Been doing some reading on other projects

[mirrax]

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]

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)?

[mirrax]

http://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transfer

Great post

It's been updated. The original graphics were a little ... wrong, so they've been fixed.

Hi Tuck

[Tuck Fheman]

http://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transfer

Great post

It's been updated. The original graphics were a little ... wrong, so they've been fixed.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

http://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transfer

Great post

[bitmeat]

http://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transfer

Holy sh*t!!! This is huge!!! This is better than side-chains if it really works!

Thanks for sharing!

[Tuck Fheman]

http://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transfer

[gamey]

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.... 

[jakub]

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

[gamey]

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.

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.

[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.

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.)

[gamey]

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.

[pc]

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.

[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

[carpet ride]

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

Mmmmmmm