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

VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#131

Post by solidsnack9000 »

otterley wrote: post #127
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utility tokens are, like arcade game tokens or food and drink tickets at a fair, valuable for their use with a particular venue or service -- not for their exchange value. Generally, the law does not recognise these kinds of things as currency.

I'm reminded of Itchy and Scratchy Money, themselves a parody of Disney Dollars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dErRj6V8_xQ I'm not sure why Brave thinks the public will seriously value these.

Purpose specific tokens make sense when the scope is "limited enough". The public does actually use laundromat tokens, food tickets at fairs, arcade tokens and similar things. They wouldn't take them seriously outside of the appropriate context but they definitely take them seriously within them.

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#132

Post by otterley »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #131
otterley wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of Itchy and Scratchy Money, themselves a parody of Disney Dollars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dErRj6V8_xQ I'm not sure why Brave thinks the public will seriously value these.

Purpose specific tokens make sense when the scope is "limited enough". The public does actually use laundromat tokens, food tickets at fairs, arcade tokens and similar things. They wouldn't take them seriously outside of the appropriate context but they definitely take them seriously within them.

Sure, but the world isn't a Chuck-E-Cheese's restaurant. The real world deals in cash, not tokens to be exchanged for trinkets. It stretches the imagination to believe that website purveyors are going to want to deal in Brave Bucks, or whatever they want to call them. And if they can be exchanged for arbitrary goods and services, as opposed to a tightly constrained set of options, it's going to be deemed a currency.

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#133

Post by lozaning »

blfr wrote: post #40
icelancer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My IP got blacklisted from various sites for simply running a non-exit relay. People say it's totally safe to run a relay/bridge; it is not.

Which sites?

EVERYTHING behind cloudflare will captcha you on every page load. Have a dynamic IP from your ISP, they'll know about the new one with 30 minutes.

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#134

Post by solidsnack9000 »

otterley wrote: post #132
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purpose specific tokens make sense when the scope is "limited enough". The public does actually use laundromat tokens, food tickets at fairs, arcade tokens and similar things. They wouldn't take them seriously outside of the appropriate context but they definitely take them seriously within them.

Sure, but the world isn't a Chuck-E-Cheese's restaurant. The real world deals in cash, not tokens to be exchanged for trinkets. It stretches the imagination to believe that website purveyors are going to want to deal in Brave Bucks, or whatever they want to call them. And if they can be exchanged for arbitrary goods and services, as opposed to a tightly constrained set of options, it's going to be deemed a currency.

What if the token were only redeemable on-network for advertisements and reading, and otherwise the only thing to do with it would be sell it on an exchange for currency?

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#135

Post by otterley »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #134
otterley wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the world isn't a Chuck-E-Cheese's restaurant. The real world deals in cash, not tokens to be exchanged for trinkets. It stretches the imagination to believe that website purveyors are going to want to deal in Brave Bucks, or whatever they want to call them. And if they can be exchanged for arbitrary goods and services, as opposed to a tightly constrained set of options, it's going to be deemed a currency.

What if the token were only redeemable on-network for advertisements and reading, and otherwise the only thing to do with it would be sell it on an exchange for currency?

We're going in circles here.

Here's the thing: the law looks to intent. If the sole purpose of issuing these things is to evade regulations by coming up with something that's not designated a currency but otherwise operates like one, no amount of jumping up and down and screaming "it's not a currency! don't call it a currency!" isn't going to make it something other than a currency. Courts aren't dumb and they don't look kindly to parties who try to game the system.

In your hypothetical, the existence of an option of selling this thing on an exchange for other currencies makes it very similar to any other kind of currency. I think you'd have to eliminate that option to avoid getting too close to the line. But if you don't have that option, I just don't see how it'll have any significant value to the recipient.

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#136

Post by johntash »

sdan wrote: post #111
cheez wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know that AWS/GCP can't trace it back to you?

They probably can as I've (hopefully) implied in my comment. When I sign up for AWS/GCP for a bit more credits for free, I use a burner phone (if necessary), burner emails (catchall emails), and a debit card (although GCP and AWS can detect if you're using one made by privacy.com or DoNotPay... so I have to call my bank and get one every now and then). Given this relatively bad information, it's somewhat hard to trac…

Do you still give them your real name and billing address?

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#137

Post by esyir »

brokensegue wrote: post #129
jonathansampson wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our CEO co-founded Mozilla and Firefox. There is still a problem of invasive tracking and surveillance capitalism on the Web, and neither or these are hit as hard in Safari and Firefox as they are in a default install of Brave. The BAT component is off-by-default in Brave. Only enabled when the user explicitly opts-in to the feature. This is a necessary component, as blocking-alone is not a solution to the sustainabi…

your ceo? the same guy who was kicked out of mozilla?

Yes, the guy who was kicked out of mozilla so they could score political points. Not for technical ability, not for competence, but for politics.

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#138

Post by mirimir »

johntash wrote: post #136
sdan wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably can as I've (hopefully) implied in my comment. When I sign up for AWS/GCP for a bit more credits for free, I use a burner phone (if necessary), burner emails (catchall emails), and a debit card (although GCP and AWS can detect if you're using one made by privacy.com or DoNotPay... so I have to call my bank and get one every now and then). Given this relatively bad information, it's somewhat hard to trac…

Do you still give them your real name and billing address?

My AWS billing address was a largely abandoned factory, not far from Veliky Novgorod.

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#139

Post by johnpowell »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #64
johnpowell wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until that update flips that flag and the opt-in becomes the default. Do you trust Facebook to honor your privacy settings?

What does Facebook have to do with any of that? Facebook can't change the privacy rules or the settings of your browser.

I consider both companies untrustworthy. I was using a example of a thing nearly everyone shouldn't trust. I could have used Google, Apple, USPS as examples too.

Re: VPN⁰: A Privacy-Preserving Distributed VPN

#140

Post by solidsnack9000 »

otterley wrote: post #135
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the token were only redeemable on-network for advertisements and reading, and otherwise the only thing to do with it would be sell it on an exchange for currency?

We're going in circles here. Here's the thing: the law looks to intent. If the sole purpose of issuing these things is to evade regulations by coming up with something that's not designated a currency but otherwise operates like one, no amount of jumping up and down and screaming "it's not a currency! don't call it a currency!" isn't going to make it something other than a currency. Courts aren't dumb and they don't…

Most non-currency things can be sold for currency. What makes BAT more similar to a currency than those things?
Post reply on HN