Even in a time when ideas are not owned, the colloquial is to use "your" or other forms of ownership words. Stefan releases a book for free that anyone can download, modify, or read and can choose to donate if they want to. "Your" is used in order to denote that he came up with the idea, even though he doesn't own the idea. Donating to him results from people wanting to continue his idea generation, or because they gained value from an idea. Despite all of these, he still cannot own ideas or words and wouldn't dream of forcibly preventing others through threats of jail or fine.
Despite that people cannot own ideas, we still give credit for their origination. A great and powerful speaker who reads a book someone else wrote will still gain some compensation for the added value to the idea by lending his voice to the discussion. This still doesn't necessitate ownership.
Topic: Racism, Freedom of speech and ownership of information (Read 2983 times)
For what it's worth, I'm more confused now than when I started this discussion. I'm honestly trying to understand the concept of no one owning information, but it's not clicking for me.
Here are some articles from one of the greats, Stephen Kinsella on the subject:
http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/stephan-kinsella/intellectual-freedom-and-learning-versus-patent-and-copyright/
http://blog.mises.org/11383/intellectual-property-and-the-structure-of-human-action/
http://mises.org/daily/4848/
These come at it from the perspective of Praxeology, which is essentially economics applied to all human action.
Say I obtain "your" private key using the method quoted at the bottom of this post, if you don't own the key, and I'm not masquerading as you when I enter it into software on my computer, has a crime been committed? You will certainly experience a loss by my actions, should I transfer any Bitcoins accessed with that private key (alter the public ledger), but I can't figure out how you can claim there was a crime if no one owns information, in this case private Bitcoin keys or the ledger itself!
Well, if you get the key in a legit (if shady) manner, then it's not really a crime if you use that key to take the money... no more than it is if you found a key to an airport locker sitting on the sidewalk, and took the suitcase full of money you found within. It all comes down to how you get the key.Another flaw in the English language, "assignee", "assignment", and "assigning" all have definitions which involve property, as well as one's that don't. And for some reason, the only way "assignee of that key" makes any sense to me is if the key is now owned by the assignee as property. I also get very frustrated when definitions use another form of the word being defined.
Now I'm just fucking lost. It makes so much more sense if the key is just considered property.
If it helps, I am using definition 3 of assign, and definition 5 of relation. The key, while it is solely in your possession, refers solely to you. This is more important in traditional cryptography than in cryptocurrency.Now I'm just fucking lost. It makes so much more sense if the key is just considered property.
If you are lax in your security practices, I could theoretically photograph you backing up your private keys with QR codes, or on paper wallets, without violating your rights.
Indeed. Likewise with photographing physical keys and making a copy from that. Creepy, perhaps, but not sinister.Sure, but then using that key requires that I trespass on your property or steal your property. If information isn't property, that isn't the case with Bitcoin private keys.
The only thing that makes any sense to me is "you own it if you can prevent others from using it (protect), you don't own it if you can't". Similar to the self(property)-defense argument that "you don't own it if you can't protect it". That may sound brutal, but isn't this what it ultimately comes down to if someone or some group ignores your rights? This is why we (or at least I) will fight for the right to defend myself and others. Our ability to protect ourselves (our property) is our last resort against those who would attempt to take it by any means possible. This is why I am a huge fan of Bitcoin. It's so easy for me to protect "my" Bitcoins (private keys).
That seems reasonable, just remember that if your security is lax, and anyone can see your private keys, it's your fault that you lost the suitcase.
The private key does not indicate person. It can be controlled by organization (legal entity), by multiple persons at different times (casascius coins, phisical notes, selling the privkey). The private key can even be controlled or owned by virtually none if used only temporary by automated software such as mixing service.
If I can access it, I can copy your private key without destroying the original. My use of that private key may result in a loss for you.
Just so it's clear, the accessing (unless it was stored on privately owned hardware) and copying are not the crime. The fraudulent use of the key is.
It occurred to me after thinking about this a bit. If no one owns the information obtained on the private key, how do we determine fraudulent use?
You're representing yourself to be the person whose key you have copied. That's fraud.
"Person whose key"
Didn't you just imply ownership of the key?
