131–140 of 190 posts
What would happen if I created an illegal site? CP or selling guns?
If you created and seeded long enough to get active traffic, the host and DHT peer IPs might be flagged by LE. Once flagged the IP info passed to different investigators for prosecution purposes. Depending on your level of anonymity (VPN, tor, none, other) the investigation is either a dead-end or success. If success, warrant granted, home searched, PC seized. That's one potential scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> censorship resistance Can someone tell me what is going to happen if let's say a terror group decides to use this for propaganda purposes, along the lines of religious fundamentalism/executions as we've witnessed before? Who is going to take the blame for providing them with what is advertised as an unblockable platform? Has abuse even been factored in?
Your terror group is someone else freedom fighter. What is celebrated today is scorned tomorrow. Asking what if some group we want to stop uses a technology misses the point. Paper can be used by terrorist to make plans for terror and communicate should we reconsider paper? Who is to blame when paper and pen are used to do things we disapprove of?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question, I’m just not satisfied with this answer. Requiring some form of payment is fine, but I’d like the ‘currency’ to be locked into the network so it doesn’t become something you can trade. Maybe contribute to the network in exchange for a balance, that you can then exchange for domains after which it’s gone. Ideally also figure out a way to limit people simply creating many accounts and using that, guess y…
> Maybe contribute to the network in exchange for a balance, that you can then exchange for domains after which it’s gone. You've just described handshake - when you purchase a domain, the coins are burned in exchange for the domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good comparison. The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, i. e. shortly after the war for independence on american soil against an empire, which was fought with militias (hence the third ammendement). That's a totally different scenario than the 21st…
Why are school shootings the bar here? Do we care about murdered children, or very specifically only murdered children in school by a gun? Certainly the US has tons of room for improvement, but it seems very disingenuous to cherry-pick a subset of what people actually care about just to oversell your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> censorship resistance Can someone tell me what is going to happen if let's say a terror group decides to use this for propaganda purposes, along the lines of religious fundamentalism/executions as we've witnessed before? Who is going to take the blame for providing them with what is advertised as an unblockable platform? Has abuse even been factored in?
This is an important debate that comes up all too often. I do think this is the proper forum for this, so I'm glad you brought this up and I would be happy to share my thoughts. The more information people have had in the history of humanity, the more freedoms and liberties we have also had. We would likely still be living in monarchies if not for the spread of information -- North Korea is a prime example. If inform…
I think the important question now is whether it's irresponsible to build channels that (A) terrorists will find useful, (B) will allow them to look more savvy and attractive than they actually are, (C) seed their ideas to a wider audience than they have - see [1] - and (D) count on less motivated people with nonviolent ideas and less time on their hands to offer countervailing ideologies and "win" the space. The space you're creating and enabling.
[1] People with more time on their hands and/or a more absolute/violent agenda are more apt to find ways to game a system, whether it's a swarm or a newsfeed. Their time and motivation are asymmetrical to the normal functioning of a marketplace of ideas in which good/logical ideas are supposed to outperform bad/emotional appeals. The true question is not whether this platform can or will be gamed, or trying to guess and preempt how it will be gamed, but deciding whether it's immoral to exert your intellect to give leverage to griefers by giving them more visible surface area. If the result is something that only marginally helps average people but drastically improves the lot of griefers, then the surface area you're providing them to attack everyone else will be exponentially larger than the defensible area of reasonable ideologies you hope to have counter the bad ones.
In other words, all the talk of open ideas is true in a truly open marketplace, but violence tends to fill a vacuum, and in a closed system or especially a new, empty space with experimental tooling, it is entirely possible for bad actors to drive out good ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good comparison. The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, i. e. shortly after the war for independence on american soil against an empire, which was fought with militias (hence the third ammendement). That's a totally different scenario than the 21st…
> The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, When the first amendment was written, they only had primitive printing presses. Obviously it does not apply to the internet, electronic printers, etc.
In any case, there is a very good argument for the first amendment changing in response to today's challenges, culture, and technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question, I’m just not satisfied with this answer. Requiring some form of payment is fine, but I’d like the ‘currency’ to be locked into the network so it doesn’t become something you can trade. Maybe contribute to the network in exchange for a balance, that you can then exchange for domains after which it’s gone. Ideally also figure out a way to limit people simply creating many accounts and using that, guess y…
How would you accomplish PKI in such a way that would allow people to rotate keys to keep their account secure, but without allowing them to rotate their key into a different person's custody, thus doing a de-facto transaction that would enable someone to integrate the system with an exchange and put a price on account balances? Also, what kind of consensus mechanism would you use, with the understanding that without…
I don’t think this is possible in the first place. Someone will always be able to go around the system entirely and give someone their entire account. If somone wishes to sell all their names at the same time (or make one account per domain so they can sell it), there’s little to prevent that. I think making it harder is probably more trouble than it is worth for most malicious actors though (especially as they have to work with each individual account to retain the domains).
As to consensus mechanism, I have no idea. I don’t have enough experience with such systems to say one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an important debate that comes up all too often. I do think this is the proper forum for this, so I'm glad you brought this up and I would be happy to share my thoughts. The more information people have had in the history of humanity, the more freedoms and liberties we have also had. We would likely still be living in monarchies if not for the spread of information -- North Korea is a prime example. If inform…
Personally, I think the right state answer isn't censorship, it's infiltration. Find and bust the people creating the illegal content. That's what the Feds have done with unsavory hidden services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good comparison. The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, i. e. shortly after the war for independence on american soil against an empire, which was fought with militias (hence the third ammendement). That's a totally different scenario than the 21st…
> Or you end up with the highest rate of school amok per capita globally The US has a high rate of firearms fatalities. Around two thirds of these are suicides. Around zero thirds of them are school shootings. School shootings are sufficiently rare that when they happen, they make national news. Which is catastrophic, because studies have shown that media coverage of school shootings induces school shootings. It's at…