Just a idea: JScoin

[BrokenClock]

Hi,

I've never post any mail to this list as I've subscribe
quite a long time ago just to follow what was going on
there. Basically, I'm a PHP developer, with some strong
interest in freedom.

So, today I read some few notes by Richard Stallman and
one of those gave me a idea I want to share with you. I'm
certainly not the good guy to make it a reality, but,
well, some of you may, or at least, this can inspire some
of you.
So now, the inspiring part of RMS's note (the complete
text can be found here :
http://stallman.org/archives/2013-mar-jun.html#26_May_2013_%28Some_web_sites_that_attract_users_by_not_tracking_them_sell_out%29) :

     "To end this problem, we need to shift the Internet
from an advertising-and-surveillance model to a pay-for
access model with an anonymous payment scheme. Perhaps
one can be built on Bitcoin."

For many reasons, Bitcoin is interesting, but the early
adopters favouritism is something I dislike very much. I
think there is a need to find an other mining algorithm
to produce a p2p digital currency that avoids this bias.
I am unlikely to code it myself, the math aspect is beyond
my skills. So now, my main idea : if we can code this
algorithm using JavaScript, then we should be able to
place it in a web page. The result is that when some one
use a JavaScript enabled browser to read a page with
JSCoin enabled (you have guessed: this is the name I
gave to this idea), his browser will mine for the writer
or the publisher.

Later, playing with this idea, I though that if we could
you some sort of key to define the propriety of the mined
JSCoin, we can put this key as metadata in some files,
like mp3. So we could imagine that my mp3 player will mine for
the artist I'm listening. This may be a path to explore
to (partially?) solve the current digital rights issues.

Sure, there is problems. What are they? Can they be
solved? If, yes, how?

Please, share your thoughts.

Regards,

Stephane Mourey

[Melvin Carvalho]

Some thoughts, in no particular order ...

Bitcoins derive value from the "proof of work" system, which converts hashes of a certain form (lots of 0's) into value. 

Any programming language, including JavaScript can do its, it's just sha256, in this case.

The block chain (public list of transactions) accrues intrinsic value, and hence so do coins, due to cumulative proof of work in a time sensitive window, modulated by a distributed timestamp database.

So one individual proof of work on a web page would have some value yes, but it's the combination that tends to be more valuable.  Such systems as proof of work are already deployed in email filtering programs such as spam assassin. 

Your mp3 player could mine for the artist you are listening to, but the value is likely to be minuscule in terms of the proof of work you generate.  Often Graphics cards are used as they are good at processing hashes quickly.  I would imagine that a social network "like" would be more valuable to the artist, or a share. 

To counter early mover advantage, you may use "proof of citizenship", as suggested by Ben Laurie, or some other mechanism.  But it's unclear this would produce enough incentives to gain traction.

To counter DRM, perhaps each individual should be given an allowance to spend on the media they want, that is shared by artists.  Such things happen in france, by way of subsidies, I believe.  You can set up crypto currencies with many different configurations.  Gaining liquidity is the challenge.

Regards,

Stephane Mourey

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Next Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to building-a-distributed-decen...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Patrick Anderson]

Very interesting idea.

http://www.khronos.org/webcl will help.

I've imagined something similar as a modification to bit-torrent to incent nodes to stay connected longer.

[Stéphane Mourey]

Many thanks for the link!
Investigating it, I've found a JavaScript WebCL Bitcoin miner : https://bitbucket.org/dalsh/jsoclbm/
This could be a start for some one.

[rushkoff]

I am interested in this, too. 

Long story (no time to write it all now) but I have been waiting for someone to do e-currency in a p2p fashion as I imagine it should be done. Well, I'm getting tired of waiting and would prefer to be part of the effort that actually does this right. 

If we have the right team and partners, we should be able to do this. Or we might best find the group that's closest and furthest, and influence them in the right directions. 

I understand the history and the economic requirements. I need more education on the technical side of this. 

Where are you all? I'm in NY. 

Regards,

Stephane Mourey

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Stéphane Mourey]

In France... Seems difficult to organise something AFK.

And for me too, the technical side is problematic, particulary the crypto stuff.

But, what do you mean by doing "e-currency in a p2p fashion as I imagine it should be done" ?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to building-a-distributed-decen...@googlegroups.com.

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:35:39PM +0200, Stéphane Mourey wrote:
> In France... Seems difficult to organise something AFK.
>
> And for me too, the technical side is problematic, particulary the
> crypto stuff.
>
> But, what do you mean by doing "e-currency in a p2p fashion as I
> imagine it should be done" ?

Sorry, that window has closed a couple years ago.
Next window will be briefly open when/if Bitcoin fails.

[Melvin Carvalho]

Bitcoin is too strong to fail, imho.

There are many copy cat currencies, also known as, alt coins.  They all trade reasonably well.  There's another kind of coin called ripples (XRP) which allows IOUs and trading, that has taken off too.

To create a viable currency you need three things:

Liquidity

Utility

Trust

Bitcoin and Ripples being the first of their kind, are leading in these areas.  A "me too" effort seems unlikely to be disruptive.

Crypto coins for social good is a relatively unexplored area, at this point.  If anyone has ideas (even to brainstorm) I think I have a good technical overview, and would be happy to help.

Basic Tech Overview of Crypto Currencies
================================

Crypograhic "key pairs" (public/private) make up entries in a ledger, each key pair can hold some coins.

One key pair can send coins to another by making a transaction and signing it. 

The transactions are stored in a database called the ledger.  In some cases it's a central database, in bitcoin's case it's a distributed shared public database.

That's about all there is to it.

[Fabio Barone]

I don't agree that bitcoin is too strong to fail.

It just doesn't have any better alternative - yet.

bitcoin's main disadvantage imho is that it has no intrinsic value -

it derives it's value from other currencies (USD) - 

and then we have huge fluctuations.

How can we have stable prices with bitcoin?

And also, it shows to me similar patterns of economic 

understanding and wealth accumulation as traditional currency.

 

It's "just" great as a technology (and I really marvel and

am grateful for this), but not as an exchange token with

socio-economic implications.

And even at that it has it's issues. Even if potentially everyone can mine,

practice shows that it's not the case.

