From watching the linked video, and going by the given informal definition for NP-Problems "hard to compute, easy to verify" I think of it this way: You can not compute the secret number efficiently, only the keeper of the secret knows it. So the number is indeed hard to compute. But can you easily verify a solution? Sure you can ask the keeper and he can tell you the answer, but then you didn't verify it yourself. If you count on the secret keepers cooperation he could also just tell you the number, making it easy to compute.

With the market cap beeing $360.000.000[0], and only 2% beeing in circulation, the value of the stolen tokens seems to be higher than the value of all coins in circulation.

2% of $360,000,000 are $7,200,000 and the hacker stole more than eight million.

Or did I get this wrong somehow?

[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/veritaseum/

2% represent the $360M(market cap, in circulation). 100% is 50 times that, $18B (total supply), i.e. 100M tokens.

What is stolen is 0.07% of 100M tokens which is 70K tokens, which is roughly $12M for current market price.

According to the founder, the amount of stolen tokens is 37k: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887061.msg20355530#...

That number also matches the number transferred (36,687.9382688909) to this wallet mentioned in the article: https://etherscan.io/address/0x3fff90bf314673194c3a265ed1c0a....

Also, according to two other articles (linked from the bitcointalk thread), cite the value of the stolen as US$4.5M, not US$8.4M:

http://www.altcointoday.com/ethereum-ico-veritaseum-suffers-... http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/07/24/yet-another-ethereum-ico-g...

Checking market charts around the time it happened (~00-08 July 24th), there's a significant dip in value, with the price going as low as US$~122: https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/veritaseum/#charts. At that rate the stolen tokens would be worth US$4.48M.

Then the 0.07% number was probably wrongly estimated by the founder, that number would be 0.037% then. He might have missed the 3 before 7. Anyway, that explains it.

So you shouldn't be allowed to anonymously contribute to society? Does this include whistle blowers?

Begs the question of whether whistle blowers would be needed if there was more transparency, right?

Only if there will be a complete and enforced transparency, so no one would be able to do anything with secrecy.

Sort of "The Circle" setting.

Of course you should. But if you anonymously contribute to society, who do you expect to pay you for it?

Sure, you can still make anonymous donations to the charities of your choice.

It has Sapiens as one of Paul Grahams suggestions, but his tweet says he didn't finish it.

The first time I read your post, I thought you meant that producers of legal marihuana were now getting into poppy seeds, hoping for further decriminalization.

Maybe others missunderstood you too.

I think I remember allowing them to watch Thursday Night Football on Twitter. I can't find anything about third-party cookies and tnf.twitter.com on Google though.

The same thing can be seen for Bill Gates' books of 2016 that was posted here recently.

Apprentices in Germany spend part of their work week in school. The €500-800 aren't really for 37.5 hour weeks.

Apprentices are however exempted from the minimum wage.

Shouldn't that be += in the third example?

Yep. Another reason a simple 'sum' is nicer than what C gives us.

Or a reason to go back to checking all code I try to type in.