The English language is imprecise. Saying that a person is "your" child does not imply ownership, any more than does saying it's their key.
Yet the argument that I am representing you when using the key implies ownership as well. I don't need to represent you if you don't own the key, I can use it as myself.
I can sign a transaction with any key and broadcast it, but it's only going to be accepted by others if I've used the correct key.
I can sign a check with any signature, but it's only going to be accepted if I've used the right one. Now, I understood the above quote to refer to using private keys in their original, cryptographic purpose... signing something carries an indication that you are some specific person. If this is not what you meant, and there was no intent to masquerade as the original assignee of that key, then the only crime is the trespass (if any - and that includes digital trespass) you had to commit to acquire the key. If you are lax in your security practices, I could theoretically photograph you backing up your private keys with QR codes, or on paper wallets, without violating your rights.
Indeed. Likewise with photographing physical keys and making a copy from that. Creepy, perhaps, but not sinister. Quote
You frighten me because I think you’re serious.
No, retarded kids with retarded parents in retarded society scares me! Totally serious about nigger, cartoons, belt. And probably serious about last two items. I know people who killed other people with axes or kitchen knifes (because firearms are effectively banned in my country) and now they are in prison. They all started as kids hitting other kids.There is a reason they say violence begets violence
Bitcoin is like cash. "Pay to bearer on demand". You are responsible for keeping private keys safe just like you are responsible for keeping cash away from people, except that cash can't easily transfer over the internet p2p.
If you sign up for a central service and then associate a wallet with you, then this becomes a situation where someone can falsely represent them-self as someone else and it becomes fraud.
In order to get someone's private key, however, entails hacking, personally invading their home, or other such activities to acquire which can be deemed the point that makes it wrong or a "violation of rights".
If you sign up for a central service and then associate a wallet with you, then this becomes a situation where someone can falsely represent them-self as someone else and it becomes fraud.
In order to get someone's private key, however, entails hacking, personally invading their home, or other such activities to acquire which can be deemed the point that makes it wrong or a "violation of rights".
If I can access it, I can copy your private key without destroying the original. My use of that private key may result in a loss for you.
Just so it's clear, the accessing (unless it was stored on privately owned hardware) and copying are not the crime. The fraudulent use of the key is.
It occurred to me after thinking about this a bit. If no one owns the information obtained on the private key, how do we determine fraudulent use?
You're representing yourself to be the person whose key you have copied. That's fraud.
"Person whose key"
Didn't you just imply ownership of the key?
The English language is imprecise. Saying that a person is "your" child does not imply ownership, any more than does saying it's their key.
If I can access it, I can copy your private key without destroying the original. My use of that private key may result in a loss for you.
Just so it's clear, the accessing (unless it was stored on privately owned hardware) and copying are not the crime. The fraudulent use of the key is.
It occurred to me after thinking about this a bit. If no one owns the information obtained on the private key, how do we determine fraudulent use?
You're representing yourself to be the person whose key you have copied. That's fraud.
If I can access it, I can copy your private key without destroying the original. My use of that private key may result in a loss for you.
Just so it's clear, the accessing (unless it was stored on privately owned hardware) and copying are not the crime. The fraudulent use of the key is.
I can agree with that. It's an interesting relationship though, because in order to assure that fraudulent use of the key does not occur, I have to prevent access and copying.
What I'm trying to find out is if information can be owned. If I can prevent access and copying of information, do I own it?
I don't believe so. Information is merely a pattern. You can't own a pattern. You can own atoms, but not the specific arrangement of those atoms.
Even if I can obscure that specific arrangement from others (encryption)? Can't I then dictate when and if that pattern is accessible by others? What is lacking for this to be considered ownership?
Exclusivity. Astronomically unlikely or no, I may be able to reproduce that pattern independently. I cannot have the same atoms you do, but I can order my atoms in the same pattern you do.
If I can access it, I can copy your private key without destroying the original. My use of that private key may result in a loss for you.
Just so it's clear, the accessing (unless it was stored on privately owned hardware) and copying are not the crime. The fraudulent use of the key is.
I can agree with that. It's an interesting relationship though, because in order to assure that fraudulent use of the key does not occur, I have to prevent access and copying.
