It’s a fantastic idea, but it’s also dead on arrival without first hand integration into Chrome. Brave is doing something similar with bats, but even that is limited. I think browser based mining is a huge deal, but Google has somehow managed to convince everyone that is malware instead of a legitimate threat to their business model.
This is interesting, but I’m really skeptical about the implementation. I’d really kind to see a much more concrete specification, and details about adversarial conditions.
It feels like it’s easy to create identities, establish credit lines with no intent to repay, and propagate bad money into this system. It only takes one bad actor to corrupt the chain of mutual credit. From the documentation on the website it’s not clear at all how it handles even simple adversarial conditions like this. The fallback seems to be that you can limit what you are willing to lose by only establishing mutual credit up to a certain amount with each trusted party.
If a store doesn’t have a direct relationship with me it has to initiate a payment between an arbitrary number of intermediaries in order to fulfill the credit. Anyone have more insight into the practical application of mutual transitive credit?
> It feels like it’s easy to create identities, establish credit lines with no intent to repay
You can in fact create as many new identities as you wish with Offset, however, an identity doesn't worth much without established credit lines. Establishing a credit line requires human intervention. You will not be able to trick your human friend into adding your multiple identities of yourself as new credit lines to his Offset client. In other words, what protects you from Sybil attacks here is real world relationships with people.
If you ever decide to open your own "hub" or "bank" with Offset, giving credit lines to many strangers, you might want to have extra security, like maybe asking for their id card, or asking for some kind of collateral. But if the people you arrange credit line with aren't strangers, I don't think you have a real issue here.
> It only takes one bad actor to corrupt the chain of mutual credit
A bad actor can only compromise his direct "Offset friends", not a whole chain.
When you set up your Offset node and add credit lines to your direct "Offset friends", you have to set up credit limits. Those credit limits limit how much money you can lose if any of your friends defaults. You can never lose more money than what you set up as your credit limits.
If a friend of your friend defaults, your friend loses the money, not you.
> If a store doesn’t have a direct relationship with me it has to initiate a payment between an arbitrary number of intermediaries in order to fulfill the credit
Offset does this automatically for you. You don't really need to worry about this during the payment.
I might have missed something with my answers. Please tell me if you think something is missing!
I think what I’m missing is how a default works in this instance. If I establish a 200 unit mutual credit line with someone, spend 200, what does a default look like? Is there some time period in which I have to pay it back? Without collateral it seems that there isn’t a way to enforce payment.
If I buy a good, from someone accepting offset do they pay me back in credit the value of the good that they deliver? Thus netting us back to zero?
> I think what I’m missing is how a default works in this instance. If I establish a 200 unit mutual credit line with someone, spend 200, what does a default look like? Is there some time period in which I have to pay it back? Without collateral it seems that there isn’t a way to enforce payment.
Who do you think the "with someone" is? It's either a friend who is willing to loan you $200 whenever, or a credit company who will offer you $200 in exchange for information about your employment, spending, etc.
What do you think your friend does when you stiff him? He might offer a repayment plan, or to forgive your debt, or maybe he sues you in court and stops being your friend. Same thing that credit companies do.
> If I buy a good, from someone accepting offset do they pay me back in credit the value of the good that they deliver? Thus netting us back to zero?
No. That's between you and whoever you and this other someone know in common (the someone 1). It's credit, not cash.
I would like to see a review of what it’s like to work on these environments. My sense is that the resolution and weight are real problems, but maybe that isn’t true anymore.
There is something appealing about being able to boot up a multi screen completely isolated environment for deep work.
This is something that can absolutely be decentralized. Problems aside namecoin shows that it can be done. The entire domain name system needs to be overhauled, central certificate authorities need to be avoided.
The internet in general is infrastructure, and protocols that are increasingly controlled by governments and organizations in bed with governments.
That's a similar nonsense as is the broad-scale surveilence to prevent terrorism. Botnets can already build a decentralized store of IP addresses, bypassing public DNS completely. Centralization makes some people, organizations or state just too much powerful.
Intelligent botnet authors will switch to the decentralized options once they are widely available and stable. While I think there's limited benefit to decentralization for any use case I care about, I don't think centralization is going to stop this trend in the medium term.