I also wonder what Rushkoff means when he says

"e-currency in a p2p fashion as I imagine it should be done"

2013/6/13 Melvin Carvalho <melvinc...@gmail.com>

[Patrick Anderson]

 

bitcoin's main disadvantage imho is that it has no intrinsic value -

 

And also, it shows to me similar patterns of economic 

understanding and wealth accumulation as traditional currency.

 

I would like to be involved in designing a better solution to this problem.

I have been working on an approach that I think is nearly optimal but need some feedback to be sure.

I would like to start the discussion "from scratch" to make sure we leave no stone unturned and to relinquish any claims on originality.

There are already some alternative/community currency groups around, and so wonder if we want to start another or if there is a 'best' group we can join to work on this?

Thanks for any help here.

Sincerely,

Patrick Anderson

http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com

[Melvin Carvalho]

I'm unsure there's a 'best' group.  You can try here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

Though I suspect the people on this list may be slightly more friendly ... :)

 

Sincerely,

Patrick Anderson

http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com

--

[Patrick Anderson]

Thanks for the link, but I'm pretty sure bitcoin fans would consider my approach off-topic.

I'll start a new thread to give a brief overview of my approach to show how it differs from the computation-based approach.

[aliendna51]

Bitcoin has definitely shown that it is possible to successfully implement a decentralized form of currency in the digital era, and that is really good news! But apart from that, it is essentially a virtual copy of gold. Scarcity based currencies don't exactly derive value from their usage, but from the fact that they are scarce. That allows for favoritism on the first investors and the ones more capable of mining and doesn't deal with the huge problem of accumulation of wealth without real value. It favors the already rich and causes further competition on the poor. That doesn't really deal with the problems of the current financial system, it only shows that we can have decentralized currencies. It's definitely one step closer to sustainable solutions, but definitely not the ultimate solution.
Any ideas and suggestions on how a digital p2p currency would work based on real value instead of scarcity?

[Fabio Barone]

Any ideas and suggestions on how a digital p2p currency would work based on real value instead of scarcity?

Some people (including me) are thinking of linking currency to (renewable) energy production and using kWh as unit of account. This would be truly abundant as currency supply would grow with the available energy.

I have been thinking of "mining" coins with every renewable kWh produced with a system of certificates. Apart from the probably incomplete design of this, I circulated this proposal to leading thinkers in energy backed currencies (Chris Cook, Shann Turnbull, nef's Josh Collins, and others), and they all seem to not favor that the currency be in fact redeemable to actual energy, but instead be used in reference to. I haven't fully understood the details of that though.

I am happy to provide the mentioned email exchange if there's interest.

[Patrick Anderson]

I circulated this proposal to leading thinkers in energy backed currencies (Chris Cook, Shann Turnbull, nef's Josh Collins, and others), and they all seem to not favor that the currency be in fact redeemable to actual energy, but instead be used in reference to. I haven't fully understood the details of that though.

I am in contact with Chris Cook and he agrees his approach is very similar to mine.

But we use very different terminology, each confusing it's own way I suppose.

I wish I could write this more clearly, but just do not know how.  I need some constructive criticism.

 

I am happy to provide the mentioned email exchange if there's interest.

I would appreciate that.

[Patrick Anderson]

Two big differences between Chris Cook and my approach are:

1a. Cook advocates that consumers 'prepay' for the Objectives they seek, at a discount price, and then receive those Objectives later, after production is complete.  This is very similar to crowd funding projects where the 'perk' is an instance of the completed product.

1b. I agree that consumers should prepay, but instead of just receiving Objectives, those consumer/investors will become real co-owners of the Sources (land, capital, tools, etc.) needed for that production and then receive the Objectives as a sort of "side-effect" of that ownership.  This gives the consumers long-term control over their future Objectives for as long as they continue to pay all the costs of that production.

2a. Cook does not talk about workers or wages in any way.

2b. I have found a way solve this issue simultaneously and make it a part of the currency as a way for workers to 'prepay' by cross-committing promises of future labor in return for co-ownership in the Sources used to produce the Objectives they seek (not based on their ability to install/operate/maintain those Sources) OR in return for receiving the cross-commitments of others within the production arena so that we can have full but voluntary specialization without the need to pay wages in the traditional sense.

[Fabio Barone]

Here is a link to the formatted email exchange about the aforementioned energy backed crypto-currency conversation.

It's quite some dense information so I didn't want to clutter the thread.

http://fbarone.net/blog/?p=68

2013/6/13 Patrick Anderson <agnu...@gmail.com>

[aliendna51]

I like your approach Patrick! Any ideas on how to connect the value with the only real scarcity (that of resources) and maybe even human rights? If the currency is connected itself you no longer need regulations upon regulations not capable of eliminating the motive..

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 07:41:26PM +0300, aliendna51 wrote:
> Bitcoin has definitely shown that it is possible to successfully implement
> a decentralized form of currency in the digital era, and that is really
> good news! But apart from that, it is essentially a virtual copy of gold.
> Scarcity based currencies don't exactly derive value from their usage, but
> from the fact that they are scarce. That allows for favoritism on the first

Favoritism of first investors is a) motivating the first investors
to make the friggin' thing work at all b) is vastly preferrable to
the ability to inflate at will.

> investors and the ones more capable of mining and doesn't deal with the
> huge problem of accumulation of wealth without real value. It favors the
> already rich and causes further competition on the poor. That doesn't
> really deal with the problems of the current financial system, it only
> shows that we can have decentralized currencies. It's definitely one step
> closer to sustainable solutions, but definitely not the ultimate solution.
> Any ideas and suggestions on how a digital p2p currency would work based on
> real value instead of scarcity?

How do you measure real value? Think about that for a while.

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:54:55AM -0500, Fabio Barone wrote:
> > Any ideas and suggestions on how a digital p2p currency would work based
> > on real value instead of scarcity?
> >
>
> Some people (including me) are thinking of linking currency to (renewable)
> energy production and using kWh as unit of account. This would be truly
> abundant as currency supply would grow with the available energy.

