You do realise that the IP address has got *nothing to do with* don't you?

It's very simple - you make a legal agreement with the fab manufacture called a "non-disclosure period" (I am not against those). If they break the agreement then you take them to court (and if you don't trust Chinese courts then just stop using Chinese manufacturing).

Coming to China did lead me to have to challenge my thinking as making money from copies is the model that the company I used to work for employed (and that just doesn't work in China).

But I haven't starved or gone crawling back to "the man" just because people here won't pay for software copies.

The concepts of copyright and patent are very much 20th century ones.

The idea of trying to control "copies" made sense when you had to have expensive equipment to make the copies and the idea of allowing people to hold control over the new inventions made sense when you didn't have a way for everyone to communicate.

But we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

What we see now is that in the US companies try and keep copyrights alive "forever" (just look at how many years they keep extending the time frame for copyright on music) and with patents many corporations are able to just "stifle" any development of new ideas (which was supposed to be the very point of patents) which is why it has taken so long for many alternative energy technologies to even appear.

We don't need these "artifacts of the past" as we have "crowd funding" and "crowd sourcing" to get things done much more efficiently.

Let's stop supporting antiquated ideas and start pushing forward some new thinking (this is the space that Bitcoin is a big part of).

Again - with all the squatting it simply will never work.

Those that took all the .bit domain names just want to get rich so they don't care about the success of the tech at all (in their mind they invested 10 USD to try and get 1M USD and if that doesn't happen they are happy to just lose the 10 USD and see the whole thing fail).

You just need to *forget* about .bit as that will never happen.

I agree with the idea of treating the service ids a bit like "ports" but assuming the range is not small I'd think a larger range of "reserved" numbers would be better (say at least 1024 but perhaps even much more than that).

We can't predict how many might "be enough" so I'd tend to want to reserve more.

It simply became a ridiculous squatting exercise that resulted in no-one being interested in using it.

Perhaps namecoin could have some better purpose in the future but unless someone comes up with a really good use case then I am not sure it will gain any traction.

In the case of using Automated Transactions it is indeed effectively a "bot" that manages the funds in accordance with its code being executed (and thus verified) by every peer in the network.

Once the funds have been sent to the AT (it effectively has its own "account") then only the AT can decide what to do with them.

I'll keep that in mind before I start to publish my "crap manifesto".

Seriously I wasted at least a week of my life reading that ridiculous book "Atlas Shrugged" (which I was warned not to bother to read and I realised later for very good reason).

I think only Adolf Hitler could have written a less interesting book (but I am not going to bother to compare).

Anyone who believes that sort of crap is probably also convinced that aliens are here and that no-one ever landed on the moon.

Yup - that's the one.

^^^ another "ad sig" post adding no value to anything.

Once it has been fully signed you can just use the "sendtransaction" RPC to send it.

Certainly I am not promoting anyone to publish things that others want to "protect" from publication (even if I think the entire concept is stupid - breaking laws is not at all what I am about).

My hope is that we move to a new paradigm where trying to "make money from IP" is just so old fashioned it looks ridiculous (like trying to make money out of WiFi service in China is as it is free nearly everywhere here).

I did it myself btw (most of the software I have worked on since 2001 is now open source - only the parts that commercial companies won't release are not included).

My guess is that trying to be "decentralised" when it comes to fiat will simply get you shut down.

(but I hope I am wrong for your sake)

The banks *hate* decentralised systems and will do almost anything to stop them (as they know it is the end of their control if they were to allow it).

Same goes for Mastercard/Visa networks for payments.

It's a tricky thing when you try and tie commercialism and artistry together.

It works well with "craft" (so we get great new special effects or a great soundtrack for the latest movie) but it doesn't work with "real art" such as the "Piss Christ" (you might need to look that one up) or "Cloaca" (an even more challenging work).

Can you see any major corporation sponsoring such works of art?

Of course not.

Rubbish - as I said the most "important art" was only recognised well after the creator had died.

How does that work with your idea?

(it doesn't - it might only resonate in the future which you can't know now)

True artists "don't compromise" which is exactly why they are generally not recognised while they are alive.

That is not art but "craft" (and craft is just a trade like any other).

Most music is written to "appeal" rather than to "challenge" (so it is mostly craft rather than art).

When you look at the art of someone like Picasso it was considered by most to be an abomination (at the time it was created).

Most truly "great artists" were not even recognised as such until after they died (so clearly money had nothing to do with it).

The fiat side is going to be your biggest headache as AML and KYC stuff are going to be a huge issue.

Corporations don't care about creating ideas (they care about the "bottom line") and artists can always do other things (such as teach students) in order to live (as they have done traditionally for hundreds of years).

Why people want to try and keep on saying that "art should be commercial" is actually beyond me.

http://ciyam.org/at

Unfortunately it is very high tech (not marketing friendly).

We managed this: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/markets/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201502200543M2______EUPR_____35f800000260e09a_3600-1

(which does actually mention Automated Transactions and CIYAM but was not a great press release IMO)