I don't think she has to. As long as your ISPs run GNS themselves, and offer you DNS via DHCP, then you can just forego the ISP DNS server and drop in your own local GNS. Mount .com and the other TLDs you want from direct from ISP off their pubkey, and overwrite the TLDs you don't care much for.
Sticking to the facts is exactly the problem here, everyone gets so wrapped up in their moral outrage and presumed superiority that they aren’t looking at what this guy actually said.
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the guy has 20 years of public comments like this. You can pedantically pick apart this single statement as much as you want, defend him because this statement has been twisted, and argue that it’s therefore a witch hunt, but... this didn’t exactly come out of left field here.
This is a problem entirely of his own making, stretching out over decades.
> I think a lot of people are forgetting that the guy has 20 years of public comments like this.
The honest reaction to being forced to recognize that the absurd accusations being thrown at Stallman are absurd, entirely made up, and without any link to what he actually said is not to try desperately to move the goal post.
His Behavior being commenting or having opinions on things we don’t agree with? I think he should be able to say whatever he wants, and further that in this instance his comments have been taken wildly out of context.
I hate this morality police sweeping in saying that he simply can’t talk about this because it is forbidden, wrong, etc. The majority should not decide what is ok speech or thought, we should judge him by what he has actually done, and challenge his thoughts directly with reasoned argument rather than immediately dismiss and denounce anything that isn’t in the moral majority.
Yeah, you can’t excuse pedophilia in decent society because it puts kids at risk. Legally you can say whatever you want, but legally no one has to employ you when you do.
Freedom of association is just as important at freedom of speech.
To be somewhat pedantic here (though not really, because this is an important distinction and its important not to mislabel people or their actions in these kinds of matters)... pedophilia is a sexual attraction oriented at pre-pubescent children (think Michael Jackson).
All acts of pedophilia would be statutory rape, but not all statutory rape would be acts of pedophilia. If the minor isn't a pre-pubescent child, it really isn't pedophilia.
Except he didn’t excuse it, he said rape transcends age of consent laws which are dependent entirely on jurisdiction. Do you disagree with that? He may have phrased it in an unfortunate way, but that is how I parsed it.
Can you be a bit more clear about what "defending statutory rape" means to you?
All i'm seeing is people pointing out that statutes are different around the globe, and that it was rms' point that the variety of these rules is the exact reason not to refer to minsky's behavior (whatever it was) as "assault".
I agree regarding freedom of association and its importance.
But, are you ok then condemning people to homelessness and poverty? It sure seems to me like you are viewing that as a perfectly acceptable punishment for saying something unacceptable.
That is a straw man argument. I don’t have a cushy gig at MIT, but that doesn’t mean I am condemned to homelessness and poverty.
He was in two roles that were largely about PR and put him in positions of power over young women. I certainly am willing to condemn people to no longer holding positions of power they have demonstrated they will abuse, and if your job is as a figurehead a big part of that job is not being so gross people avoid the institution. He got fired because a significant part of his job was ensuring the fsf could raise funds and he was being bad at his job.
> He was in two roles that were largely about PR and put him in positions of power over young women.
1st, you're assuming his relative power based on claims in an article by a young woman who didn't know about him, and still hasn't met him.
2nd, the least old of these claims was written 13 years ago.
3rd, for god's sake... he wasn't defending pedophilia. there's no reason to say that! why on earth do people keep repeating it? it's clearly inaccurate.
As a society, we should ensure there are processes to ensure nobody is condemned to homelessness and poverty. As individuals, none of us have to interact with people we don't want to. We could, for example, build reasonable welfare systems and pay people to administer them - or any number of other mechanisms.
There is no rule that states that a person should be free to say anything without any consequences.
He made a choice to say some words and based on those words people felt they would be better off without him in their workplace. Seems fair to me, people have been fired for much less.
For better or worse, that's how societies work. They're composed of individuals who do things based on their own values.
Suppose you're an employer. Would you want to hire a neo-Nazi who has visible swastika and Hitler tattoos? Would you put this guy in front of your customers? Probably not; your business wouldn't do too well. So when you decline to hire such a person, you're exercising your freedom of association, but also helping to condemn the neo-Nazi to homelessness and poverty. In some countries, he might be able to get some social assistance so he doesn't turn to crime, but it'll probably still be poverty-level.
Societies aren't just a bunch of people all doing and saying whatever the heck they want. There's consequences to your actions and your speech. If people like you more, you get better jobs and do better socially. If people don't like you, then you become an outcast. This can be good or bad: if the overall attitude is something awful, such as the idea that some people should be enslaved, then you get a society where lots of people are horribly oppressed. If the overall attitude however is that oppression is bad, then people who promote oppression (like neo-Nazis) are punished by being ostracized, and ideas like that are made unpopular and kept from spreading too much.
Being fired or pressured to resign from a prominent, public position because of something you say is not a free speech issue. You can say whatever you want as a private citizen, but as an employee of an organization you are held to different standards.
Would you be saying that if an advocate for gay marriage, abortion, trans-gender rights etc were being forced to resign from a leadership position at Chic-Fil-A ?
An advocate for gay marriage, abortion, trans-gender rights etc would never have a leadership position at Chic-Fil-A and would be fired in a heartbeat if they came out with such opinions. A anti-gun advocate would not be allowed to sweep the floors at the NRA. A vegan would never be allowed to do PR for a meat plant.
The point is taken, but in this case we're not even talking about something that is a partisan issue. We're talking about excusing or justifying sexual predation.
This Guardian article makes me think that he has been unfairly treated. Even though I think that he is completely wrong to assume that an elderly man could reasonably expect that a very young person is having sex with them for any reason other than either direct coercion (violence, mental-abuse/gaslighting) or the indirect violence of capitalism (need to support self or family [1]).
I think it is quite clear that he was explicitly NOT claiming that the accusor was willing, but that she was coerced into appearing willing. I think it is quite clear that he also calls for more care and clarity in the language around this and the post on Medium gets it completely wrong, as does your last phrase.
1. This can include drug dependency, can also include the need to pay for "luxuries" like going to college: it's pretty much all the same to me -- these things are withheld due to force in our society. The picture is even clearer in the extreme case of "voluntary" sex work by people in developing countries.
There are a lot of similarly coerced situations in our capitalist societies. You want to eat? Go down the mine.
It’s an innocent typo, but nevertheless I am amused by imagining Chic-Fil-A as a super upscale, urban, on-trend, exclusive version of Chick-Fil-A where models instragram themselves pretending to eat
There's a difference between holding diverging opinions, and defending someone who had sex with a sex trafficed minor, right? If we don't uphold at least that as a society, what are we?
Who was accused of having sex with a sex trafficked minor. Stallman only pointed out that the Minsky may have not known about the trafficking angle, but apparently there's witness testimony saying the act of sex never happened.
I get that the concept of assumption of innocence is something long-forgotten on the Internet, but can we at least discern between correcting the language to ensure that mob accusations are accurate, and wholesale defense of a (presumed) act?
> There's a difference between holding diverging opinions, and defending someone who had sex with a sex trafficed minor, right? If we don't uphold at least that as a society, what are we?
Is your problem with the person who had the sex, or the person defending them? The former I agree is a huge problem, the latter seems highly dangerous and I very much disagree with you. It would be impossible to get any sort of due process or fair trial if even defending you makes you toxic, unemployable, and evil. What if you are innocent? Imagine trying to find a lawyer...
What about me? I'm not defending RMS' behavior, but I could see how someone would think I was. Do I deserve to be able to work? Do my kids deserve a home and food on the table?
In whose mind does this comment even start to make any sense? Are people supposed to only point out facts that contradict what a righteous Twitter mob is inventing if they are in the presence of a judge?
Adversarial justice systems require that people have a right to be defended by a lawyer when tried by the state in a court of law.
This is because court procedures are complicated and idiosyncratic and most people would not be expected to have the skills to defend themselves. The state is trying to take away a person's freedom so part of the social contract is that it has an obligation to provide them with independent help to navigate the process.
As far as I'm aware, Minsky had no legal case to answer and Stallman was not his defence lawyer. So while Stallman certainly has the right to defend him, in doing so he was risking his own reputation in a way that a criminal defence advocate (even when their client is found guilty of the most heinous crime imaginable) does not.
Allegedly? I think it's fine to try to defend people against allegations. Though they are better and worse ways to do it.
Some people like Greg Benford claimed the sex didn't happen. I think that's a better way to go about it. Say you were present at the time and provide counter-claim.
Bingo. The absurdity of this, let’s create something that by their own admission is worth hundreds of millions for a few thousand dollars and some street cred. Also, VDF is probably worth much more than that if it can be effectively done.
