Just to say, I think I've seen people merge threads on other boards using this software so there may be a way. |
|
|
|
|
Blackheart, for someone who self-identifies as a libertarian, it sure seems like you want to get into other peoples' shit a lot.
Being a libertarian isn't just about appearing cool like having an ipo/ad or wearing one of those bobbly hats with thick-rimmed glasses, it's about principles. I suggest you examine yours.
|
|
|
|
If governments can't stop/impede blackmarkets what do you think a bunch of forum nerds will do?  It is counterproductive and a waste of time. Now if I run a cross some evidence of child pornography I am going to report it to the authorities. I will report it if it involves Bitcoins, or USD, or Yap Stones. It isn't my job to actively try and find it though. If I wanted to do that I would have joined law enforcement. That is a risky proposition. The actions of law enforcement have shown that the best thing you can do is clear your cache and move along. |
|
|
|
|
How much are you looking to shift?
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not, this is probably one of the most important threads on this forum. Full Disclosure: I'm guilty of only 18 of the 15 Rules, but not on purpose or by some else's agenda, just by my stupidity and recently converted belief system. TECSHARE, you did omit quoting the most important aspect of that article of which I will now do the honor: Postscript: Over a number of years, we’ve found that the most effective way to fight disruption and disinformation is to link to a post such as this one which rounds up disruption techniques, and then to cite the disinfo technique you think is being used.
Specifically, we’ve found the following format to be highly effective in educating people in a non-confrontational manner about what the disrupting person is doing:
Good Number 1!
Or:
Thanks for that textbook example of Number 7!
(include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.) I suggest we start using the above, even tagging me with any rule when it applies. ~Bruno~ You are the new number two. |
|
|
|
|
Just wait until one of these falls out of the sky onto a bus full of orphans.
Seriously, the government has managed to sell the idea of "collateral damage" when it's a bunch of funny talking brown fellas. Who's going to notice a couple of malfunctioning drones when you're living in a bomb crater? But just wait until it's a pretty white girl who's being spoon fed cause a drone that lost its signal hit her in the head.
|
|
|
|
Well, the protection was there before the phrase "intellectual property" was ever invented. Then it was just a guarantee of a monopoly of the rights to use in exchange for promoting creativity. Though culture was doing pretty well (and possibly even better) before such laws were enacted.
IP is a broad word and cannot be said to be 'invented' at any one time. It is a collection of laws that deal with different specific situations. The older laws can just as easily be called IP rights. Before these laws there was no protection. But then again, culture was not as fruitfull as it is now. Most people were peasants that never got to deal with these issues. Culture was doing well for the few rich people that could afford it. Because of the spread of literacy culture started to spread quicker and more people got involved in conflicts about ownership of ideas etc. So laws were necessary to resolve these conflicts. The problems we have now come mostly from big firms abusing their position. But that doesn't make IP laws useless, it means the current implementation sucks. [/quote] Maybe. All I'm saying is that the phrase "intellectual property" itself was chosen to pre-bias any discussion in a certain way. We can discuss the legitimacy of me copying something that you have done or created but when it's "intellectual property", then suddenly it's a different ball game. |
|
|
|
|
And let's not forget that the current statist/socialist market incentivizes the less productive members of our society to reproduce faster while incentivizing the productive (and generally better role models) to reproduce less.
|
|
|
|
Good idea, except the trackerless part, IMHO. Here's a magnet link to the same torrent, with 4 public trackers added:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0bb0521942f586ed96203c6f4d136324756f8a9a&dn=bootstrap.dat&tr=udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80&tr=udp://tracker.publicbt.com:80&tr=udp://tracker.ccc.de:80&tr=udp://tracker.istole.it:80
Good deal. Unless a torrent is marked as private, the dht will kick in if the trackers ever stop working (though I'm not sure if it's possible to nobble them?) |
|
|
|
Not quite.
It is just a device invented to protect the livelyhood of creative folks.
What completely screwed it up was the relatively recent extentions of length of this right so even grand-children of the holder can profit. That is of course bullshit and should be reversed immediately.
Another thing that realy screwed it up was transferability. IP should only be expressable by the author period.
But without IP at all we would have a lot less culture. People would just not be able to produce enough of it and survive.
So while the intention was good and it functioned well for many years some rich groups or people screwed it up over the years and now we have shit laws peddled mainly by the US.
Well, the protection was there before the phrase "intellectual property" was ever invented. Then it was just a guarantee of a monopoly of the rights to use in exchange for promoting creativity. Though culture was doing pretty well (and possibly even better) before such laws were enacted. |
|
|
|
You're confusing Intelectual Property with just normal general Property.
