0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mirrax on May 20, 2015, 03:59:19 pmHi TuckHey 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)?
Hi Tuck
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on May 18, 2015, 08:03:24 amQuote from: Tuck Fheman on May 17, 2015, 09:31:27 pmhttp://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transferGreat postIt's been updated. The original graphics were a little ... wrong, so they've been fixed.
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on May 17, 2015, 09:31:27 pmhttp://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transferGreat post
http://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transfer
Quote from: gamey on May 16, 2015, 08:39:23 pmDrugs 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
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.
Quote from: pc on May 16, 2015, 07:26:18 amThe original intent of IP is to allow creators/inventorsThe 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. Quote from: http://fee.org/freeman/detail/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-marketIt’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.QuoteWhat 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.)
The original intent of IP is to allow creators/inventors
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.
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.)
Quote from: gamey on May 15, 2015, 07:37:44 pmQuote from: VoR0220 on May 15, 2015, 03:18:54 pmIntellectual 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.
Quote from: VoR0220 on May 15, 2015, 03:18:54 pmIntellectual 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.
Intellectual property is an artificial barrier created by the government. There is nothing tangible about intellectual property.
Quote from: gamey on May 15, 2015, 07:37:44 pmIP 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.
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.
What if BitShares had an average of 1 second confirmation times? Is that instant enough
@pc .. thanks for the explanation ..Is IP related to the German Urheberrecht?
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 algorithmIP restricts COMMERCIAL use ..at least that's my understanding of IP .. though I am not a lawyer ..
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on May 15, 2015, 07:37:32 amOne can protect and still open source a software ... it's called IPAh yes, that artificial barrier to entry that the government likes to prop up.
One can protect and still open source a software ... it's called IP
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on May 15, 2015, 03:54:58 amThe 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.
The hands down winner in transactions will be the one who utilizes quantum entanglement computing utilizing nebula energy with galaxy nodes..
...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.
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).
And, they are not open-sourcing, at least for a while.
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.