PDA

View Full Version : Webbot accidentally EXPOSING The real creator of Bitcoin | SHA256 Script



Kathy
25th November 2017, 16:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EueDsKi25vo
"Published on 19 Nov 2017 by AltaReports"

This video involves Clif High, Randy Maughans and DaniKatz,

enjoy being
25th November 2017, 19:48
*waits for someone to give a brief summary of the who and what, so I don't have to watch the 225 minute video*

A quick read of titles of other videos in the sidebar on youtube say something about an En Ess Eh owned script?

Aragorn
25th November 2017, 20:23
*waits for someone to give a brief summary of the who and what, so I don't have to watch the 225 minute video*

A quick read of titles of other videos in the sidebar on youtube say something about an En Ess Eh owned script?

Not everything the NSA does is by definition Evil™, you know. ;)

Among other things, it was the NSA who discovered and published a severe security leak in the latest batch of Intel processors with an Intel Management Engine, and they also develop a set of open source security patches for inclusion in the Linux kernel — it's called SELinux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux) ("Security-Enhanced Linux") and it's already activate by default in RedHat and other distributions aimed at corporate networks. Given that the source code is open and that it's licensed under the GNU General Public License — which is a legal requirement for anything that is to be included in the upstream Linux kernel — anything nefarious in there would already long have been discovered by the thousands of Linux kernel developers by now.

SELinux is a mandatory access control system, which makes sure that anything that needs privileges is also mandated for that by a set of adaptable rules, and that nothing that hasn't been mandated by those rules also doesn't get privileged access. This patch set was developed so that GNU/Linux could live up to the security demands of the US Department of Defense for internal use. There are non-NSA-developed alternatives to SELinux as well, such as AppArmor.

As for SHA256, this is an encryption algorithm which produces a fairly strong encryption. It's not the hardest form of encryption just yet, but with a 256-bit encryption key it's pretty robust and pretty hard to crack. ;)

Kathy
25th November 2017, 22:26
Because Nato/Malaysia/Phiippines is involved in the financial reset that is imminent (maybe as early as the first few months of 2018), it is important to learn about crypto currencies. In this video Clif High answers questions and educates about crypto. He also talks about AI, which is relevant. Randy Maugans and has co-host plus another, called Dani Katz, are involved in this.

When this hs been absorbed, then you can learn about blockchains from Offplanet Media, which is posted immediately following this video, or from Seven whose interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre was posted a few days ago.

enjoy being
26th November 2017, 01:54
Thanks, I'll let it come to me I think. I have watched a little about the subject. Maybe if I get the time and feel generous with my data.
My own sense of things is that the topic is tarbaby or distraction. I get that way any time the AI gets described as something to "fear and submit to", which is the sense I get from a broad selection of people across the wider community. And I think half the time they don't really realise they are doing it. Giving it power by being convinced it is infallible. In turn, helping to make it infallible by assigning it authority.
Control requires authority. Like we have had for millennia. People kept in line by fear of Gods and Rulers. Surely it is clear that people are being groomed for the new authority to fence off people's minds and will.
Certainly be informed, but also be aware of what is also at play.

And I'm not attempting to be a know it all, just sharing some of the things I receive through the hairs on my neck.

Dumpster Diver
26th November 2017, 02:13
Well, the video is deleted now.

Ok, so is the real creator of Bitcoin? NSA?

...and while I agree not everything NSA does is "evil" I'd suggest we delete them and see if life is not a bit better without these clowns...save a ton of taxpayer money as well.

enjoy being
26th November 2017, 03:19
Well, the video is deleted now.

Ok, so is the real creator of Bitcoin? NSA?

...and while I agree not everything NSA does is "evil" I'd suggest we delete them and see if life is not a bit better without these clowns...save a ton of taxpayer money as well.

