 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Let's not overreact: this is a single page of documentation we're talking about. I could reproduce it in a few hours
Mainly, I have not given permission because it is woefully incomplete
Well, we can either wait for jgarzik to release his "woefully incomplete" documentation, or just have someone take a few hours to do it from scratch and not have to deal with the headache that this is causing. |
|
|
|
Basically what seems to be uncomfirmed and is being delayed is jgarzik's written indication of licensing for the documentation.
jgarzik: Will you provide this information? If not within your next post in this thread, I will be certain to delete the contents in the wiki post and request that an admin/mod delete the wiki page entirely so that it is a little bit more difficult for it to be used as a reference for further developments. This should help to prevent usage of the documentation produced and publicized by you and prevent any legality that may otherwise be pursued by you or anyone else in this matter.
If necessary, perhaps the protocol can be altered slightly to accomodate for documentation of the protocol in a way that is different from that of jgarzik's documentation and thus a kind of documentation can be produced by someone else so that its it not similar to or deemed a derivative and can be established as a unique work and hopefully this is done by someone who does not pursue a similar claim of ownership causing even further discussion to take place. I am uncertain of whether or not this is necessary, but it seems to be a kind of solution that can resolve the matter rather quickly.
Just do it. It's been a day now and despite several requests that he release the documentation under Creative Commons, he hasn't actually moved to do anything except cause more drama. If he doesn't want to play nicely, then we just need to walk away. Lets just find someone who's willing to do what is necessary in order to keep everything free as in beer. We don't have to do anything to the protocol, just have someone else document it. If the documentation comes out exactly the same, then that's proof that he doesn't have a copyright, as stated earlier in this thread. |
|
|
|
I think documentation should be released under some permissive open-source style license. That way others can correct potential mistakes, add info that you left off, etc etc and publish it back under the same license. Essentially, we should apply the FOSS philosophy to documentation.
Sound exactly like creative commons.Sorry, ignore that, it sounds far more confrontational than I intended it. |
|
|
|
This thread is depressing. I am a newb. Why isn't this info created at the same time as the program? Why can't Satoshi just rattle it off?
I'd be surprised if he couldn't, or if he didn't have his own documentation somewhere in a notebook that he's using for an ashtray.  (I have no idea if Satoshi smokes and presume that he doesn't) Personally, when working on an open source project, I find it hard to believe that any documents relating to the protocol could cause any sort of dispute over their authorship, especially when we have such fine resources as Creative Commons. I don't think anyone would have any problems with that. |
|
|
|
|
As I'm trying to start an escrow service anyway, I'll volunteer my services if they're needed, although it would be even sweeter if they accepted bitcoins on their website.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm moving (slowly) towards setting up an escrow service. I'm planning on building a database that will allow people to advertise how many successful transactions they have made.
|
|
|
|
some valid points
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the general idea that you're espousing, but your example doesn't quite work very well. Freenet has the downside of quite possibly actively turning someone who uses it into a criminal just by its use, whereas it is likely much harder to prosecute someone for performing a transaction using BTC. By worrying about who uses BTC, or how welcoming the project is to various people (we should welcome everyone to use BTC for legal reasons regardless of their political views), you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm more concerned about building the clubhouse than who's on the guest list. As for whether or not someone is accepting bitcoins for access to porn sites: I haven't seen it yet. If someone wanted to make such a transaction, they would have to advertise it. It can't be too prolific if no one has really seen it yet. |
|
|
|
What I'm trying to say is that if you want to bring a presentation of Bitcoins to something like a board of director's meeting for Wal-mart, you don't want some skeptic typing in the words "Bitcoins" and getting nothing but porn sites, drug traders, and "other enterprises" that such major corporations don't want to be associated with. If they are in the fringe of the users of this technology, they can be ignored and it won't be an issue. If those kind of users are the primary users of this network, that could be a huge problem.
Enterprises that are early adopters for technology can also be filtered out in such situations, but not completely. I'm also saying that there are so many other applications for micropayments that can be beneficial for Bitcoins that concentrating on just these other subversive kinds of enterprises is not going to be healthy in terms of spreading information about Bitcoins. Concentrating on just these kinds of more anarchists type of applications might even backfire in terms of trying to get "mainstream" acceptance of the concept.