What I'm trying to find out is if information can be owned. If I can prevent access and copying of information, do I own it?
I don't believe so. Information is merely a pattern. You can't own a pattern. You can own atoms, but not the specific arrangement of those atoms.
If I can access it, I can copy your private key without destroying the original. My use of that private key may result in a loss for you.
Just so it's clear, the accessing (unless it was stored on privately owned hardware) and copying are not the crime. The fraudulent use of the key is.
Information cannot be owned by single entity!
Are private keys information?
yes and you don't own it, you are simple the only person who knows this information ( hopefully )
Quote
Most modern purebred dogs registered with closed stud books are highly inbred, increasing the possibility of genetic-based disease.
Is stupidity a disease?
Quote
You don't need to visit the server room to access the server hardware, and the admin does not need to visit the server room to prevent you from doing so.
I also don't need to access server room to do some lulz if I'm angry. I would probably be arshole to many more users as they would be unable to use the cyber part of this forum and the damage vs gain is unclear.Quote
I'm looking for a specific definition of own, not how it applies to information
The ownership in virtual world is little bit different than in real world. The virtual things cannot be prevented from copying (duplicating and multiplying) and the theft is impossible in a sense that the original is still available. With bitcoin private keys this is little different because bitcoins are more like a process (signing a transaction and broadcasting) than object (the private key used for signing tx).Quote
By your definition, if I can restrict the use of information, I own it.
No. If hacked forum is deleted, the information is restriceted but the hacker is not the owner. In a sense 
Quote
he should definitely not reproduce.
I definitely will reproduce white children! White race should not fade away.Whites invented space flight. Blacks invented gangbang.
All great Renaissance Man were white europeans. Meanwhile blacks were slaves.
Whites invented electricity. Blacks invented how to use electricity to accelerate ganja growth.
This list is endless. As You see the intelligence is characteristic to some races. According to scientists intelligence itself might not be the goal of evolution but single freak accident of nature. So with whites losing role in world the future looks bad for human race as a whole.
The dumb kids made by media brainwash are just another nail in the coffin of intelligent and sovereign human.
Define white for me, for example am I white? My ancestry is swedish, welsh, german, cherokee indian 1/4th, and my great grandfather on my mothers side was jewish but not sure the country but he was born in tennessee. I would consider myself to have no particular race....since such a thing is only tracked by people who need a reason to feel superior. All your essentially saying is that you were the product of selective breeding. So if black people are a result of the opposite, you would basically be the equivalent to a human dog pedigree show.
I usually use #FFFFFF, but anything with a saturation below 6.7% and a brightness above 92% is good enough to fool the human eye.
Quote
And it is precisely that hardware which you are accessing to write your posts. You are accessing that hardware by the good graces of it's owners.
I never visited the server room of Bitcointalk. You don't need to visit the server room to access the server hardware, and the admin does not need to visit the server room to prevent you from doing so.
Quote
And it is precisely that hardware which you are accessing to write your posts. You are accessing that hardware by the good graces of it's owners.
I never visited the server room of Bitcointalk. Or You cannot distinguish real world from cyberspace, and dreams from reality? Publicly accessible forum cannot be considered private forum. This is public place, only the hardware is owned privately.
And it is precisely that hardware which you are accessing to write your posts. You are accessing that hardware by the good graces of it's owners. You can (and I suspect will, if you keep this up) be banned by them, removing the privilege of accessing that hardware to make posts, being limited to read-only access. If you make a nuisance of yourself, they can even ban you from accessing it in read-only mode.
Information cannot be owned by single entity!
Are private keys information?
yes and you don't own it, you are simple the only person who knows this information ( hopefully )
Quote
Most modern purebred dogs registered with closed stud books are highly inbred, increasing the possibility of genetic-based disease.
Is stupidity a disease?
Thanks to all who spoke out against the obvious evil of pointless hatred. I feel much better about this forum now.
John, I do believe you eliminated the most evil parts while still preserving the free speech aspect. Thank you
John, I do believe you eliminated the most evil parts while still preserving the free speech aspect. Thank you
Jump to: