Author Topic: Been doing some reading on other projects  (Read 7970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mirrax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Kill the banks!
    • View Profile
Hi Tuck

Hey Mirrax!

lulz, just saw this post and it looked awkward that I had not replied.

I've been catching up on featherslack and it 'appears' the community is a bit divided on the direction(?), which is not unusual. But in this instance, is the case that some simply want to swap algo with existing coin, while others want to start fresh (Kevlar in particular)?

Right now I personaly favor the idea of switching to Core officially ASAP and keep FTC pow.
Besides that launching fresh new chain under  FTC brand. To allow 2.0 functionality.

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
Hi Tuck

Hey Mirrax!

lulz, just saw this post and it looked awkward that I had not replied.

I've been catching up on featherslack and it 'appears' the community is a bit divided on the direction(?), which is not unusual. But in this instance, is the case that some simply want to swap algo with existing coin, while others want to start fresh (Kevlar in particular)?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2015, 10:33:16 pm by Tuck Fheman »



Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile


Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Drugs are a huge example of how IP has helped us. If not IP then it would need to be funded by the state as a public good .. or some other mythical construct.

You might be right, I'm not saying you are not.
But it always makes me wonder what makes people so sure when they produce such definite statements.
We've never tried the alternative. We just take it for granted.

Maybe there would be still be drugs produced without IP in place and without state funding.
Maybe people are willing to make inventions regardless of the financial incentive. Maybe voluntary donations would suffice.
Inventors might like the IP incentive being in place as it is now but would still make their inventions without it because most/some of them just enjoy being useful for others.
All I'm saying is that I don't know.

This reminds me of central banks saying the economy would collapse without them controlling the interest rates and money supply.
But how do we know it's true? We've never tried the alternative.

Thanks to new things like MaidSafe coming soon into existence we might get some interesting answers whether the things we take for granted should really be taken for granted.
https://forum.safenetwork.io/t/is-maidsafe-then-end-for-copyright-laws/572/8

You can look to other places with no IP laws and see how much advancement comes out of those countries.  In many places it has been tried.

I'm not sure how maidsafe will do anything for IP. Oh a tokenized CDN?  It is just another distribution channel.  You can get paid for youtube videos too if you are good enough but it is no threat to IP.

You are free to move to such countries where IP laws are super lax. If you are Western you'll likely stick out like a sore thumb but countries lax on IP are all over the globe. I would hate to live in all but possibly a handful, but they're out there.

Apparently Cuba has some sort of "cancer vaccine" which from what little I read shows promise. Then again, that was pure socialism + the state.

Hrmmmm.... 
I speak for myself and only myself.

jakub

  • Guest
Drugs are a huge example of how IP has helped us. If not IP then it would need to be funded by the state as a public good .. or some other mythical construct.

You might be right, I'm not saying you are not.
But it always makes me wonder what makes people so sure when they produce such definite statements.
We've never tried the alternative. We just take it for granted.

Maybe there would be still be drugs produced without IP in place and without state funding.
Maybe people are willing to make inventions regardless of the financial incentive. Maybe voluntary donations would suffice.
Inventors might like the IP incentive being in place as it is now but would still make their inventions without it because most/some of them just enjoy being useful for others.
All I'm saying is that I don't know.

This reminds me of central banks saying the economy would collapse without them controlling the interest rates and money supply.
But how do we know it's true? We've never tried the alternative.

Thanks to new things like MaidSafe coming soon into existence we might get some interesting answers whether the things we take for granted should really be taken for granted.
https://forum.safenetwork.io/t/is-maidsafe-then-end-for-copyright-laws/572/8


Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
The original intent of IP is to allow creators/inventors

The problem with looking at social structures through their stated rather than actual intentions, workings and results is that it gives you a confused and superstitious model of the world. The fairy tale about protecting authors is a ex post facto justification for an existing violent power of the ruler.

It’s important to understand the origins of these concepts. As law professor Eric E. Johnson notes, “The monopolies now understood as copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree, bestowed as a form of favoritism and control. As the power of the monarchy dwindled, these chartered monopolies were reformed, and essentially by default, they wound up in the hands of authors and inventors.”

Patents were exclusive monopolies to sell various goods and services for a limited time. The word patent, historian Patricia Seed explains, comes from the Latin patente, signifying open letters. Patents were “open letters” granted by the monarch authorizing someone to do something—to be, say, the only person to sell a certain good in a certain area, to homestead land in the New World on behalf of the crown, and so on.

It’s interesting that many defenders of IP—such as patent lawyers and even some libertarians—get indignant if you call patents or copyright a monopoly. “It’s not a monopoly; it’s a property right,” they say. “If it’s a monopoly then your use of your car is a monopoly.” But patents are State grants of monopoly privilege. One of the first patent statutes was England’s Statute of Monopolies of 1624, a good example of truth in labeling.

Granting patents was a way for the State to raise money without having to impose a tax. Dispensing them also helped secure the loyalty of favorites. The patentee in return received protection from competition. This was great for the State and the patentee but not for competition or the consumer.

Quote
What about copyright? The roots literally lie in censorship. It was easy for State and church to control thought by controlling the scribes, but then the printing press came along, and the authorities worried that they couldn’t control official thought as easily. So Queen Mary created the Stationer’s Company in 1557, with the exclusive franchise over book publishing, to control the press and what information the people could access. When the charter of the Stationer’s Company expired, the publishers lobbied for an extension, but in the Statute of Anne (1710) Parliament gave copyright to authors instead. Authors liked this because it freed their works from State control. Nowadays they use copyright much as the State originally did: to censor and ban books. (More below.)

And so you give weight to 450 year old laws created in a monarchy before my country (US) ever existed?  And somehow reasoning based on this 450 year old history invalidates everything after it? ......Seriously ? ...........

PC is a sharp guy.  Your reasoning is nonsense although historically interesting.

Drugs are a huge example of how IP has helped us. If not IP then it would need to be funded by the state as a public good .. or some other mythical construct.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox
The original intent of IP is to allow creators/inventors

The problem with looking at social structures through their stated rather than actual intentions, workings and results is that it gives you a confused and superstitious model of the world. The fairy tale about protecting authors is a ex post facto justification for an existing violent power of the ruler.

It’s important to understand the origins of these concepts. As law professor Eric E. Johnson notes, “The monopolies now understood as copyrights and patents were originally created by royal decree, bestowed as a form of favoritism and control. As the power of the monarchy dwindled, these chartered monopolies were reformed, and essentially by default, they wound up in the hands of authors and inventors.”

Patents were exclusive monopolies to sell various goods and services for a limited time. The word patent, historian Patricia Seed explains, comes from the Latin patente, signifying open letters. Patents were “open letters” granted by the monarch authorizing someone to do something—to be, say, the only person to sell a certain good in a certain area, to homestead land in the New World on behalf of the crown, and so on.

It’s interesting that many defenders of IP—such as patent lawyers and even some libertarians—get indignant if you call patents or copyright a monopoly. “It’s not a monopoly; it’s a property right,” they say. “If it’s a monopoly then your use of your car is a monopoly.” But patents are State grants of monopoly privilege. One of the first patent statutes was England’s Statute of Monopolies of 1624, a good example of truth in labeling.

Granting patents was a way for the State to raise money without having to impose a tax. Dispensing them also helped secure the loyalty of favorites. The patentee in return received protection from competition. This was great for the State and the patentee but not for competition or the consumer.

Quote
What about copyright? The roots literally lie in censorship. It was easy for State and church to control thought by controlling the scribes, but then the printing press came along, and the authorities worried that they couldn’t control official thought as easily. So Queen Mary created the Stationer’s Company in 1557, with the exclusive franchise over book publishing, to control the press and what information the people could access. When the charter of the Stationer’s Company expired, the publishers lobbied for an extension, but in the Statute of Anne (1710) Parliament gave copyright to authors instead. Authors liked this because it freed their works from State control. Nowadays they use copyright much as the State originally did: to censor and ban books. (More below.)

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Intellectual property is an artificial barrier created by the government. There is nothing tangible about intellectual property.

IP can be abused in all sorts of ways, but is definitely more than an "artificial barrier" to some.  The original intent of IP is still valid at times.

The original intent of IP is extending power through artificial barriers. Look up crown grants of monopoly privileges.

Like many laws, things become twisted by all sorts of special interests.  Everything from books to non-hosted software could have incentives to create them removed. Why write a book that if it becomes popular everyone will just print it out and sell at a near cost basis with the author receiving nothing? IP has a ton of abuses but I wonder where we'd be with 0 IP protection.

The problem with libertarian types is they see everything through their own rose-colored glasses. These things always have many many facets. Yes it is an artificial enabler.. or barrier.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
IP can be abused in all sorts of ways, but is definitely more than an "artificial barrier" to some.  The original intent of IP is still valid at times.

The original intent of IP is extending power through artificial barriers. Look up crown grants of monopoly privileges.

Rubbish.

The original intent of IP is to allow creators/inventors to profit for a limited time from their creations/inventions, thereby rewarding them for their effort and the risk they've taken. This reward system is an incentive for creators/inventors to make inventions in the first place, which is in the end in the interest of everyone. It makes absolute sense in those areas where the required effort for making an invention is significant. Think of medicine, for example. Nobody would invest billions into medical research if anybody could just copy their results.

Abuse comes into play when the required effort and/or the resulting technological advance is insignificant. As is usually the case with software patents, for example.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline VoR0220

Intellectual property is an artificial barrier created by the government. There is nothing tangible about intellectual property.

IP can be abused in all sorts of ways, but is definitely more than an "artificial barrier" to some.  The original intent of IP is still valid at times.

The original intent of IP is extending power through artificial barriers. Look up crown grants of monopoly privileges.

And the original intent of welfare was to help the poor....and yet many would argue that it has not. I'm sorry, but the more I look at history, how did the US rise to power? Many would argue it was from ignoring IP laws. How is China rising to power? Many would argue that a huge part of that is from ignoring international IP laws. Coincidence? I think not.

It's not so much I have a disagreement of the concept of IP. But when government has been controlling it for so long then you wind up with things like the eternal copyright system that Disney has so plagued. IMO, there is a place for IP, protected by technology. Not by government mandate.

Then again to many, I'm a crazy libertarian when it comes to this viewpoint. I believe that at this point and time IP gets in the way of progress moreso than it actually benefits humanity.

Few more examples. Take the endless patent trolls that plague software. Is the law really generating anything productive? What of IP when it comes to things like electric cars, things needed to combat the clear issue of climate change? Tesla even destroyed their own patents and went open source in order to advance the cause because Elon Musk can see the big picture and recognize that IP is holding back the potential that electric cars have in potentially saving the world.

/end political rant
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline carpet ride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile

What if BitShares had an average of 1 second confirmation times?   Is that instant enough ;)

Mmmmmmm 
All opinions are my own. Anything said on this forum does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation between myself and anyone else.
Check out my blog: http://CertainAssets.com
Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Offline triox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: triox
Intellectual property is an artificial barrier created by the government. There is nothing tangible about intellectual property.

IP can be abused in all sorts of ways, but is definitely more than an "artificial barrier" to some.  The original intent of IP is still valid at times.

The original intent of IP is extending power through artificial barriers. Look up crown grants of monopoly privileges.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Intellectual property is an artificial barrier created by the government. There is nothing tangible about intellectual property.

IP can be abused in all sorts of ways, but is definitely more than an "artificial barrier" to some.  The original intent of IP is still valid at times.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I see .. thanks for all the explanation ..

Learn sth new everyday :D

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
@pc .. thanks for the explanation ..
Is IP related to the German Urheberrecht?

Author's rights  / copyright is one aspect of IP. Patents are another, as are trademarks.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
What if BitShares had an average of 1 second confirmation times?   Is that instant enough ;)

guess we will have to wait at least 2 weeks to know that  :P
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

What if BitShares had an average of 1 second confirmation times?   Is that instant enough ;)
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
@pc .. thanks for the explanation ..
Is IP related to the German Urheberrecht?

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
It's not about government .. it's about commercial use ..
you can still use IP-restricted software for personal use .. as you can also re-implement every patented piece of software/hardware or algorithm

IP restricts COMMERCIAL use ..
at least that's my understanding of IP .. though I am not a lawyer ..

IP is about applying existing (and widely accepted) rights regarding tangible property to ideas and other forms of intangible "property".

It has nothing to do with "commercial" or not. If something is your property then you have the right to control how and if other people can use it. You can exert this control by granting a license. In some jurisdictions you can also waive your rights by making your property public domain.

It also has nothing to do with "open source" (that's why the FSF doesn't like the term "open source"). Open source means you put the source code in some place where everyone can see it. That doesn't imply that anyone can actually *use* that source code without paying a license fee.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 07:20:42 pm by pc »
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline VoR0220

Intellectual property is an artificial barrier created by the government. There is nothing tangible about intellectual property.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
One can protect and still open source a software ...
it's called IP

Ah yes, that artificial barrier to entry that the government likes to prop up.
It's not about government .. it's about commercial use ..
you can still use IP-restricted software for personal use .. as you can also re-implement every patented piece of software/hardware or algorithm

IP restricts COMMERCIAL use ..
at least that's my understanding of IP .. though I am not a lawyer ..

Offline VoR0220

One can protect and still open source a software ...
it's called IP

Ah yes, that artificial barrier to entry that the government likes to prop up.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
One can protect and still open source a software ...
it's called IP

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
The hands down winner in transactions will be the one who utilizes quantum entanglement computing utilizing nebula energy with galaxy nodes.. :)

I believe CIYAM is working on it.

Hehe.

Thats the next Qora feature. :P
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
The hands down winner in transactions will be the one who utilizes quantum entanglement computing utilizing nebula energy with galaxy nodes.. :)

I believe CIYAM is working on it.

Offline VoR0220

Damn shame too. Seems like the guy really knows his shit. He could really spark Bitshares up another level....Oh well....
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline onceuponatime

...that sounds like an absolute nightmare of bureaucracy to jump through....but I guess a dude's gotta do what a dude's gotta do.

Not with my money!   lol

Offline VoR0220

...that sounds like an absolute nightmare of bureaucracy to jump through....but I guess a dude's gotta do what a dude's gotta do.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline onceuponatime

I had not read that....I really don't see how you can run a closed source model cryptocurrency successfully unless it runs on the basis of Zero Knowledge Proof (ShadowCash) or you're totally antithetical to the ideology that Bitcoin and other likeminded cryptos represent (looking at you Ripple).

As for it being vaporware, that's totally possible as well, but coming from a comp sci background, this guy may be onto something here. Not sure about the exact results (I'm not sure how this could translate to 1000s of profitable nodes, perhaps it could scale to that level, but I'm really not sure how), but I think I see from the outset how this could flow together. Though the long time to accomplish this is unsettling. I think he has ideas, but he really has no idea how to market himself. Why not bring him on board to update our ideas? Should probably reach out to him, or atleast get Dan's opinion on it (that would be interesting to me).

Software Licensing

The Qointum client software is available under the following license types:

    a Personal License which is free but limited by revenue restrictions
    a Pro License which requires a subscription (see Pricing)

Source Code Policy

We believe that transparency of source code is essential for decentralization, however until Qointum has achieved a huge network effect we believe that protecting our intellectual property will also serve to protect the value of the ℚoin and its stakeholders. We plan to allow the Qointum community to elect independent entities (via decentralized governance) to perform an annual source code audit in order to verify its security as a cryptocurrency platform. These entities will be bound to a non-disclosure agreement that protects our intellectual property.

The Qointum source code is licensed on a per-case basis via special arrangements made by our team. As this can be quite expensive, we do not generally license source code to smaller operations, educational institutions, nor to companies in countries which do not have adequate legal intellectual property protection.

https://wiki.qointum.com/design/dev/


Offline VoR0220

I had not read that....I really don't see how you can run a closed source model cryptocurrency successfully unless it runs on the basis of Zero Knowledge Proof (ShadowCash) or you're totally antithetical to the ideology that Bitcoin and other likeminded cryptos represent (looking at you Ripple).

As for it being vaporware, that's totally possible as well, but coming from a comp sci background, this guy may be onto something here. Not sure about the exact results (I'm not sure how this could translate to 1000s of profitable nodes, perhaps it could scale to that level, but I'm really not sure how), but I think I see from the outset how this could flow together. Though the long time to accomplish this is unsettling. I think he has ideas, but he really has no idea how to market himself. Why not bring him on board to update our ideas? Should probably reach out to him, or atleast get Dan's opinion on it (that would be interesting to me).
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline onceuponatime

And, they are not open-sourcing, at least for a while.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Qointum is another project that seems to be attempting to take the DPOS concept to another level. The creator of this project calls his consensus mechanism Queued Delegated Proof of Stake and last I spoke with him he was still working on it. What's particularly interesting about his project is the idea of what he calls SSV (Simple State Verification akin to SPV in Bitcoin). I believe his solution involves merkle trees which is what allows him to do this. Needless to say the ability to process transactions instantaneously is something that would be an absolute boon to proof of stake cryptocurrencies as that seems to be one of the few areas that Bitcoin can completely outcompete us in. You can confirm transactions in 10 seconds but it doesn't beat instant confirmation.

I plan to totally crush the airline industry with my warp bubble technology.

I am still working on it, but there is no way they can compete with it.  ;D

This was what I got from your post... my experience with DPOS "as is" has been pretty much instant.. I am certain whatever he is claiming is going to have caveats to where instant won't always happen.

It's also really easy to make claims about what warp bubble technology will do.. when you are still working on it.  ;)

The hands down winner in transactions will be the one who utilizes quantum entanglement computing utilizing nebula energy with galaxy nodes.. :)

I know I am being cheeky.. I do wish them well in their development and hope they can bring innovation to the marketplace.. this is a space though that is bullet riddled with over-hyped claims without any Direct Proof of Substance. I'll be interested to see how it comes along though. Thanks for sharing!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

jaran

  • Guest
Cool project. Thanks for posting it.  Had not heard of it before.   

I skimmed their design doc https://wiki.qointum.com/design/dev/

Looks like they have some tech chops and have really put a lot of work into this.

Like that they have a roadmap too https://wiki.qointum.com/roadmap/

Offline VoR0220

Qointum is another project that seems to be attempting to take the DPOS concept to another level. The creator of this project calls his consensus mechanism Queued Delegated Proof of Stake and last I spoke with him he was still working on it. What's particularly interesting about his project is the idea of what he calls SSV (Simple State Verification akin to SPV in Bitcoin). I believe his solution involves merkle trees which is what allows him to do this. Needless to say the ability to process transactions instantaneously is something that would be an absolute boon to proof of stake cryptocurrencies as that seems to be one of the few areas that Bitcoin can completely outcompete us in. You can confirm transactions in 10 seconds but it doesn't beat instant confirmation.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads