3 ms·

The author makes two errors in his analysis. First, cryptographic signing and identity management exists today, and long before blockchain was ever even propose

The author makes two errors in his analysis. First, cryptographic signing and identity management exists today, and long before blockchain was ever even proposed. It’s SSL and other public key encryption systems. However, that’s relatively minor when compared to equating “Permission to link to a document is explicitly granted by the act of publication”, to copyright enforcement. It’s not. It’s literally no different from the web today. You give something a URL, I can link to it without your permission. It may be couched in legalese, put it’s defining existing behavior and existing norms. Fine, the author doesn’t like micropayments. That’s their right. But it seems like the author’s frequent stark pronouncements of “copyright enforcement should not be in a tool for readers or writers” is a bit naïve in light of digital distribution, or honestly distribution by any method. A physical bookstore selling physical books, can be considered a tool for readers and writers as well. Perhaps the author can weigh in, and illuminate what forms for monetary compensation would be acceptable. Patreon style tip jars, and advertising, but nothing more?would that even scale? I personally doubt it.

mimixco 8y ago
Mimix isn't about copyright enforcement in the same way that MS Word and Atom aren't. It's simply not the purpose of the tool. How you monetize your work with Mimix is up to you. It's not a publisher's clearing house, either, which is what Nelson wanted for Xanadu and most likely killed it. I am aware of encryption before blockchain. The idea is mentioned simply because it meets the requirements of an write-only system with lots of backups that don't depend on a central source. It could be useful for storing and sharing canonical documents but it's not something I'm married to.
no_identd 8y ago
>First, cryptographic signing and identity management exists today, and long before blockchain was ever even proposed. It’s SSL and other public key encryption systems. Which fail to provide the capability based security required for a Xanadu-like project. You might want to read about the Confused Deputy Problem for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confused_deputy_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confused_deputy_problem There exist other approaches for avoiding the confused deputy problem, but these don't have mutual exclusivity with capability based security, one such approach consists of something like this: https://github.com/phvogt/NoMoXSS https://github.com/phvogt/NoMoXSS Which basically uses this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taint_checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taint_checking However, that leads us right back into another Xanadu related problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_(computer_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_(computer_security) Think about why we call this a "Trademark", and what that means for concepts like transcopyright licensing such as the one required for Xanadu. If you look into who advised on & worked on Xanadu, you'll find names like Mark S. Miller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Miller ...whose name you'll find popping up all over the object capability security literature. That ain't a coincidence. The shortcomings Xanadu tries to address and which conversely Xanadu requires to have addressed before it can come about pervade computer science, everywhere.

mimixco 8y ago

Mimix isn't about copyright enforcement in the same way that MS Word and Atom aren't. It's simply not the purpose of the tool. How you monetize your work with Mimix is up to you. It's not a publisher's clearing house, either, which is what Nelson wanted for Xanadu and most likely killed it. I am aware of encryption before blockchain. The idea is mentioned simply because it meets the requirements of an write-only system with lots of backups that don't depend on a central source. It could be useful for storing and sharing canonical documents but it's not something I'm married to.

no_identd 8y ago

>First, cryptographic signing and identity management exists today, and long before blockchain was ever even proposed. It’s SSL and other public key encryption systems. Which fail to provide the capability based security required for a Xanadu-like project. You might want to read about the Confused Deputy Problem for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confused_deputy_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confused_deputy_problem There exist other approaches for avoiding the confused deputy problem, but these don't have mutual exclusivity with capability based security, one such approach consists of something like this: https://github.com/phvogt/NoMoXSS https://github.com/phvogt/NoMoXSS Which basically uses this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taint_checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taint_checking However, that leads us right back into another Xanadu related problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_(computer_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_(computer_security) Think about why we call this a "Trademark", and what that means for concepts like transcopyright licensing such as the one required for Xanadu. If you look into who advised on & worked on Xanadu, you'll find names like Mark S. Miller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Miller ...whose name you'll find popping up all over the object capability security literature. That ain't a coincidence. The shortcomings Xanadu tries to address and which conversely Xanadu requires to have addressed before it can come about pervade computer science, everywhere.