ACTION PLAN FOR COPYRIGHT REFORM AND CULTURE IN THE XXIst CENTURY

ACTION PLAN FOR COPYRIGHT REFORM AND CULTURE IN THE XXIst CENTURY

• 
  The Free Culture Forum Charter and Guide for Sustainable Creativity
  
• 
  The Communia recommendations and Public Domain Manifesto
  
• 
  The Polish proposals prepared by Centrum Cyfrowe and the Modern Poland Foundation
  
• 
  The Elements for the reform of copyright and related cultural policies of La Quadrature du Net
  

From: Changaco

Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Bitcoin incentive on Kademlia networks
If you don't care about anonymity you "can" build a Web of Trust, in

order to know who's who and base money on people. That's what the

OpenUDC project is trying to do.
If you want anonymity, the only known option is proof-of-work, but

that's just a nice way of naming a waste of time and energy on useless

computations. That's how Bitcoin works, but I doubt people will want to

waste that much CPU time just to share files.

Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012

Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Bitcoin incentive on Kademlia networks
changaco@changaco.net's statements that "money has to be based on something", that Bitcoin is "based on" proof-of-work and that people would need to waste CPU cycles in order to trade files (under danimoth's proposal) are all incorrect. ?
Money, to be useful as money, only has to be acceptable and valuable to enough people. It doesn't have to be "based on something".
Bitcoin isn't really "based on" proof-of-work. It's mostly "based on" digital signatures. The proof-of-work part is really just to make it difficult (but not impossible) for attackers to perform a rewind attack. There are designs floating around which replace the proof-of-work with other mechanisms intended to deter rewind attack, and the properties of the resulting systems are almost the same as the properties of Bitcoin.
People would not have to burn CPU cycles in order to trade files in danimoth's proposal. Only the transaction-verification-servers (also called "miners" in Bitcoin) need to do any proof-of-work (in order to deter rewind attack). Normal users who want to send or receive Bitcoin do not need to do any proof-of-work.
From: ianG

Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012

Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Bitcoin incentive on Kademlia networks
The essential solution to all trade imbalances relies on money. So if

your problem is some form of asymmetric trading, you need a payment

system, of some form, and you need an exchange of some form.
Beyond this simple statement, however, is a sea of ideas, in which one

can easily drown. E.g., you've identified a simple exchange process,

discovered a weakness, and then proposed a reputation system to cover

the weakness. Adding a reputation system to solve issues is like a deux

ex machina in systems; Rep systems are little understood and generally

or frequently crap, so chances are you'll end up building something that

won't work, and wasting a lot of time in doing it.
Better to avoid that and come up with a payment system that doesn't need

reputation - or at least one that doesn't lean so heavily on it.

because much of what is written is unreliable at some level or other.

For one example, everything written about gold is tainted by Central

Bank marketing (for their own currency). This makes it very confusing

if one just reads and assumes what is written is fact...
Alternatively, one can build it and try it. But the cycle times are

long, it takes a year or so to write a decent money system and get it up

and rolling.
Alternatively, you cut the gordian knot and make everything free. The

system has to work under this constraint. That works for somethings

(open source software, songs sharing, etc) but not for all things.
> 2. There have been previous experiments similar to what I'm proposing?
Mojo Nation tried to be an economically informed p2p system, but seemed

to run out of grunt as a project. It failed because it tried to solve

every problem, and drowned.

http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000571.html

http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000572.html
In contrast, the projects that spun out of it - BitTorrent? Tahoe? -

reduced their problem set dramatically. Either way, you might find

Mojo's design to be well worth studying, people say the design wasn't wrong.

> [1] Enforcing Collaboration in Peer-to-Peer Routing Services

> (by Tim Moreton and Andrew Twigg)
That's an unfortunate turn of phrase there, which rather strikes at the

heart of the problem you are trying to solve :)

From: Changaco

Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Bitcoin incentive on Kademlia networks
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 10:49:45 -0600 Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:

> Money, to be useful as money, only has to be acceptable and valuable

> to enough people.
I agree with that. What I meant by "money has to be based on

something" is that money creation has to be based on something you

can't fake. Otherwise one can create as much money as one wants, and

it's worth nothing.

money is created it devalues the one previously created.

proof-of-work. The more processing power one has, the bigger the share

of the monetary creation one gets. But the Bitcoin monetary mass is

limited, just like the quantity of gold on Earth, so mining gets

harder and harder until there is nothing left to extract.
> People would not have to burn CPU cycles in order to trade files in

> danimoth's proposal. Only the transaction-verification-servers (also

> called "miners" in Bitcoin) need to do any proof-of-work (in order to

> deter rewind attack). Normal users who want to send or receive Bitcoin

> do not need to do any proof-of-work.
Before being able to send Bitcoins one must receive some. How would a

new user get Bitcoins ?

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012

From: danimoth

Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Bitcoin incentive on Kademlia networks

> Before being able to send Bitcoins one must receive some. How would a

> new user get Bitcoins ?
Regarding my proposal, he has two options:
*) Share some resources (hdd space and bandwith), and receive payments

for these

example)