Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#201

Post by gruez »

chejazi wrote: post #110
oneloop wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guys, I have a question. If it's this simple to put a server into the onion, why are people not doing this with torrent trackers? I'm thinking specifically about thepiratebay.org which is still banned in the UK (at the ISP level, I believe). Then mirrors appear and then the mirrors get banned? Why not just put it into the onion? Put it there once, problem solved.

Perhaps the primary reason is accessibility. Onion addresses are not easily memorized. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle I believe this inconvenience is minor, however.

What about blockchain based DNS solutions like namecoin?

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#202

Post by forgotpwtomain »

devishard wrote: post #161
oneloop wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, is there any fundamental reason why onion addresses are always so cryptic?

The answers are correct, but a less cryptographically-related answer: When you go to a website on the regular internet, the name you type into your URL bar doesn't contain any location information. Instead, you go to a Dynamic Name Server (DNS) server (often run by your ISP) and and get the IP address, which tells your browser where to go. With Tor, the hashes you see are analogous to the IP in regular internet: they…

It's not ICANN censoring them but their registrar which has pulled the domain. I agree that the ICANN monopoly is a bad thing, but the above statement is somewhat misleading.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#203

Post by zerotimer »

agumonkey wrote: post #194
enraged_camel wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rage-fatigue is a fantastic way to describe it. People have so many things to worry about already. Their jobs, their families, their college loans, their retirement... Frankly, some publisher charging for access to scientific papers paid for by taxpayers is going to be pretty low on their list of priorities.

I'm fascinated by this. Because we all feel the same, but no efficient solution emerges from this tensions. Or only rarely. We should study this and learn how to make catalysts to trigger change.

Are you refering to things like change.org? I am not sure what's the success rate of those models but on the surface they seem quite ineffective to bring any substantial change.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#204

Post by agumonkey »

zerotimer wrote: post #203
agumonkey wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fascinated by this. Because we all feel the same, but no efficient solution emerges from this tensions. Or only rarely. We should study this and learn how to make catalysts to trigger change.

Are you refering to things like change.org? I am not sure what's the success rate of those models but on the surface they seem quite ineffective to bring any substantial change.

change.org is just petitions right ?

I meant something more tangible. A way to assess issues, classify, organize, root them in the economical context and try to find a better organization to resolve tensions.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#205

Post by zerotimer »

agumonkey wrote: post #204
zerotimer wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you refering to things like change.org? I am not sure what's the success rate of those models but on the surface they seem quite ineffective to bring any substantial change.

change.org is just petitions right ? I meant something more tangible. A way to assess issues, classify, organize, root them in the economical context and try to find a better organization to resolve tensions.

The problem is that for any such systems to operate, you need experts. If you democratize too much, you end up risking with ignorant and inefficient long term solutions (like Trump). And with experts, there will always be some scope of corruption. Unless we are talking AI experts that are similar to IBM's Watson.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#206

Post by collinmanderson »

oneloop wrote: post #178
devishard wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers are correct, but a less cryptographically-related answer: When you go to a website on the regular internet, the name you type into your URL bar doesn't contain any location information. Instead, you go to a Dynamic Name Server (DNS) server (often run by your ISP) and and get the IP address, which tells your browser where to go. With Tor, the hashes you see are analogous to the IP in regular internet: they…

So would a sort of decentralized DNS be possible?

Though even if we decentralize DNS, ICANN controls all of the underlying IP addresses.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#207

Post by agumonkey »

zerotimer wrote: post #205
agumonkey wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

change.org is just petitions right ? I meant something more tangible. A way to assess issues, classify, organize, root them in the economical context and try to find a better organization to resolve tensions.

The problem is that for any such systems to operate, you need experts. If you democratize too much, you end up risking with ignorant and inefficient long term solutions (like Trump). And with experts, there will always be some scope of corruption. Unless we are talking AI experts that are similar to IBM's Watson.

Very good point. I was hoping for a middle ground where people would reach a better understanding and solve their issues by communicating. But maybe that's unnatural and just a pipe dream.

Re: Elsevier Complaint Shuts Down Sci-Hub Domain Name

#208

Post by jfoutz »

curiousgal wrote: post #157
chadzawistowski wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hashes are easy to run forwards and hard to run backwards.

Crypto noob here. Why is that? are the hashes generated from an input randomly?

Perhaps more intuitive, 11*17 is pretty easy to do in your head, but factoring 187 is much harder
Post reply on HN