CryptoFly.us | CRYPTOCURRENCY BITCOIN SHIRTS CLOTHING APPAREL HATS

CRYPTO NEWS

US Senator Lummis Thanks God for Bitcoin as Congress Discusses Raising Debt Ceiling

US Senator Lummis Thanks God for Bitcoin as Congress Discusses Raising Debt Ceiling

U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis said, “Thank God for bitcoin,” during her speech to the Senate about raising the U.S. debt limit. “Bitcoin is not issued by a government, so it is not beholding to the debts that are run up by governments,” she explained.

US Senator to Congress: ‘Thank God for Bitcoin’

Senator Cynthia Lummis praised bitcoin during her speech on the Senate floor last week about raising the U.S. debt limit. The senator has been a bitcoin hodler since 2013 and has repeatedly stated that bitcoin is a great store of value.

Lummis pointed out that while lawmakers were intensely discussing raising the debt limit, “almost no one is talking about the debt” itself. “We are getting closer to $30 trillion. Certainly, if the spending that is being entertained by the majority party and the Biden administration passes, it will be over $30 trillion,” she warned.

The senator from Wyoming explained:

Countries have historically tended to decline once the debt surpassed their gross domestic product.

Citing the Congressional budget office stating in February that the national debt would surpass the country’s GDP this year, the senator exclaimed: “The debt ceiling increase that is being discussed here is so more spending can occur without addressing our debt-to-GDP ratio. We cannot go on like this. It is irresponsible at the deepest levels.”

The senator warned, “we are swiftly approaching a time when we will be unable to” pay our debt holders.

She proceeded to share:

One of the reasons that I became so interested in digital currencies, in non-fiat currencies, is because they are not issued by a government. Bitcoin is not issued by a government so it’s not beholding to the debts that are run up by governments.

Lummis asserted, “If we are going to let the dollar decline, having the lessons of history in front of us, and failing to act, we are truly irresponsible.”

She elaborated: “In the event that that contingency occurs, I want to make sure that non-fiat currencies — currencies not issued by governments, currencies not beholden to political elections — can grow, can allow people to save, can be there in the event that we fail at what we know we have to do.”

Noting that “There’s no proof yet in the 21st century that we are going to make this right. Time and again, in the U.S. House and the Senate, time and again, presidents of both parties have run up the debt irresponsibly, with no plan to address it,” the senator described, adding:

So, thank God for bitcoin, and other non-fiat currencies, that transcends the irresponsibility of governments, including our own. That is an indictment of our responsibility … to address this looming, predictable, massive issue.

What do you think about Senator Lummis’ comments? Let us know in the comments section below.

SHA-256 doesn’t follow a uniform distribution? [closed]

I have been playing with SHA-2-256 in Julia and I noticed that the hashes produced don’t appear to follow a uniform distribution. My understanding of secure hashing algorithms is that they should approximate a uniform distribution well, so they are not predictable. Here is the Julia code I’m using: using BitIntegers, Distributions, HypothesisTests, Random, SHA::Listen

I have been playing with SHA-2-256 in Julia and I noticed that the hashes produced don’t appear to follow a uniform distribution. My understanding of secure hashing algorithms is that they should approximate a uniform distribution well, so they are not predictable.

Here is the Julia code I’m using:

using BitIntegers, Distributions, HypothesisTests, Random, SHA

function sha256_rounds()
    rounds::Array{Array{UInt8,1}} = Array{Array{UInt8,1}}(undef, 10000) # 10000 Samples
    hash::Array{UInt8} = Array{UInt8}(undef, 64) # 64-byte array

    for i = 1:10000
        hash = sha2_256(string(rand(UInt64), base = 16)) # Random number, convert to hex string, then seed
        rounds[i] = hash
    end

    return rounds
end

sha256_str_vals = [join([string(x, base = 16) for x in y]) for y in sha256_rounds()] # Stitch the bytes together into strings
sha256_num_vals_control = [parse(UInt256, x, base = 16) for x in sha256_str_vals] # Get the numerical value from the strings

OneSampleADTest(sha256_num_vals, Uniform()) # One sample Anderson-Darling test

And the result of the test:

One sample Anderson-Darling test
--------------------------------
Population details:
    parameter of interest:   not implemented yet
    value under h_0:         NaN
    point estimate:          NaN

Test summary:
    outcome with 95% confidence: reject h_0
    one-sided p-value:           <1e-7

Details:
    number of observations:   10000
    sample mean:              8.73991847621225e75
    sample SD:                2.2742656031884893e76
    A² statistic:             Inf

To me this says that the produced hashes do not conform to a uniform distribution. Am I using the test incorrectly, or is my sample faulty? Thank you for your thoughts.

US Senator Lummis Thanks God for Bitcoin as Congress Discusses Raising Debt Ceiling

Shopping cart
There are no products in the cart!
Continue shopping
0