It would make sense to peg a currency to a basket of raw materials
and energy, but the result would be gerrymanderable. There would
be every incentive to game the basket, and lie through your teeth
about it until everybody wisens up, and builts a system that can't
be gamed by mere humans, as it's out of their control.

Bitcoin shines precisely because you can't fuck with a cryptographic
hash other than to throw computational power at it. It's not
that wasteful, if you look at the value, and how much you
pay today for an equvivalent function (more than you think).

Nothing in the physical world works like this.

> I have been thinking of "mining" coins with every renewable kWh produced

How can you prove you made that energy, or somebody else is not
lying about having it consumed?

> with a system of certificates. Apart from the probably incomplete design of
> this, I circulated this proposal to leading thinkers in energy backed
> currencies (Chris Cook, Shann Turnbull, nef's Josh Collins, and others),
> and they all seem to not favor that the currency be in fact redeemable to
> actual energy, but instead be used in reference to. I haven't fully
> understood the details of that though.
>
> I am happy to provide the mentioned email exchange if there's interest.

I would rather see a spec, or (better) code.

[Fabio Barone]

Eugen, 

thanks for chiming in.

Keep in mind that I don't have a mature idea in mind,

but the main motivation would be to somehow link crypto-currencies

with energy generation.

> I have been thinking of "mining" coins with every renewable kWh produced

How can you prove you made that energy, or somebody else is not
lying about having it consumed?

I was (maybe naively) thinking that there could be certificate chains.

Every (renewable) energy generation scheme (for example through

transition town movements) can sign their units with their own CA for

local exchange, but could sign it with a root CA for regional, national,

and global exchange (each with their own CAs).

I know it sounds like loosing on decentralization, but hey, as said,

bitcoin is also only theoretically decentralized - in fact who has

more computing power wins, so it's not even just. 

>
> I am happy to provide the mentioned email exchange if there's interest.

I would rather see a spec, or (better) code.

I would write some if I feel the design is mature and makes sense.

[Eugen Leitl]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:12:23AM -0500, Fabio Barone wrote:

> Keep in mind that I don't have a mature idea in mind,
> but the main motivation would be to somehow link crypto-currencies
> with energy generation.

It's a laudable goal. But unfortunately you cannot
reliably link information to particular electrons.

The problem is one of measurements, and trust into
measurements.

Measurements based on cryptography are locally
verifiable by any network node, but it's not true
for energy generation in remote locations.

Even if a particular meter measures a given
amount of power at some time there's no way for
the network to verify that claim as true or
false, especially if there's an incentive to
manipulate the measurement for the sake of
increasing one's profit. Tamper-proof
hardware most assuredly not is, and be it
by way of manufacturer.

The point of P2P currencies is that they use
quorum sensing (global majority consensus) to
decide whether a given fact is true or false, and
in case of Bitcoin use costly measures to verify
transactions (mining and global transaction ledger
are one thing).

I suggest that the basic idea that the currency
is information is extremely sound, and that the
network verifies the transaction in a tamper-proof
way is also very sound. That the total amount
of currency in circulation is limited to some
fixed number is far less relevant, that the
currency is highly frangible, and that the rate of
generation cannot be increased much faster than the
rate of growth of the underlying economy.

Coincidentally, that the total amount of
BTC generated is limited and asymptotic is
a pretty good match for the next 40 years,
so I wouldn't lose much sleep over that
feature.

The early adopter bonus is now well over, and
given that difficulty is self-adjusting, min(t)ing
will be never as profitable as once was.
Everyone can now particate in the Bitcoin economy
by purchasing Bitcoin from the miners, or from
early adopters. That's pretty egalitarian, at this
point.

I agree that there needs to be further research
in alternative ways of distributed generation of
currency (so Ripple is not the right model here)
within the network.

>
> >
> > > I have been thinking of "mining" coins with every renewable kWh produced
> >
> > How can you prove you made that energy, or somebody else is not
> > lying about having it consumed?
> >
>
> I was (maybe naively) thinking that there could be certificate chains.
> Every (renewable) energy generation scheme (for example through
> transition town movements) can sign their units with their own CA for
> local exchange, but could sign it with a root CA for regional, national,
> and global exchange (each with their own CAs).
>
> I know it sounds like loosing on decentralization, but hey, as said,
> bitcoin is also only theoretically decentralized - in fact who has
> more computing power wins, so it's not even just.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I am happy to provide the mentioned email exchange if there's interest.
> >
> > I would rather see a spec, or (better) code.
> >
>
> I would write some if I feel the design is mature and makes sense.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Next Net" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to building-a-distributed-decen...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--

Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org
AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5

[Patrick Anderson]

> Keep in mind that I don't have a mature idea in mind,
> but the main motivation would be to somehow link crypto-currencies
> with energy generation.

Yes, but we should link the currency to the Sources+Skills required

for that production instead of to the completed Objectives.

In other words, this energy-based currency should be backed by

the land and solar arrays or geothermal equipment or whatever

was being used to *create* that energy.

We want to issue the currency against the physical and human

capital required to make future energy, not just against the results

of that production.

Let's back the currency by the INPUTS instead of the OUTPUTS.

 

It's a laudable goal. But unfortunately you cannot
reliably link information to particular electrons.

In some cases, yes.

It is hard to be sure whether a token represents a specific 1kw/h

instance, but it is much easier to know if a title of ownership is

actually backed by a % of the power-plant used to create that energy.

[Fabio Barone]

Yes, but we should link the currency to the Sources+Skills required

for that production instead of to the completed Objectives.

Maybe but that sounds very theoretical to me.

How do you do that in practice?

[Fabio Barone]

Even if a particular meter measures a given
amount of power at some time there's no way for
the network to verify that claim as true or
false, especially if there's an incentive to
manipulate the measurement for the sake of
increasing one's profit. 

This is for sure a very valid point.  Thinking about this.

As for bitcoin, I am not convinced at all that it is a good solution.

It's capped, and yes, divisable into mBTC, but that makes prices

also instable. And, again, its value is actually none.

It derives value from USD. So if USD crashed, how would we reliably

fix prices for stuff? 

And bitcoin is, again, for me just the same as the current model -

"just" brilliant p2p architecture, but still based in a scarcity competition model.

