4 ms·

>Why not turn over the source code? They do not want to and don't believe the state has the power to compel them to. What more reason should they need? >Sinc

by parfe 13y ago

>Why not turn over the source code? They do not want to and don't believe the state has the power to compel them to. What more reason should they need? >Since this is partially cryptographic software and also software that can be used to control a user's machine, it seems to me imperative for anyone who wants to give up control of their CPU cycles to know precisely how they're being used, or to trust the pool of smart cows who can study it for us. Your set includes every piece of closed source software ever installed.

jordigh 13y ago
> Your set includes every piece of closed source software ever installed. Indeed it does. My machine, my rules. It is sheer folly to trust cryptographic software without source code. Do we need to fall prey to another RSA fiasco again?
- parfe 13y ago
  >It is sheer folly to trust cryptographic software without source code. Do we need to fall prey to another RSA fiasco again? This software does not encrypt anything and thus the user does not care about the correctness of the implementation. User machines would be testing hashes for bitcoin mining as compensation for access to web resources. What does the user care if the hashing fails as long as they get credited properly for the CPU time? >Indeed it does. My machine, my rules. "I choose not to run this software while it remains closed source." does not create a reason for the government to compel the creators to release the code. Otherwise, I don't see what your comment has to do with the story other than a generic comment saying "People shouldn't use closed source software."