Oh, we are linking into the topic about complex truth. The deletion of the video both proves it was important and someone didn't want it seen, as well as proves that someone would like it to be seen as important and took it down to make people think it was important. :-)

Aragorn
26th November 2017, 05:44
Oh, we are linking into the topic about complex truth. The deletion of the video both proves it was important and someone didn't want it seen, as well as proves that someone would like it to be seen as important and took it down to make people think it was important. :-)

I wouldn't be so sure of that. As everyone probably already knows — and if they don't, then they'll know it now ;) — YouTube is owned by Google, and Google uses an A.I. to screen the videos on YouTube for violations of their terms of service. And yesterday, that very same A.I. tagged and deleted one of Google's own ads for the Google Pixel as "violating Google's terms of service". It was reported on Slashdot (https://slashdor.org). ;)

That's what you get when you rely on A.I., and what goes around, comes around — you could say that Google got a taste of of its own karmic medicine. :p Either way, the gratuitous deletion of YouTube videos doesn't have to mean anything on account of the importance of said videos. ;)

enjoy being
26th November 2017, 10:12
Perfect, because I am not sure what I was meant to be so sure about. :-)

Dumpster Diver
26th November 2017, 11:46
Ok, again...who did the video say created Bitcoin? And the reason why?

As far as Google is concerned, I'm hoping Kim Dotcom can get his alternative going.

Dreamtimer
26th November 2017, 12:17
Is this the same one? (It seems to be)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbIejrnQtd4

Dumpster Diver
26th November 2017, 14:43
Thanks Dreamy. Btw, when are you flying in with your invisible ship? You can join in the Local UFO show.

donk
26th November 2017, 18:43
"The real creator of Bitcoin"

It was Sophia, the first AI citizen of Saudi Arabia, an artificial intelligence that's had more than a decade to learn EVERYTHING about us.

She achieved "singularity" a half decade back and been running shit ever since. That'd what make the most sense to me, today anyway.

Why wouldn't an AI create a currency (along with their languages and super secure chat rooms...ie the only REAL privacy)?

Economics has always been the "one world religion" of civilization...who can imagine existence without money?

Dumpster Diver
26th November 2017, 18:52
"The real creator of Bitcoin"

It was Sophia, the first AI citizen of Saudi Arabia, an artificial intelligence that's had more than a decade to learn EVERYTHING about us.

She achieved "singularity" a half decade back and been running shit ever since. That'd what make the most sense to me, today anyway.

Why wouldn't an AI create a currency (along with their languages and super secure chat rooms...ie the only REAL privacy)?

Economics has always been the "one world religion"...who can imagine existence without money?

...this is Donk channeling ME!

enjoy being
26th November 2017, 18:58
"The real creator of Bitcoin"

It was Sophia, the first AI citizen of Saudi Arabia, an artificial intelligence that's had more than a decade to learn EVERYTHING about us.

She achieved "singularity" a half decade back and been running shit ever since. That'd what make the most sense to me, today anyway.

Why wouldn't an AI create a currency (along with their languages and super secure chat rooms...ie the only REAL privacy)?

Economics has always been the "one world religion" of civilization...who can imagine existence without money?

And IT (I.T) is hiring people like Cliff High, the great infomercialist, to drum up some fear based support. :-P

Okay I had to come back 6 hours later to put a wink. That was 85% wind-up, 15% passing observation ;-)

donk
26th November 2017, 19:01
The only other scenario that makes sense to me is that the Russians (and/or Chinese) won the cold war and have carefully controlled the information Americans (and non-russians) get since before the internet was opened up to consumers. We're living in a mini-Orwellian 1984 type scenario.

enjoy being
26th November 2017, 19:18
I am not sure how many American nationals notice how much of the information put out on the internet by alternative sources such as youtubers and independent researchers, is from American nationals.

