'm wondering when these alleged downsides are supposed to kick in. According to my own subjective, self-observations, it has done nothing but good for me.
Cycling is health in so far as it is more exercise and fresh air than a majority of the population gets ever. Cycling too much has its side effect as does just about everything in life.
Right, but in other activities if you practice safely and under professional supervision you can usually minimize the risk. Here the movement is short and repetitive which in turn builds short muscles. It's a "feature", not a corner case "bug".
Secure multi-party computation can achieve similar objectives (compute on encrypted data-sets), but is much more mature research-wise (first schema dates back to the 70s) and can be practical for large algorithms today. See http://enigma.media.mit.edu/ (disclosure - I'm one of the founders)