throwaway82652

No? I don't know where you got that from.

You should be implementing a borrow checker or something like it. It's irresponsible not to do that. I'm serious about this. We know how to totally stop most use-after-free bugs during static analysis now, this is a tool that can be implemented in any language, so people should just do it. If you ask me the status quo moved a long time ago. This has nothing to do with Rust.

Also I was wrong before and you were out of line. Matthew wasn't trolling, he never said you should be held criminally liable. You just made that criminal part up for no reason. Anyone should be held socially liable and shamed if their project has bad security and they refuse to fix it after they knew about it. I think you would even agree with that.

>You just need ANY other activity in order to get lost in the crowd

And that's irrelevant because these tools are explicitly built for criminals to use them. I'm actually quoting what the designers of these systems have said, this isn't my opinion. When you say "ANY other activity" that also means criminal activity gets lumped in there, I don't know why you're denying this. You're probably not a criminal but if you're using this then you're intentionally making criminals your company and you will pay for the effects of that in one way or another. That's the part where I'm speaking to you from experience. You just can't make an anonymized system like this that also isn't a lucrative target for criminals, such a thing doesn't exist. Is it unfortunate for those who aren't criminals and actually need privacy? Absolutely, but this is the reality of the situation. There's no easy solution. If someone is telling you that this isn't an issue then they're just lying to you, get mad at them instead of me.

>Your flawed view is that nobody should have privacy because some bad guys might use privacy to do bad things.

No, this also isn't even remotely close to what my actual view is. You just blatantly made this up for no reason. Why are you doing this?

This is yet another reason that it's so exhausting to talk about this, not only are you spreading misinformation about this project but you're also spreading misinformation about me. Misinformation and disinformation is actually incredibly common in these low-trust environments. If you think it's bad, I agree, it's actually incredibly shameful that some people try to use "privacy" as a cover to spread misinformation, but that's something else that you have to accept and deal with and insulate yourself from if you take this route. Please do a better job in the future and don't bring yourself down to this level of empty rhetoric. You're letting the liars and criminals win.

If you're acting this way because you see this route as some kind of moral outlet, I would suggest that you stop and find another one. This one is ethically gray and if you stick with it, you'll be peer pressured into excusing a lot of things that you're probably not comfortable with in the name of "privacy" at the expense of everything else. The moral rationalizations coming from these projects are strong, but are ultimately willful blind spots informed by money-making and capitalism just like everything else. Don't say that nobody warned you.

If there is another forum I would hope similar comments are also downvoted or deleted there because it's completely unrelated to the discussion, and you're also taking the opportunity to take cheap political shots at easy targets. Don't do that. Dr. Fauci doesn't even work for the CDC. You're better than this, you don't have to set up these rhetorical traps to have a discussion.

Even if you aren't a criminal, the fact is that privacy tools of this nature are explicitly relying on having enough volume of criminals and other illicit users to provide cover for you. This is what they're designed to do, the designers of these systems will openly admit to it. You can make your own judgement on whether you're ok with that, but it doesn't help to deny what's actually happening.

That comment is definitely out of line and trolling, but the author's attitude towards safety and security is still incredibly bad. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm dismayed to see more new languages copying the safety and security features of C (i.e. nothing).

>they would be laughed out.

No they wouldn't because almost all of those properties are actually desirable, and the only real achievement of ENS is to approximate all of that. Remember that the whole reason you're even using a blockchain (in the Ethereum sense) is because it artificially makes it too expensive for ordinary people to fork the chain. It has no purpose otherwise. If you can come up with a cheaper and more efficient way to do that then there's no reason to use a blockchain. I'll address each of your points.

>The blockchain itself is the root of trust

Which is the single point of failure.

>Name resolution can be performed by anyone running the client software, by connecting to anyone else running the client software.

This is not actually desirable, you have no way of knowing whether someone is actually doing this correctly and not sending you fake records unless you use some other trust mechanism.

>Users can register names directly by using a piece of software, without requiring registrar companies.

This is not true at all because most users need to go through a number of middlemen to interact with the blockchain in any way. In practical terms you aren't getting rid of registrar companies by doing this, you're just farming the task out to miners/validators who get paid to run the smart contract.

>The whole system can be built within a single root zone, because no parties need to be trusted to host the system on privileged servers.

This is also incorrect, you're trusting parties to host the system on the blockchain which are the "privileged servers".

>In practice the system is highly distributed and available, so has had 100.00% uptime for all zones since launch, a higher uptime than DNS.

The solution here would be to just add more redundancy to DNS, blockchains again don't do anything special.

There's no name calling, "stupid" is the exact word you used. I'm stupider than a lawyer when it comes to all the details of contract law, because I didn't study it as much as they do. If you aren't a lawyer, then you probably are too. Again, nothing wrong with admitting it. You and I can't know everything. It's actually arrogant and insulting to claim that you know more than a skilled lawyer or attorney just because you wrote some code, I would suggest not doing that.

>There seems to be a modern confusion that the folks NOT doing any of the work in writing code have all sorts of rights with respect to it (or time of a dev to fix their bugs). False.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense, it's weird how often I see this sentiment in open source. If you hired a lawyer to represent you and give you legal advice and defend you and court (which is multiple full time jobs) then you're paying them to do a job for you. You're not giving any of your rights away. You don't have to choose to hire SF Conservancy, you can hire another firm.

>Pot, meet kettle.

No, this is incredibly wrong. The source here is me. You can choose to not believe me, but it's a source. I'm sorry but I just don't illegally carry a tape recorder into every meeting I go to just to prove something to a person on the internet. If you want me to elaborate then just ask a specific question, please stop with these "gotcha" tactics because they don't do anything. If you were referring to this person's writings, the article that was already posted is a source.

>If I as a developer want to license my code a certain way (and enforce that license in a certain way) what authority do these lawyers have to tell me I'm "stupid".

Are you willing to represent yourself in court? If the answer is no, then that's an admission you are stupider than a lawyer when it comes to legal matters. Nothing wrong with it, I have no problem admitting it myself. Let the programmers handle the programming and let the lawyers handle the law.

It's the same kind of unsourced low-information content focused on personal grievances that you would find in an angry twitter or 4chan comment. It's just intellectually lazy and bad writing, this person is smart enough not to do it but does it anyway. If you need me to explain why this is undesirable, then we probably don't have much else to talk about.

From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense. But nothing will change as long as the kernel developers are intentionally burying their head in the sand and acting like they know better than the legal system.

You can just look up the Linux Foundation's tax statements, they're publicly available.

Bryan Lunduke's recent writings are a bad source, they consist almost entirely of reactionary trolling. No idea why he gets any readership.

Use cmake-gui and it lists all the options for you. Or for the manual method, search in the project's cmake sources for lines starting with "option(".