This is an outdated model from the last few hundred years. 

Here's also a note from a friend of mine:

But it's current price is just a speculative bubble and it's inherent scarcity will likely encourage hoarding. I wouldn't call it 'worthless' but do completely agree that the bubble will pop (and very likely long before any significant amount of people are able to buy food, energy, housing or any other of life essentials with it).

Again - bitcoin is a technical marvel, a welcomed beacon of what money could become.

But I don't think it's what a just and sustainable society really needs.

[Patrick Anderson]

We can think of the idea "on paper" for now, and then move to digital later.

The idea is to issue a legally binding document representing 3 things simultaneously:

1. Shares of ownership in the land and tools and other non-human inputs.  These will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_estate documents.  I'm not sure what 'type' is the best for our purposes.

2. Commitments of future labor by those who we have determined have the skills to complete the job.  I have heard this called "work bonds", but cannot find a definitive reference.

3. A projected quantity and quality of some good or service across time.  In the case you are interested in, this would be an estimated number of kilowatts per hour.

#3 is really just the result of #1 and #2.

If either #1 or #2 are incomplete, then #3 is invalid.

[Melvin Carvalho]

Satoshi made an interesting point.  It's value can be as a collectible. 

[Patrick Anderson]

But it's current price is just a speculative bubble and it's inherent scarcity will likely encourage hoarding. I wouldn't call it 'worthless' but do completely agree that the bubble will pop (and very likely long before any significant amount of people are able to buy food, energy, housing or any other of life essentials with it).

The currency must be backed by the productive resources needed to create the food, energy and housing that the very holder of that document actually needs.

When the person holding the currency is the same person who needs the Outputs of the resources that currency represents, then 'savings' has the real meaning of that person owning shares in the assets needed to produce the goods and services he needs.

This kind of currency is more like a real insurance for any good or service we wish to guarantee.

For example, holding such a title for "Level 4 Dental Work" would mean you have enough ownership in the dentist office to cover the costs associated with basic care and also have traded work with a qualified Dentist to maybe work in the fields or drive truck or milk cattle or some other thing you are good at in return for him promising to work for you (fix your teeth) when you need that service.

Another fantastic side-effect of organizing in this way (trading skills *before* production) is that the workers have every reason to fully eliminate that work if they can find a good way to do so.

And so the Dentist would have incentive to seal your teeth and promote real, long-term solutions instead of hoping you will have a cavity every month (as the current system must promote).

[Eugen Leitl]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:12:20AM -0500, Fabio Barone wrote:

> As for bitcoin, I am not convinced at all that it is a good solution.

You will agree that many find it sufficiently better than
its alternatives to adopt it, sometimes with a religious
ferver.

> It's capped, and yes, divisable into mBTC, but that makes prices
> also instable.

This is not the reason prices fluctuate.

> And, again, its value is actually none.

It has excellent value, if you want to send money anywhere
on the Internet in realtime securely, without incurring
usurious fees.

I presume it has no intrinsic value. Well, so is gold.
Or cowri shells. Or greenbacks.

> It derives value from USD. So if USD crashed, how would we reliably

No, it most assuredly does not derive its value from USD
or any other fiat. If you'd kill all exchanges, its value
would never go down to zero.

> fix prices for stuff?

One of the uses of market is to derive "fair" prices.

> And bitcoin is, again, for me just the same as the current model -
> "just" brilliant p2p architecture, but still based in a scarcity
> competition model.

It's because any system which can be inflated at at all eventually
will be, so that it becomes unusable.

> This is an outdated model from the last few hundred years.

You keep reasserting that, and it could well be true, but
you have to offer something better.

> Here's also a note from a friend of mine:
>
> > But it's current price is just a speculative bubble and it's inherent

The only way to know is to look back, not forward. It has inflated
about 10^4, and if it's competing for transactional currency market
1-10% a single BTC could be easily worth 10^5 to 10^6 USD.

> > scarcity will likely encourage hoarding. I wouldn't call it 'worthless' but

Anticipation of further price increase is what encourages hoarding.

> > do completely agree that the bubble will pop (and very likely long before
> > any significant amount of people are able to buy food, energy, housing or
> > any other of life essentials with it).

All that assumes that it's a bubble. We don't know that.

[Patrick Anderson]

I presume it has no intrinsic value. Well, so is gold.
Or cowri shells. Or greenbacks.

 

A currency backed by Capital and Labor has intrinsic value.

[Eugen Leitl]

It all boils down to the ability to make tamper-proof remote measurements.

The physics of this universe makes to seem it a very hard
proposition.

Perhaps it would make sense to aim for something easier,
that actually has a chance of working.

[Patrick Anderson]

It all boils down to the ability to make tamper-proof remote measurements.

The physics of this universe makes to seem it a very hard
proposition.

 

Are you saying we cannot insure the digital transaction

represents a portion of physical resources?

I think those who buy/sell corporate shares do this already.

Does the NYSE have problems with counterfeit shares?

[Fabio Cecin]

What about this:

1. Each person issues their own "currency." The currency is expressed
in "me-minutes." The minutes themselves mean nothing specific. Each
person decides what they can do to whoever else.

2. You can circulate people-minutes (e.g. C "pays" B with A-minutes
that C had), or you can e-mail, call, meet etc. the person and return
the certificate to the "bank" (the person), effectively destroying
that promise, and they in return redeem the promise in actual minutes.

3. It's completely disconnected from the "legal system" (from its end
at least) so if you incarnate this on paper there can be
counterfeiting with no consequences, and if you use crypto signatures
for the electronic version you get the double spending problem. But
since the system as a whole is so ridiculously light-weight and
dispersed (each person a bank) you can simply centralize each
"personal economy" on each person's device. You only need crypto to
make sure you're talking to the "bank" you want to talk. Each "whole
economy" is centralized in one big "mainframe" and all "circulation"
is between accounts at that centralized "mainframe," except the
"mainframe" is really the smartphone of each person and there's one
"the whole economy" for each person.

You can centralize the whole "bank server" that each person has in
their own mobile phone. If you want to get fancy, create a P2P
caching/hiding system to protect each bank from DDoS attacks and the
like, but centralize the authority of each specific "me-minutes
currency" on each person, and for most people running the server on
their mobile phones will be sufficient.