IP is a very specific subcategory of property that was invented to allow creative people to produce something they can sell without other people ripping off their ideas.
You cannot generalize that to all information produced by human action.
The best way to protect things like personal numbers is to think of its unique properties and place in society and make laws that fit that situation.
Making it too general will create a whole set of new problems which are not solved easily as information is a tricky substance.
Except that "intellectual property" is not a real thing, it's just a concept invented with the intent to confuse and conflate the idea with real property to provoke stronger protection |
|
|
|
So... you're writing this to tell you had great marks on the pre-college exams?
And access to some good quality psychedelics. |
|
|
|
I think I can see my house from here. You, sir, are an electron. Are you positive? |
|
|
|
But, let's remember, I'm not talking about today's society. I'm talking specifically about an anti-IPR society, e.g. a libertarian society. This forum is full of libs and I'm surprised none have weighed in on this thread. How could a lib, in a lib (ie NAP etc) society, justify taking action against someone who copied their private keys? Indeed, this might even apply to GPG keys, SSH keys, any kind of "secret number".
I find it interesting what you say about the numbers on a credit card. Yeah, they're jut numbers, but if someone asks you to pay for a new TV and you quote numbers that do not "belong" to you, that'd be considered fraud. In some sense, bitcoin private keys are a bit like a credit card number - a digital money MUST (obviously) be really just a bunch of special numbers. Any society, therefore, that does not prohibit the illicit copying of these numbers cannot use digital money. If it is not possible to apply special protection to certain classes of data, digital money cannot be utilized.
That's the key, it's fraud. Not really anything to do with "intellectual property" |
|
|
|
Torrent works by breaking files up into pieces and hashing each piece. The parts that you already have will have the same hash as the hashes in the seed, with the exception of the final piece. Modern torrent clients will fetch that partial piece using the missing byte range, and then verify it with the hash. And naturally, they will also grab all of the new pieces.
Yes. I was talking about generating the file without having to download it. No point having torrents download the missing pieces when you already have them sitting in the blockchain on your hard-drive. |
|
|
|
Now currently the script has 193,000 hardcoded
Ah, this is what I was talking about. |
|
|
|
Excellent. Though presumably it will be a slightly different length than whatever is torrented (which will be taken care of by the recheck-data option).
Why would a byte for byte copy be a "slightly different length"? How does it know the length of the torrented file? (Note that it is "identical", not a copy) Though from what jgarzick says in the post above there is some kind of checkpointing that it either knows or gets fed into it? |
|
|
|
It will result in seeders needing to re-download a torrent for each update though.
It will result in seeders already having 90% of any new torrent, thus having to fill in the remaining 10%. Yes, it's just that it's an extra step, not automatic. This is a limitation of the torrent protocol and not a criticism of this project, just pointing it out. I wonder if it could be generated from their existing blockchain (is it basically the same file?) which will presumably be pretty up-to-date.
Yes, this is open data and an open file format. Seeders may independently generate a byte-for-byte identical bootstrap.dat by running https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode/blob/master/mkbootstrap.pyEach time the blockchain torrent is updated, seeders may run that script to guarantee they have 100% of bootstrap.dat immediately. A nice, decentralized solution Excellent. Though presumably it will be a slightly different length than whatever is torrented (which will be taken care of by the recheck-data option). |
|
|
|
Note: For existing torrent seeders, they may simply swap out the .torrent file, perhaps kick their torrent client to manually re-verify a file, and bootstrap.dat in their Uploads directory will simply be extended. Seeders will automatically already have 90% of each new torrent's bootstrap.dat. Hmm. I didn't realize that was possible. I assumed that changing the torrent would result in no seeds (and all prior seeders needing to download again). I was thinking many wouldn't and thus it would be a challenge to keep the number of seeders high. I guess bittorrent is "smarter" than I realized. It will result in seeders needing to re-download a torrent for each update though. They'll also have to download all the intervening data (though they will be seeding from what they already have right away). I wonder if it could be generated from their existing blockchain (is it basically the same file?) which will presumably be pretty up-to-date. |
|
|
|
...
Note: For existing torrent seeders, they may simply swap out the .torrent file, perhaps kick their torrent client to manually re-verify a file, and bootstrap.dat in their Uploads directory will simply be extended. Seeders will automatically already have 90% of each new torrent's bootstrap.dat.
D'oh. This is "stuff I know" and have used from time to time. My bad. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
