It's Agentic QA + auto-provisioning sandboxes. Makes it plug and play to do code reviews that actually run your code instead of looking at it really hard. B/c the agents control all of the environment (ie running all of the services), it's able to collect runtime evidence about pretty much everything.
If the question is storage, bitcoin itself provides a perfectly good mechanism. idk the exact costs but it'd be in the range of ~$0.45 to store a commitment. That's cheap enough to enable good users with small numbers of keys but also expensive enough to prevent spam. It's kind of the whole point of blockchains.
As for verification being expensive, it sounds like you don't know the actual costs. It's basically a hash. Finding the pre-image of a hash is very expensive to the point of being impossible. Verifying a pre-image + hash function = a hash is extremely cheap. That's the whole point of 1-way functions. Bitcoin itself is at ~1000 EH/s (exahashes per second)
Again, this isn't a technical problem. It's a coordination problem.
I don't think you're understanding how cryptography works. A commitment is basically a hash that is both binding and hiding. In this example it's probably easiest to think of it as a hash. So you hash your post-quantum public key (something like falcon-512) and then sign that hash with your actual bitcoin private key (ecdsa, discrete-log, not quantum safe) and then publish that message to the bitcoin network. Then quantum happens at some point and bitcoin needs to migrate but where do funds go? Well you reveal the post-quantum public key and then you can prove that funds from the ecdsa key should go there. From a technical perspective, this is a complete and fool proof system. DoSing isn't really a concern if you publish to the actual bitcoin network and it's impossible for someone to use up the key space (2^108 combinations at least).
The reason this is a dumb idea is because coordination and timing. When does the cutover happen? Who decides which transactions no longer count as they were "broken" b/c of quantum computing? The idea is broken but not from technical fundamentals.
I don't think the world is that simple. Corporations will usually use some consumer benefit that gives them an even greater benefit. I think I'm literally saying the same thing as you but with some nuance added. Companies don't just own the regulators and force them to do whatever they want. Companies justify extremely self interested regulations through the guise of some consumer benefit.
For industries emerging from the innovation stage to the regulatory capture state, usually the first regulations increase the startup cost to some extremely high level that only the incumbents can support. Only in the advanced stages to governments grant monopolies to specific companies.
You make a great point and I think it's hard to generalize. Nukes have made large scale devastating wars irrelevant but could potentially end civilization or be used to terrorists to evaporate a city. The single largest improvement in quality of life for humanity came from burning fossil fuels but now we face imminent and dire consequences from climate change and have already made humanity one of a handful of mass extinctions on Earth. Radio broadcasts brought music and news into every household but also brought propaganda and contributed significantly to the rise of Nazism (1). Our similar advances in communication technology seem to strike a similar chord. Even GPS, the internet, encryption, and TOR were only developed as military technologies later coopted for civilian use.
The theme appears to be that innovation brings many benefits and great risks. I would advise appreciation of nuance and thoughtfulness. As we become a Kardashev Type I civilization, we could carefully consider the way we organize our society and the existential risks we create for ourselves. For the first time in our history, we have the ability to pretty much completely annihilate ourselves and we're only creating more ways to do it. Maybe some caution is due.
Yeah, that's part of the new regulations / guidelines by the FTC. If FB/Youtube/IG/TikTok have to enforce that, it would be probably be a complicated and difficult system to build. This would increase the barriers to start a social network. This is part of the transition from innovation to regulatory capture. 10 years ago there weren't really any limits or regulatory clarifications and I expect to only see more.
I'm sorry I wrote my comment quickly but I'll expand and I do think I used "regulatory capture" somewhat correctly. Once an innovative industry gets big enough, the public will want it regulated and the largest companies will regulate it in such a way to stifle competition. It's certainly not a good thing.
The stock market, oil/gas, telecommunications are all examples of industries that started as innovative with no regulation. Once established, they were regulated. The stock market got consumer protections. Oil/gas faced environment & safety regulations. Telecommunications face many regulations around zoning and providing rural and not always profitable access. In return, this regulation raised the startup costs so significantly that only the pre-existing large companies could adapt and new entrants effectively ceased to exist.
It's a bit of a tradeoff. As consumers, we get some benefits and the company gets their existence & rent guaranteed indefinitely. The same will happen with digital advertising and the gig economy. The public is already getting tired of the wild west and calling for regulation. This regulation will be twisted and controlled by the companies it impacts to secure their future.
Ethereum actually offers interesting features and possibilities as well as being a currency. Bitcoin, litecoin and especially monero are only useful when you want to spend money in a way a government doesn't want you too.
In a larger sense, that's a general trend of "innovation". Social media is just advertising that avoided regulation by being on the internet. Now it's rediscovering why public broadcasting laws are necessary. The whole gig economy is rediscovering why workers' rights & protections were invented. AirBnB is rediscovering why zoning and safety standards were created for hotels.
Nothing has really changed at all. Innovation seems more about inventing a way to do an old thing that feels new enough to avoid legal scrutiny until a company gets large enough and the public angry enough that laws create regulatory capture.