Some of the "downsides" of this are:
- Easy to cheat (which is good -- built-in rolling jubilees by cheating)
- Not backed by "legal" threats (which is excellent)

Fabio

[Patrick Anderson]

Does the NYSE have problems with counterfeit shares?

Apparently it does:

http://counterfeitingstock.com/CounterfeitingStock.html

But I think we can design countermeasures that will be worth it.

[Eugen Leitl]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:22:27AM -0600, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> >
> >
> > It all boils down to the ability to make tamper-proof remote measurements.
> >
> > The physics of this universe makes to seem it a very hard
> > proposition.
> >
>
> Are you saying we cannot insure the digital transaction
> represents a portion of physical resources?

What is the value of inflation in the US, in this month?
You will get a considerable number spread on that, depending
on whom you ask.

The story is that there is a considerable stake to one
party in underreporting that number as possible, until
the proverbial eagle screams.

>
> I think those who buy/sell corporate shares do this already.

Ok, so you want your value to be derived by a number
of gamblers in a market casino? Ok, this is pretty much
what's going on in a Bitcoin exchange, where buy and
sell orders are matched by the engine.

> Does the NYSE have problems with counterfeit shares?

I don't think people have no problem with the value of
USD either, until they do have problems with them.

You're trying to set up a monetary system that is
better than Bitcoin. I'm afraid you haven't got any
story yet.

[Patrick Anderson]

>
> I think those who buy/sell corporate shares do this already.

Ok, so you want your value to be derived by a number
of gamblers in a market casino? Ok, this is pretty much
what's going on in a Bitcoin exchange, where buy and
sell orders are matched by the engine.

No, I was giving that as an example of digital trading being

backed by real physical resources.

 

You're trying to set up a monetary system that is
better than Bitcoin. I'm afraid you haven't got any
story yet.

Yes I do, you just refuse to carefully read my proposal.

[Stéphane Mourey]

Thinking this way, and seeing the success of Ed2k, Bram Cohen decided to not write Bittorrent... or did he?

Le 13/06/2013 15:43, Eugen Leitl a écrit :

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:35:39PM +0200, Stéphane Mourey wrote:

In France... Seems difficult to organise something AFK.

And for me too, the technical side is problematic, particulary the
crypto stuff.

But, what do you mean by doing "e-currency in a p2p fashion as I
imagine it should be done" ?

Sorry, that window has closed a couple years ago.
Next window will be briefly open when/if Bitcoin fails.

[Stéphane Mourey]

What are the criterias for success or failure ? Large adoption ? Make the starter rich ? Proving that a stateless currency can work ? Justice ? Building a sustainable economy ? What ever ?
From many points of view, Bitcoin is an astonishing  success, but certainly not all. Does it mean that nothing better can appear ?

Le 13/06/2013 16:29, Melvin Carvalho a écrit :

On 13 June 2013 15:43, Eugen Leitl <eu...@leitl.org> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:35:39PM +0200, Stéphane Mourey wrote:
> In France... Seems difficult to organise something AFK.
>
> And for me too, the technical side is problematic, particulary the
> crypto stuff.
>
> But, what do you mean by doing "e-currency in a p2p fashion as I
> imagine it should be done" ?

Sorry, that window has closed a couple years ago.
Next window will be briefly open when/if Bitcoin fails.

Bitcoin is too strong to fail, imho.

There are many copy cat currencies, also known as, alt coins.  They all trade reasonably well.  There's another kind of coin called ripples (XRP) which allows IOUs and trading, that has taken off too.

To create a viable currency you need three things:

Liquidity

Utility

Trust

Bitcoin and Ripples being the first of their kind, are leading in these areas.  A "me too" effort seems unlikely to be disruptive.

Crypto coins for social good is a relatively unexplored area, at this point.  If anyone has ideas (even to brainstorm) I think I have a good technical overview, and would be happy to help.

Basic Tech Overview of Crypto Currencies
================================

Crypograhic "key pairs" (public/private) make up entries in a ledger, each key pair can hold some coins.

One key pair can send coins to another by making a transaction and signing it. 

The transactions are stored in a database called the ledger.  In some cases it's a central database, in bitcoin's case it's a distributed shared public database.

That's about all there is to it.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Next Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to building-a-distributed-decen...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stéphane Mourey]

Well, I may accept first investors favouritism as a condition for
success. But, the asymptotic limitation to inflation is a real problem
on the long run.
Have you ever heard of LETS
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems) ? I've
heard once that it was invented in an area when all existing currencies
were so rare locally (i.e. accumulated elsewhere) that no monetized
exchange were possible. To my eyes, there is to big sort of LETS : with
or without unlimited credit. With limited credit, it's nothing more than
a "Same player, play again." But with unlimited credit (i.e. inflation
at anybody will), we enter a more interesting game as money really is
what it is in Truth, a pure information, the sign of a reward made by
Alan for the work John did for him. In an economy of goods scarcity,
linking the reward to goods is the better way to make people work and
build the economy of abundant goods. But now that goods are abundant, we
have to deal with maintained scarcity, which means that accumulated
power works to stay and improve. Trying to back the value of currency on
any other thing than human is an expropriation in a way or another, even
if it is made in a way to favour "good acting people" or so called.

The main problem with no inflation is that it empowers the riches and
make them richer. So, from a Justice point of view, Bittorrent is
designed to fail.

[Stéphane Mourey]

Do you ever ask yourself how green is green ?
Regarding energy:
    - manufacturing solar cells is very polluting and water consuming (often in countries where water is not abundant) : https://duckduckgo.com/?q=manufacturing+solar+cells+pollution
    - wind energy uses rare earths, which are mainly produced by China is not-so-green conditions : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution
Green things are often not so green when you scratch the paint, specially when green is encouraged in a way or other.

Le 13/06/2013 18:54, Fabio Barone a écrit :

Any ideas and suggestions on how a digital p2p currency would work based on real value instead of scarcity?

Some people (including me) are thinking of linking currency to (renewable) energy production and using kWh as unit of account. This would be truly abundant as currency supply would grow with the available energy.

