“Generating genuinely random numbers using a computer is harder than you might think. Computers follow rules and are therefore predictable. Computer software can only mimic unpredictability; eventually patterns will emerge” The need for true random number generators is as old as computing itself. I recall visiting the Science Museum in London, where I learned about ERNIE 1 (Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment), a machine the British Post Office used to pick winning Premium Bonds. It produced random numbers from a physical event: the unpredictable movement of electrons through neon gas. more at:

ERNIE in Detail

@Joe Nakamoto For me, one of the biggest lessons about Bitcoin was learning how to answer what is money? (in economic sciences) and how does information flow? (in computer science).

Quantum is a good buzzword, used by everyone from New Age gurus to scientists looking for research grants even when that research goes nowhere, like string theory. The reality for the Bitcoin community is that concerns about asymmetric cryptography being broken are overblown. Such a computer does not exist and probably won’t for the next 100 years. The practical record for Shor’s algorithm on real quantum hardware is still factoring 21 (3 × 7). We are still enormously far from factoring RSA-2048 keys. Cracking an RSA key exists mostly in science fiction and as a remote theoretical possibility in mathematicians’ papers. Ps. Nice explanation from YouTube UK channel Computerphile ..

In the meantime in the UK Polis ..

Automatica

Is Web3 an official new standard from the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), or is it merely a marketing buzzword? Personally, I believe true decentralization finds its roots in OpenPGP. I particularly appreciated Werner Koch's talk at a Debian conference years ago; similar to Hal Finney, Koch is a maintainer of OpenPGP RFCs. In his presentation, he explored the history of GnuPG while addressing the tension between centralization and decentralization.