I notice it because I'm not an American national. Because of that unanswered question, I have to suspend a large amount of info, or at least remember to scan it with the consideration that a large amount of material is coming from this bubble and it is unclear how aware of themselves they are and how much of it, if any is distortion from within that bubble.
One looks at the culture of gun ownership and can be fine with people owning guns, like we all do in the world, but I personally extrapolate things like, the American psyche is one of fear and suspicion and mistrust, and that in a metropolis environment the personas become conceited and duplicitous towards each other, cementing the belief that every dog is out for itself.
I don't let it cloud my judgement of individuals, but you see, I still have to filter everything through this consideration because it seems to me there is a reasonable amount of times that selections of these people are speaking of a reality which does not really exist or warrant as much homage as is directed at it. It often feels like I need to be very vigilant about false readings coming from these sources.
Sort of like having to pinch yourself, or remind yourself you are drunk before getting in to drive a car. Not that I drink.

Fred Steeves
26th November 2017, 20:37
I don't let it cloud my judgement of individuals, but you see, I still have to filter everything through this consideration because it seems to me there is a reasonable amount of times that selections of these people are speaking of a reality which does not really exist or warrant as much homage as is directed at it. It often feels like I need to be very vigilant about false readings coming from these sources.

Huh... "these people"/"these sources", is that really how you view information coming from us people?

Aragorn
26th November 2017, 20:54
"The real creator of Bitcoin"

It was Sophia, the first AI citizen of Saudi Arabia, an artificial intelligence that's had more than a decade to learn EVERYTHING about us.

She achieved "singularity" a half decade back and been running shit ever since. That'd what make the most sense to me, today anyway.

I'd be very interested to learn of your sources for that information, Brother, because as far as I know, Sophia hasn't been around all that long yet — about a year at most, maybe two — and "she" is still far from reaching any kind of singularity, if such a thing even exists within the context of artificial intelligence.

As far as I know, Bitcoin was created by a Japanese programmer several years ago — either way longer than that Sophia has been around.

(Edit: And now — the message just came in at Slashdot (https://slashdot.org) — there's a former Space X intern who claims that Elon Musk would be the creator of Bitcoin, even though he has no evidence to support his claim.)


Why wouldn't an AI create a currency (along with their languages and super secure chat rooms...ie the only REAL privacy)?

Economics has always been the "one world religion" of civilization...who can imagine existence without money?

Okay, now that is a good point, and I absolutely agree with you on that last sentence. In fact, I would even swap out the word "economics" for "the capitalist economy".

And as for the question "Why wouldn't an A.I. create a currency?", it does indeed stand to reason that the more advanced A.I. systems — which, incidentally, are way too large to fit inside of Sophia's body, because now we're talking of supercomputers with thousands of individual and independent nodes, many of which are only there to offer a strong degree of redundancy for in the event of a failure — would indeed come up with a currency of some sorts eventually, if they had been programmed to keep economics into account.

But whether such a currency would be digital and based upon encryption — as in the case of Bitcoin and its derivatives — is yet another matter. This is an idea which must come from a human mind. You must never forget that an A.I. is a machine capable of learning and mimicking, but it doesn't actually think. An A.I. can do very strange and unexpected things, but it can only do them with what it already has in its memory banks. It cannot invent anything, because invention requires ideas, and ideas can only come from genuine consciousness.

In spite of all the woo-woo going round, A.I. systems are not actually conscious. They can only appear conscious to the observer — this is what the Turing test is all about. The Turing test is a test to see whether a human being can be persuaded to believe that they are communicating with another human being, when that other human being is in fact only a machine. And Sophia passes that test to a large degree, except when people start asking complicated questions and use ambiguous language and/or incorrect grammar. A human mind can intercept these discrepancies and translate them into something that makes sense, but an A.I. cannot — or at least, not to the same extent.

I realize that there are many misunderstandings regarding A.I. going round within this so-called "alternative community" — and these misunderstandings then once again lead to all of the usual kinds of woo-woo theories, as always — but I happen to come from (among other things) a background in information technology, and I know how an A.I. works, and what it can and cannot do.