I have been thinking of "mining" coins with every renewable kWh produced with a system of certificates. Apart from the probably incomplete design of this, I circulated this proposal to leading thinkers in energy backed currencies (Chris Cook, Shann Turnbull, nef's Josh Collins, and others), and they all seem to not favor that the currency be in fact redeemable to actual energy, but instead be used in reference to. I haven't fully understood the details of that though.

I am happy to provide the mentioned email exchange if there's interest.

[Mark Roest]

Hello Stéphane,

It's true that most are made that way -- but they don't need to be. I know of, and favor, other alternatives for both technologies, as well as for batteries. Looking for investors, too.

Regards,

Mark

[Stéphane Mourey]

Hi folks,

It's a curious thing to observe how, when you submit what you think is a new idea, people hearing you actually hears their owns. I'm not exception.
When I start this thread about JSCoin, I did not expect so much answers, and I was disappointed by some of them. Nevertheless, it helps me to go deeper, and I want to share with you some thoughts.

First, it was a mistake to propose a new currency for mining when you use or enjoy content (visit a website, listen music, read an ebook...). It should certainly be a better proposition to let the content producer to use the currency of his choice. I image a currency agnostic api that helps programmers (of website, music or video player, ebook reader...) the enable the mining for the content producer. The api should support many currency and mining for one or another should be as easy as downloading the right algorithm.

Second, OpenCL (WebCL version for website) is certainly a good tool to aggregate the too small values of each content user, it must be noted and explored.

Third, if a such api is about to rise, a work have to be made on the licencing aspect. We should propose a "mining for you licence" alongside the api to make the thing clear : my music is not free, you have to mine for me when you listen it. It should be built upon the sa-by-nc licence.

Last, this licence may even be used for software. I am a FSF militant, and I wonder how such a licence could be compatible with the AGPL v3 licence... but at a first glance, it seems possible to me.

Please, share and let us know us what you think.

Regards,

Stéphane Mourey

[om.design.is]

Stéphane,

I'm super happy that you posted your reaction to the discussion. They way you proposed it makes much more sense than what followed in response.

And "Do-Able"

Bon chance,

Om

[Eugen Leitl]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:39:45PM +0200, Stéphane Mourey wrote:
> Thinking this way, and seeing the success of Ed2k, Bram Cohen

> decided to /not/ write Bittorrent... or did he?

As a matter of fact I was running MNet (the precursor
to Bittorrent) since about its inception. It was a very
ambitious design, and it failed -- some of the working
bits got spun out, pruned down radically, and
resulted in Bittorrent. In case you're unaware,
I recommend to look into Tahoe LAFS, which is another
design spun from MNet, with some very useful features.

You're engaging in the Bozo the clown fallacy here,
by the way. I do not mean that Bitcoin is perfect,
but it's definitely good enough, and it has been
deployed very widely.

In order to compete against existing, arrived, good-enough
designs your next design better be a bombshell.

So far I see ideology (and one I largely agree with, but
that's immaterial) but no designs, nor prototypes.

[Stéphane Mourey]

I'm aware of Tahoe LAFS. I've not tested it yet, but it looks really great.

And yes, my proposal was mainly ideological, but it has tech aspects and
I do not think I'm the good guy to dig them. So I wanted to share, to
improve my thoughts and maybe inspire someone.
And even if my previous post was ironic, I greatly appreciate your
contribution, which make me realize that my real proposal was not a new
currency but a way to trade mining for contents.

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Stéphane Mourey
<stephan...@impossible-exil.info> wrote:
> First, it was a mistake to propose a new currency for mining when you use or
> enjoy content (visit a website, listen music, read an ebook...). It should
> certainly be a better proposition to let the content producer to use the
> currency of his choice. I image a currency agnostic api that helps
> programmers (of website, music or video player, ebook reader...) the enable
> the mining for the content producer. The api should support many currency
> and mining for one or another should be as easy as downloading the right
> algorithm.

I really like your idea that you mine while you have a website open.
This is really an interesting approach to pay producers. Of course it
should be made transparent that this is happening, maybe as a choice
to the user: do you want to see ads or do you want to mine.
Furthermore, with more and more media consumption being done on mobile
devices, the question of power consumption comes in.

I think as a proof-of-concept, this should be done for Bitcoin. It is
well known and even if we cannot all agree on its properties, it would
be a good first step. Just imagine a Wordpress plugin which would add
JavaScript code to mine Bitcoins. Later on people will maybe find
better currencies.


Mitar

[Fabio Cecin]

A potential problem is "ad blockers" (miner blockers). You have to
"charge" the viewer before you send the content in.

You could stream the content as it is paid for, i.e. you set a price
per byte, and it streams at a speed that's proportional to the
viewer's mining power.

Another problem, for Bitcoin at least, is that this only works until
e.g. all Bitcoins are mined. Maybe not directly related to your
proposal (since you're looking to be currency agnostic), but if we had
something like Bitcoin that isn't an emulation of a physical commodity
(i.e. non-scarce) then a website operator could opt for it and really
never worry about changing it, at least not on the basis of the
current "rarity" of the mining process (i.e. success ends up
motivating the de-adoption of the currency, for this website-viewer
use case at least).

But, actually, isn't the charging of crypto currencies for content,
done automatically by the viewer's browser and the webserver talking
to each other, the key thing here? If you have a mechanism for that,
then it is the user's choice whether they are going to pay the
website's content with mining (CPU power etc.) or with Bitcoins, etc.
that they bought with dollars yesterday or something.

Hey, did we just end the online ad business?

Fabio

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Fabio Cecin <fce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A potential problem is "ad blockers" (miner blockers). You have to
> "charge" the viewer before you send the content in.

This is one model. The other (which I would prefer) is that you pay as
you read. You get stuff immediately, but you already have to spend
time on the website to read it. Why not mine at the same time?

Furthermore, I would not make it a requirement that you pay/mine to
get the content. Then it is not much different to Bitcoin paywall.
What I liked in the idea is that it does not prevent you from
accessing the content in any way, it does not alter the content in any
way (with ads, for example), you have pure content. But you can still
give something back to the author. And you can give this by mere
action of having a tab (tap? :-) ) open. So no interaction (and no
attention grabbing) needed. Attention is today worth a lot and this
idea does not require any. I like that.

It could even be integrated into browser's (maybe as an extension) to
have good hardware support for mining. With failback to pure JS
version.

> Another problem, for Bitcoin at least, is that this only works until
> e.g. all Bitcoins are mined.

Not necessary. We could already from the very beginning allow users to
"fill in" with their own Bitcoins they might have. So instead of
mining, or, in addition to mining. This could be seen as a donation or
award for the content (similar to Flattr, which now supports Bitcoins,
http://flattr.com/). This would allow easier transition when mining
will be harder and harder.

> Hey, did we just end the online ad business?

:-)

I think mining is too slow to really achieve that.


Mitar

[Bryce Lynch]

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think as a proof-of-concept, this should be done for Bitcoin. It is
well known and even if we cannot all agree on its properties, it would
be a good first step. Just imagine a Wordpress plugin which would add
JavaScript code to mine Bitcoins. Later on people will maybe find
better currencies.

There are already two Java applets which mine Bitcoins:

http://www.bitcoinplus.com/miner/embeddable

http://www.bitjam.org/ (which appears to have vanished but was the first (as well as the first to get picked up by some ad-blockers.))

I am waiting for this functionality to be embedded in Flash games next.  I think JavaScript implementations are probably a year off or therabouts (which probably means that somebody's already done it on the sly and has made a couple of BTC so far with it).

--
The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS]
https://drwho.virtadpt.net/
"I am everywhere."

[Stéphane Mourey]

Hi,

Mitar, it seems that the way you understand my proposal was exactly how I mean it.
First point is that you mine for what you use (read, lister, view...) not for what you get. It seems fair that the content provider is rewarded for the time you use/enjoy his content which is a better criteria than the gain he expects. This argument is particularly accurate for music, video, generally : entertainment. It may be discussed in some cases, like some scientific or technical informations that are very expensive and/or time consuming to produce, but as it is an opt-in system (the provider have to choose this way of rewarding), I suppose he will agree.

Sure, Bitcoin should be the first supported currency. Its popularity today makes it necessary. The problem of the "end of mining bitcoins" is not ours, it's Bitcoin's. I'm certainly and personally not currency agnostic (that's why I mentioned LETS once (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS) with unlimited credits (which mean inflation as needed and not at will, as I see them)). But my proposal does not require to choose a currency first, it is currency agnostic in this way. And, even that is not correct, as it requires that the content provider choose a crypto-currency, i.e. a currency that you can mine for. The day there will be no more bitcoin to mine, just choose an other currency. Currencies' problems are not ours, we can use them if we can mine them.

And, yes, it is a very good point for my proposal that it work without the user attention. The suggestion you made to allow users to provide their own bitcoins instead of mining does not work that way and redundant with Flattr. We do not need M4U to enable donation. It maybe a extra feature at some point, but I do not judge it very useful.

Did we just end the online ad business ?

Actions may have negative and positive effects. Do not understand it in moral terms, but logical. One and zero, Ying and Yang...
The positive goal of the M4U proposal is to offer a way to content providers to gain a fair reward for their work, with no coercion and perfect respect of the user, who will be encourage to share by any ways. Fair reward, shared culture, this seems to be the equation that the actual system is unable to solve.

The negative goal is the free the content provider from ad business dictatorship (they try to make you think the way they want).
As I see it, the user which is aware of the existing tools can free himself from this dictatorship. Install an adblock, and suddenly the web is much less noisy, much more content oriented: a better place. (This freedom has a cost for the content provider as he loose his expected financial reward, so fairness and freedom go in conflict).
In the actual system, the content provider cannot expected any financial reward for free content without ads, and, if his content cost to be produced, he must fund it another way, and that is much, much harder, time and energy consuming (think how easy it is to place a Google AdWord on a web page). In this way, he is a victim of the ad online dictatorship, and, in many cases, the content is affected and, at least in visual terms, degraded.
So, M4U provides a solution to fund contents in a fair way, without degradation.

Online ad business certainly have other beautiful years to come. But, at least, adblockers and M4U together constitute a way for users and content providers to escape from its dictatorship, build another economy and spread culture.

Ending online ad business ? We can dream of that. But, hey, look at the provider of this list : isn't that the "Google is watching" you company ?

Regards,

Stéphane Mourey

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Stéphane Mourey
<stephan...@impossible-exil.info> wrote:
> And, yes, it is a very good point for my proposal that it work without the
> user attention. The suggestion you made to allow users to provide their own
> bitcoins instead of mining does not work that way and redundant with Flattr.

No, it is different. You don't give bitcoins on per-content basis, but
in the case of browser extension or browser integration of this
system, you could fill up your browser with bitcoins, which would then
be used to augment the bitcoins mined automatically. Like for each
bitcoin mined, x5 is added from your wallet. Or something. So there is
no additional attention required, except that the user him or herself
will have to opt-in into the system as well. Which is in my opinion
already required at some point because it is a bit intrusive.

> Install an adblock, and suddenly the web is much
> less noisy, much more content oriented: a better place.

The whole concept of adblock could be argued against, as well. Because
it is clearly against the wishes/terms of the content provider. You
might not agree with the terms under which it provides the content,
but then don't consume that content. Analogy could be that if you
don't agree that you have to pay in the bar, you install payblock,
don't pay, but still drink bear. Bars will become then much more bear
oriented, a better place? ;-)

So the fact that you don't agree with some terms does not mean you
have the right to breach them. Maybe as a statement of protest. But it
is a thin line.

(Here, I am just being the devil's advocate, just to show you that
while we might don't like ads, they do and are today a primary force
behind content creation and facilitation on the web and we should not
just so easily ignore that fact.)

> In the actual system, the content provider cannot expected any financial
> reward for free content without ads,

But content provider does not see it as a free content. It see it as
attention-paid content (or service). Only consumers often want to
believe it is free content. (The other one is privacy-paid content or
service. This are two ways we pay on the Internet already. The
question is if this is really something so problematic based on what
we gain from it. But I agree it would be interesting to have another
payment system.)