For this to be used on something like Walmart.com, it would most certainly have to be "in the mainstream" for it to be accepted.
I haven't actually seen any sort of porn or drug transactions using BTC... there was the guy that talked about sending heroin, but that was just a thought experiment. Going back to the original comment that you quoted, I feel that what both you and creighto are saying is self-evident. I wouldn't expect walmart to use bitcoins unless there was an economic reason that didn't make them look like pedophiles/drug dealers/bad people. To me, you might as well be saying that the sky is blue. |
|
|
|
Oh you mean official binaries in package form hosted by the Ubuntu folks?
Not necessarily hosted by launchpad or anything, just packages available from a mirror somewhere. |
|
|
|
I've built the client and daemon for Ubuntu 9.04 (should work in later versions ?)
Not a package per say, but you can just download the current Linux release and just overwrite the binaries. Not perfect, but it will get a working version for you that way.
Yeah I've built the binaries before, I want to be able to upgrade via the update manager rather than manually downloading the binaries. |
|
|
|
|
sabbers worked with me to find a way to complete the transaction. Definitely a good trader.
|
|
|
|
By giving them a chance to download binaries, compiled and distributed by several trusted parties, like with GNU/Linux, instead of just single trusted party via single channel, like NOW.
And by distributing tamperproof checksums of the binaries in a public places, like news sites and forums.
Right now there is only one download location for the lazy and unwary - sourceforge,
but that is not required by design.
Actually there are several people on the forums who are working on doing exactly what you just advocated, I'd advise finding them and contributing. |
|
|
|
Everyone is free to read my posts and discover, that I'm arguing, that the majority of people should be better
protected from being compromised. And that the authors of the Bitcoin should get concerned by
that security risk.
But how exactly should they be better protected? |
|
|
|
I'm not saying I'd start it because of moral reasons, I'm just tossing out the idea that maybe hasn't been thought of too much yet.
You could still pay by the month, by the day, or as mentioned per video or picture. Nice simple payments across an open p2p system.
Who will provide the p0rn? |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone built a package for the GUI client yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Now if we can get a repository set up, everything will be awesome.
|
|
|
|
For Bitcoins to really succeed as something actually used, stuff like the Heron store needs to be marginalized at best. I don't mind the anonymous transactions being involved here, but the emphasis ought to be put on freedom and legitimate otherwise legal transactions. I would like to work to get Bitcoins eventually recognized by an organization like Wal-Mart. I don't think you could stop the anarchists if you tried, so I wouldn't spend engineering development effort to kick that kind of thing off the network, but it shouldn't be a dominant feature. I would think that even those groups who want to engage in to more subversive acts wouldn't mind their traffic being drowned out by "legitimate" transactions.
As has been suggested by earlier posts, Wal-Mart isn't really an early adopter, so perhaps it would be better to go more for some companies that are more "hip" and into a network culture. The trick is to try and identify what companies might be willing to go that route.
When you say "Heron", I'm going to assume that you are referencing the "heroin" thought experiment that someone was using in another thread. Kind of a significant spelling error, although I would totally buy into a service that delivered Great Blue Herons through the mail.  I'm having a hard time understanding the rest of your post, but I feel like you're complaining that the "anarchists" will ruin things and you want to try to remove anonymity from the network, is that accurate? As far as the "anarchists"(lets not get into your use of a straw man here) go, you may as well complain that they are bad for all of the freedoms that we enjoy. I think that there's a productive critique in your post about ubiquity of BTC, but it's hidden by the complaints about what the bitcoin network is capable of. |
|
|
|
As far as I know, but I finally got past the wxWidgets problem (typo in a command while installing, grrr) I've finally landed at the libboost-dev-all package to install, but it's not found in the Ubuntu repository for some reason? I guess I'll just install anything/everything that has to do with boost-dev  That's what I did and it seemed to work. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm following those to the letter, but I think that's my issue is, there might be a step missing because when compiling bitcoin, the errors point towards something else missing in the wx2.9 stuff (maybe an additional step) necessary. I think I'm close to figuring it out, if I do, I'll be sure to post it and hopefully have the text updated for future people to avoid any frustration You downloaded all the dependencies too? I know I had a bunch of problems until I did that. Good luck, I've done it myself so it's definitely possible. |
|
|
|
|
