things like this make me want to download whole sci-hub content, anyone knew the size of it?
Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
361–370 of 414 posts
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#362This article (really it's more of a press release from the interested parties) seems to confuse the role of DNS from the role of certificate authority, making it hard for me to understand what they're talking about. These days sometimes the same entities provide both SSL certificates and DNS, but they are different services. > Handshake is “is effectively a decentralized domain name server,” Roquerre said. Instead of…
>It seems like tor .onion address would be an actually mature solution to this problem Already available: https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion
I wonder why wikipedia mentions that it has an .onion address but does not show this address? People do keep the constantly changing URLs for it up-to-date and are even highlighted in the side bar, so a legal reason not to publish the link to it is unlikely the reason.
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect, this comment reflects a poor understanding of decentralized projects and, particularly, public blockchains. > the owners are ... selling the DNS naming hierarchy The blockchain is providing names in a global namespace owned by the commons. I cannot understand why you have been harassing and stalking this project with troll-like behavior and rude, snarky comments. Let's try to be constructive and…
I can sort of understand the idea of people starting a new parallel naming system as a piece of Internet infrastructure, sort of the same way DNS happened. Where you lose me, like, all the way across the horizon is where the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves, and then "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. W…
> sort of the same way DNS happened.
Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD
> the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin
All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required.
> that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves
A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone other than FOSS developers. Please review the paper [1] for specific allocations.
> "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018.
To be clear, this set consists of any developer on github who had 15 or more followers in 2019, the PGP web of trust strong set, and anyone on HN who had a keybase account in their profile.
> Why would anybody sign up for this? I genuinely have a hard time understanding why anybody would take this seriously.
I don't think there is anything to sign up for? Secondly, you absolutely don't need to use the new internet if you don't want to - just like nobody forces you to use anything else in this world. You have a choice. That said, we'll miss you. :(
> It's a plan to replace the DNS roots with... some company? That just decided they should be the ones to own it?
So actually, the DNS root is owned by some company [2] that is under the jurisdiction of California law. It used to be, and still basically is, owned by the US Department of Commerce. Internet users are replacing it with a public blockchain owned by the commons.
Historically, revolutions happen all the time. Now it's the time for democratization of naming. Is there any good reason why we shouldn't own our own names? I think that the name might even be more valuable than money. What is anything without a name?
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel obliged to point out again that this project appears to be a cryptocurrency scheme in which the owners are, in essence, selling the DNS naming hierarchy, which is genius since they do not in fact own it. Also, once again, I'd like to put out an appeal for anyone who wants to go in with me on a venture to do the same thing with ARP.
With all due respect, this comment reflects a poor understanding of decentralized projects and, particularly, public blockchains. > the owners are ... selling the DNS naming hierarchy The blockchain is providing names in a global namespace owned by the commons. I cannot understand why you have been harassing and stalking this project with troll-like behavior and rude, snarky comments. Let's try to be constructive and…
There are quite a few things I don't agree with tptacek about. But this is just the latest of a long series of hijack attempts for this namespace (the Internet's DNS hierarchy) and it's about time people learned that can't work.
Successful namespace hijacks rely on overwhelming numbers. You need to have so many people using your hijacked namespace that you've got way more people who do not even know that it's a hijack but are using it anyway than the existing administrators had total engagement so that it's pointless to argue with you.
Handshake can't get there from here, most of the world now uses the DNS hierarchy. This was a fool's errand. Carving themselves out a niche might have been possible, if they had been content with a niche but it's clear that their financial motives dictated they try for the impossible instead.
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone's on board with free speech as a concept here No they aren’t, including you. I don’t trust your judgement of who is a Nazi, and even if I did, I especially don’t trust everyone who hears you say that. However, despite your endorsement of political violence (terrorism) I don’t believe that it would be right for you to be deplatformed, especially if it’s breach of contract (like what AWS is doing). Nor would…
I'm not asking you to trust my judgment of who's a nazi. I get to decide who I think is a nazi and do what I want, _as a person_, and so do you. Of course I will try to convince you that I'm right, but if someone's being a nazi and can't be convinced that they're saying nazi stuff and they get banned from society, that's their problem, not society's. They should have listened. The point is that while free speech migh…
That’s not what you said. You said you would punch them.
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It conflates the principle free speech with a narrow legal reading of the first amendment. Whether on purpose, or accident, I cannot say. The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. In publishing the comic and leaving it up, Munroe has done more to d…
> The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one: > "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; y…
> that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good
Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way.
Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’re correct because what they’re saying isn’t illegal. Nobody makes that argument.
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can sort of understand the idea of people starting a new parallel naming system as a piece of Internet infrastructure, sort of the same way DNS happened. Where you lose me, like, all the way across the horizon is where the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves, and then "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. W…
> sort of the same way DNS happened. Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD > the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required. > that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone…
This is probably the one time on the history of this whole website that I'll just refer you to what 'tialaramex said.
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect, this comment reflects a poor understanding of decentralized projects and, particularly, public blockchains. > the owners are ... selling the DNS naming hierarchy The blockchain is providing names in a global namespace owned by the commons. I cannot understand why you have been harassing and stalking this project with troll-like behavior and rude, snarky comments. Let's try to be constructive and…
There are quite a few things I don't agree with tptacek about. But this is just the latest of a long series of hijack attempts for this namespace (the Internet's DNS hierarchy) and it's about time people learned that can't work. Successful namespace hijacks rely on overwhelming numbers. You need to have so many people using your hijacked namespace that you've got way more people who do not even know that it's a hijac…
Handshake doesn't replace the DNS hierarchy - it simply upgrades the root.
Like all things in the world, the namespace will be democratized. The people do deserve to own their own namespace, and even if you wish or hope for democracy to fail, I'm confident either this project or another will one day succeed. Everyone in the community is selflessly working towards this goal for you and everyone else in this world's benefit. It's a quiet space without accolade or reward.
If they are fools, then I hope to be the biggest fool.
Finally, nothing in life is forever just like nothing is impossible my friend. As a hacker and developer, we always find a way.
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can sort of understand the idea of people starting a new parallel naming system as a piece of Internet infrastructure, sort of the same way DNS happened. Where you lose me, like, all the way across the horizon is where the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves, and then "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. W…
> sort of the same way DNS happened. Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD > the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required. > that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone…
> To be clear, this set consists of any developer on github who had 15 or more followers in 2019, the PGP web of trust strong set, and anyone on HN who had a keybase account in their profile.
Could you clarify a bit for me? I checked both of those boxes. Does that mean I have some of this premined crypto somewhere? How would I get to it? The paper you linked to is very long, but I am intrigued so will likely check it out.
I love the idea here. Decentralized web is sorely needed. If we can make it usable, that would be amazing.
Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can sort of understand the idea of people starting a new parallel naming system as a piece of Internet infrastructure, sort of the same way DNS happened. Where you lose me, like, all the way across the horizon is where the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves, and then "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. W…
> sort of the same way DNS happened. Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD > the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required. > that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone…
> you absolutely don't need to use the new internet if you don't want to
Yeah, no, that's not how this works. People don't want your "new internet". People want the Network, and in our era it so happens that's the Internet (previously it was the Public Switched Telephone Network, and before that the Universal Postal Union). But it isn't your "new internet" of a few enthusiasts who are sure it'll work this time even though it hasn't worked the previous times it was tried.
> Is there any good reason why we shouldn't own our own names?
A name is what something is called. In London there is a famous river crossing which was officially named after an equally famous politician. William Pitt (the Elder). But people didn't call it "William Pitt Bridge" or even "Pitt Bridge". People called it "Blackfriars" because that's the district of London it is in. Nobody you ask in London will know where "Pitt Bridge" is. There is no "Pitt Bridge" you want "Blackfriars".
Perhaps you've never visited London. Lots of HN folks are from Silicon Valley. San Francisco has a bridge that joins the city to Oakland, I happen to believe it should be named after the Emperor, "Norton Bridge" seems like a good name. But is that what it's named? No, because even if a few agree with me, on the whole people call it the "Bay bridge" and a name is what something is called.
This seems to be a hard concept for some people to manage, but it's mandatory, so there isn't anything I can do about that.
> Historically, revolutions happen all the time.
Historically most attempted revolutions fail. In hindsight it is often clear they could never have succeeded. I think Americans have a fairly recent memory of what failed revolution looks like.
> So actually, the DNS root is owned by some company that is under the jurisdiction of California law.
In practice (and perhaps this will annoy tptacek but too bad) this isn't usefully true. ICANN's control of the DNS root is by consent, the same way that say, the English Parliament is sovereign by consent, so just because California law says they can do something does not in fact mean it will have the effect envisioned in California law.