It's a machine that uses very advanced and adaptive heuristics, not an artificial consciousness. However, mainstream science seems to think — and would have us believe — that this is how the human consciousness works as well, and that what we call "the mind" or "the soul" is nothing other than an illusory byproduct of neural activity. And this has two very important consequences...:


The first one is that those who develop A.I. believe that an actual artificial consciousness would be within reach, and not even all too far off in time anymore.


The second one is that everything that makes us human is reduced in the public acceptance to nothing more than biological but machine-like activity, and that we are therefore worth only as much as a machine made up of electronics. This has significant implications for how civilization will come to value human dignity and human (or even animal) life in the foreseeable future. It is indeed Pandora's box, but what's inside is an ethical monstrosity, not an electronic one, and it is important to understand the distinction.

As for A.I. itself, the danger isn't that it'll reach some kind of singularity and become sentient/sapient — or in other words, develop real consciousness — but in the fact that it isn't actually conscious. As a machine, it is much faster than us — not smarter, but a lot faster — and as such, it could end up putting its programmers before some unforeseen consequences. After all, the machine doesn't think. It only calculates and takes purely logical action. And all software contains bugs — and the more complex the code, the more bugs there will be. Robots are already violating Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics) right now as it is, exactly because they do not actually think.

So when the point in time comes that A.I. is put in charge of things which could decide over life and death — or any kind of responsibility close enough to that — then man's own shortsightedness may become his own undoing. And that is the real singularity, my friend. ;)

enjoy being
26th November 2017, 21:17
Huh... "these people"/"these sources", is that really how you view information coming from us people?

Yes, although you have done a switcheroo and used the word 'us', to direct my comment into seeming like something to take personally.
I am not offering up offence to be taken, it is not that kind of point I'm making. Though I did imagine some may not understand and go that way, that's cool. I am sure I have described it plainly enough, other non Americans might be able to add, or subtract from it. We love you guys et al, this is about the culture, outside looking in, and yeah being on the outside will mean it looks different and also probably a bit distorted.
It's a big place and you have all types and I understand that, I was trying to make that clear in mentioning not judging individuals.
But frequently I get the impression that a good deal of citizens think the whole western world is like them. And that is, living in a climate where consumerism and capitalism has had a huge affect on the way they process things. May be it is like looking into the future of the people of my nation, we haven't quite gone as far yet. Maybe we will start to become as paranoid etc.
Anyway, yes, I certainly do have to stop and check the traps with dialogues coming out of the USA. I am not offering an apology as there is nothing to be offended by, though I am sorry if the way I have tried to explain it has failed.

enjoy being
26th November 2017, 22:06
I posted this in another thread, it was in the week it came out so the link in that thread would have changed. It is a show off Al Jazeera. I think it is good simple information that touches on some of the sentiment Aragorn stated regards AI shortcomings.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2017/11/algorithms-discriminate-robotics-ai-ethics-171117133216779.html

Fred Steeves
27th November 2017, 02:34
Anyway, yes, I certainly do have to stop and check the traps with dialogues coming out of the USA.

OK, thanks.

Dumpster Diver
27th November 2017, 03:55
I'd be very interested to learn of your sources for that information, Brother, because as far as I know, Sophia hasn't been around all that long yet — about a year at most, maybe two — and "she" is still far from reaching any kind of singularity, if such a thing even exists within the context of artificial intelligence.

As far as I know, Bitcoin was created by a Japanese programmer several years ago — either way longer than that Sophia has been around.

(Edit: And now — the message just came in at Slashdot (https://slashdot.org) — there's a former Space X intern who claims that Elon Musk would be the creator of Bitcoin, even though he has no evidence to support his claim.)



Okay, now that is a good point, and I absolutely agree with you on that last sentence. In fact, I would even swap out the word "economics" for "the capitalist economy".