> Online ad business certainly have other beautiful years to come. But, at
> least, adblockers and M4U together constitute a way for users and content
> providers to escape from its dictatorship, build another economy and spread
> culture.

You mean, constitute a way to steal? ;-)

Yes, this dictatorship of banks that they keep all the money. We have
to escape from this dictatorship!

Dictatorship in itself is not necessary something bad. You have
enlightened dictators as well.


Mitar

[Stéphane Mourey]

Hi,

Le 08/07/2013 23:18, Mitar a écrit :

Hi!

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Stéphane Mourey
<stephan...@impossible-exil.info> wrote:

And, yes, it is a very good point for my proposal that it work without the
user attention. The suggestion you made to allow users to provide their own
bitcoins instead of mining does not work that way and redundant with Flattr.

No, it is different. You don't give bitcoins on per-content basis, but
in the case of browser extension or browser integration of this
system, you could fill up your browser with bitcoins, which would then
be used to augment the bitcoins mined automatically. Like for each
bitcoin mined, x5 is added from your wallet. Or something. So there is
no additional attention required, except that the user him or herself
will have to opt-in into the system as well. Which is in my opinion
already required at some point because it is a bit intrusive.

Ok, why not. I agree that my proposal is a bit intrusive, but certainly far less that advertising the way it goes nowadays. A pure JS implementation, if possible should not require any user consent, even if I agree it is certainly preferable.

Install an adblock, and suddenly the web is much
less noisy, much more content oriented: a better place.

The whole concept of adblock could be argued against, as well. Because
it is clearly against the wishes/terms of the content provider. You
might not agree with the terms under which it provides the content,
but then don't consume that content. Analogy could be that if you
don't agree that you have to pay in the bar, you install payblock,
don't pay, but still drink bear. Bars will become then much more bear
oriented, a better place? ;-)

I am very aware that adblock could be argued against. But, as you may have notice, advertising is nearly all the time present without my consent, waiting for me. I know when I go in a bar that I'll have to pay that bear I desire. But when I go on a website, how should I know that ads are waiting for me. It's an ambush, and rarely an opt-out option is presented. So who steal who ?

So the fact that you don't agree with some terms does not mean you
have the right to breach them. Maybe as a statement of protest. But it
is a thin line.

The fact is that you must visit a website to discover its terms of uses, so you have to accept even before you can learn them. So who breaches the rules ?

(Here, I am just being the devil's advocate, just to show you that
while we might don't like ads, they do and are today a primary force
behind content creation and facilitation on the web and we should not
just so easily ignore that fact.)

Devil does not need any advocate, he already has much than I can dream.

In the actual system, the content provider cannot expected any financial
reward for free content without ads,

But content provider does not see it as a free content. It see it as
attention-paid content (or service). Only consumers often want to
believe it is free content. (The other one is privacy-paid content or
service. This are two ways we pay on the Internet already. The
question is if this is really something so problematic based on what
we gain from it. But I agree it would be interesting to have another
payment system.)

Online ad business certainly have other beautiful years to come. But, at
least, adblockers and M4U together constitute a way for users and content
providers to escape from its dictatorship, build another economy and spread
culture.

You mean, constitute a way to steal? ;-)

Not at all, and you know it. And why. Those arguments are well known.

Yes, this dictatorship of banks that they keep all the money. We have
to escape from this dictatorship!

Dictatorship in itself is not necessary something bad. You have
enlightened dictators as well.

You can love your chains and tell us that there are good, but I will never agree with that. I don't know what good is, but I have some ideas about what is freedom.

Mitar

Stéphane Mourey

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Stéphane Mourey
<stephan...@impossible-exil.info> wrote:
> I am very aware that adblock could be argued against. But, as you may have
> notice, advertising is nearly all the time present without my consent,
> waiting for me. I know when I go in a bar that I'll have to pay that bear I
> desire. But when I go on a website, how should I know that ads are waiting
> for me. It's an ambush, and rarely an opt-out option is presented. So who
> steal who ?

Opt-out option is presented. It is called "close tab".

> The fact is that you must visit a website to discover its terms of uses, so
> you have to accept even before you can learn them. So who breaches the rules
> ?

So then you are saying that what should we do is have a browser plugin
which would block all sites (not just ads) who have ads? And then you
can decide which sites of those you want to still open?

> You can love your chains and tell us that there are good, but I will never
> agree with that. I don't know what good is, but I have some ideas about what
> is freedom.

You are free not to open websites with ads. Nobody is forcing you to open them.


Mitar

--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

[Stéphane Mourey]

Hi,

Le 10/07/2013 02:22, Mitar a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Stéphane Mourey
> <stephan...@impossible-exil.info> wrote:
>> I am very aware that adblock could be argued against. But, as you may have
>> notice, advertising is nearly all the time present without my consent,
>> waiting for me. I know when I go in a bar that I'll have to pay that bear I
>> desire. But when I go on a website, how should I know that ads are waiting
>> for me. It's an ambush, and rarely an opt-out option is presented. So who
>> steal who ?
> Opt-out option is presented. It is called "close tab".

You are wrong. When I closed the tab, I have already paid, i.e I've
loaded the ad using my paid internet connection, screen and electricity.
Closing the tab then should like paying the bear and leaving without
drink it.

>
>> The fact is that you must visit a website to discover its terms of uses, so
>> you have to accept even before you can learn them. So who breaches the rules
>> ?
> So then you are saying that what should we do is have a browser plugin
> which would block all sites (not just ads) who have ads? And then you
> can decide which sites of those you want to still open?

I don't know what we should do. I never said I know. I just make
proposals sometimes, hopefully useful and share some opinions, what I
fear to be waste of time in most cases. The fact is that our discussion
since we left M4U aside is much less interesting. The fact is that my
personal opinion is much more aggressive against ad, army, state... I
want the ad industry to die, I want the ad powered industry to die, no less.

>
>> You can love your chains and tell us that there are good, but I will never
>> agree with that. I don't know what good is, but I have some ideas about what
>> is freedom.
> You are free not to open websites with ads. Nobody is forcing you to open them.

Nobody warns me before I do.
>
>
> Mitar
>
Ciao.

Stéphane Mourey