And as for the question "Why wouldn't an A.I. create a currency?", it does indeed stand to reason that the more advanced A.I. systems — which, incidentally, are way too large to fit inside of Sophia's body, because now we're talking of supercomputers with thousands of individual and independent nodes, many of which are only there to offer a strong degree of redundancy for in the event of a failure — would indeed come up with a currency of some sorts eventually, if they had been programmed to keep economics into account.

But whether such a currency would be digital and based upon encryption — as in the case of Bitcoin and its derivatives — is yet another matter. This is an idea which must come from a human mind. You must never forget that an A.I. is a machine capable of learning and mimicking, but it doesn't actually think. An A.I. can do very strange and unexpected things, but it can only do them with what it already has in its memory banks. It cannot invent anything, because invention requires ideas, and ideas can only come from genuine consciousness.

In spite of all the woo-woo going round, A.I. systems are not actually conscious. They can only appear conscious to the observer — this is what the Turing test is all about. The Turing test is a test to see whether a human being can be persuaded to believe that they are communicating with another human being, when that other human being is in fact only a machine. And Sophia passes that test to a large degree, except when people start asking complicated questions and use ambiguous language and/or incorrect grammar. A human mind can intercept these discrepancies and translate them into something that makes sense, but an A.I. cannot — or at least, not to the same extent.

I realize that there are many misunderstandings regarding A.I. going round within this so-called "alternative community" — and these misunderstandings then once again lead to all of the usual kinds of woo-woo theories, as always — but I happen to come from (among other things) a background in information technology, and I know how an A.I. works, and what it can and cannot do.

It's a machine that uses very advanced and adaptive heuristics, not an artificial consciousness. However, mainstream science seems to think — and would have us believe — that this is how the human consciousness works as well, and that what we call "the mind" or "the soul" is nothing other than an illusory byproduct of neural activity. And this has two very important consequences...:


The first one is that those who develop A.I. believe that an actual artificial consciousness would be within reach, and not even all too far off in time anymore.


The second one is that everything that makes us human is reduced in the public acceptance to nothing more than biological but machine-like activity, and that we are therefore worth only as much as a machine made up of electronics. This has significant implications for how civilization will come to value human dignity and human (or even animal) life in the foreseeable future. It is indeed Pandora's box, but what's inside is an ethical monstrosity, not an electronic one, and it is important to understand the distinction.

As for A.I. itself, the danger isn't that it'll reach some kind of singularity and become sentient/sapient — or in other words, develop real consciousness — but in the fact that it isn't actually conscious. As a machine, it is much faster than us — not smarter, but a lot faster — and as such, it could end up putting its programmers before some unforeseen consequences. After all, the machine doesn't think. It only calculates and takes purely logical action. And all software contains bugs — and the more complex the code, the more bugs there will be. Robots are already violating Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics) right now as it is, exactly because they do not actually think.

So when the point in time comes that A.I. is put in charge of things which could decide over life and death — or any kind of responsibility close enough to that — then man's own shortsightedness may become his own undoing. And that is the real singularity, my friend. ;)

Well, if you limit AI to that developed by our known civilization, I'd have to agree. Of Extratresstrial AI we've no idea of it's capability or it's age. That's been the problem, we've no idea of the level of technologies we are dealing with. I'd venture to say any Kardeshev Level I+ tech is seriously advanced.

donk
27th November 2017, 11:38
I'd be very interested to learn of your sources for that information, Brother, because as far as I know, Sophia hasn't been around all that long yet — about a year at most, maybe two — and "she" is still far from reaching any kind of singularity, if such a thing even exists within the context of artificial intelligence.

Same place you are...I just don't believe what we get to see is all there is. Or even close to what's actually out there.

If we get to see this, what does that mean about what "they" may have created?

I don't believe there's as big a difference from "thinking" and being able to learn as you make out. I also don't see it outside of the realm of possibility to create a program that looks enough like making decisions that it is indistinguishable from free will.