Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 7 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code | Wiener | II 124 Code/Wiener: a code is a transformation of a message that can only be carried out for a specific meaningful message, while the encryption concerns only the letters that compose the message, regardless of the meaning of the message. >Sense, >Meaning, >Message, >Information, >Communication. Therefore, a published codebook is completely useless for mutilated incoming sentences or letters. A code is semantic, a cipher is visual or phonetic. >Semantics. |
WienerN I Norbert Wiener Cybernetics, Second Edition: or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine Cambridge, MA 1965 WienerN II N. Wiener The Human Use of Human Beings (Cybernetics and Society), Boston 1952 German Edition: Mensch und Menschmaschine Frankfurt/M. 1952 |
| Crypto Mining | Congressional Research Service (CRS) | CRS IV 5 Crypto mining/CRS/Tierno: Different cryptocurrencies may have different criteria. But in the proof of work consensus mechanisms, the hash must meet certain parameters for the block to be added to the chain. Namely, a certain number of leading zeros must precede it. Because miners use a standard program - which creates a random hash from the block data, previous hash, and nonce - miners cannot control the output they generate when hashing and must continue the process each time using different nonces until one miner achieves a random hash that meets the difficulty requirement. (Each time a hash is attempted, computers create a random 64-digit alphanumeric string of characters. The level of difficulty of finding a correct random output increases with the requisite number of preceding zeros.)(1) The miner that generates a suitable hash is awarded a block reward. Then the system sets about it all over again, mining the next block. Generating hashes quickly requires significant computational power, energy consumption, and increasingly specialized and expensive equipment. While being the first to generate the hash is difficult, validating that the solution is correct is easy. Moreover, because data from the preceding block is used as an input for hashing the subsequent block, tampering with any previous block - in effect attempting to change the ledger of who owns what - would show in subsequent blocks.(2) All participants would be aware if a miner retroactively tries to change a previous block (or mines a block with a transaction that tries to do so). Typically, miners want only to mine on top of blocks that have been appropriately mined. Herein lies the mechanism that allows disparate nodes that do not know each other to form a consensus.(3) Miners would not want to add subsequent blocks to a bad block out of fear that that path of the chain will be abandoned, a new strand of the chain created, and the cryptocurrency held on the old strand of blocks - called a fork - deemed worthless.(4) The second cryptographic function that secures blockchain-based transactions is asymmetric-key cryptography, sometimes referred to as public key cryptography. Asymmetric-key cryptography uses two keys - private and public - to secure verification of a transaction. System participants use the public key to encrypt the data and, as the name suggests, can publish it and make it widely available. Encrypted messages can then be sent on to their recipients and may be decrypted only by the private key, which is (or should be) kept secret.(5) CRS IV 6 Participants use private keys to digitally sign transactions. The authenticity of private keys is verified with the public key.(6) Importantly, it is infeasible to ascertain the private key from the available public key, therefore allowing users to share public keys. When executing transactions, individuals use private keys to digitally sign transactions such that a recipient can use the associated public key to confirm the authenticity of the sender.(7) >Cryptocurrency risks, >Cryptocurrency, >Crypto transactions, >Fake transactions, >Cross-border payments, >Money laundry, >Crypto regulation, >Blockchain, >Bitcoin, >Crypto Firms, >Crypto and Banking, >Payment systems, >Stablecoins, >Ethereum, >Wash trade, >Crypto and Energy. 1. Anders Brownworth, “How Blockchain Works, Blockchain 101 - A Visual Demo,” http://blockchain.mit.edu/howblockchain-works. For difficulty of generating preceding zeroes, see Vitalik Buterin, “What Proof of Stake Is and Why It Matters,” Bitcoin Magazine, August 26, 2013, https://Bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/what-proof-of-stake-is-and-whyit-matters-1377531463. 2. Brownworth, “How Blockchain Works.” To illustrate, this paragraph may be hashed to produce a hash output. Moreover, data created from the hash is used as an input for transaction data in the next block, and any tampering to a previous block would show in subsequent ones. If even one character were changed and the paragraph rehashed, the function would produce an entirely different hash, making the edits immediately obvious, akin to a word processing version of track changes. 3. Yaga et al., Blockchain Technology Overview, p. 18. 4. This is commonly referred to as the Byzantine Generals problem. For more on the Byzantine Generals Problem, see Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease, “The Byzantine Generals Problem,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 4, no. 3 (July 1982), pp. 382-340, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ research/uploads/prod/2016/12/The-Byzantine-Generals-Problem.pdf. 5. See CRS Report R44642, Encryption: Frequently Asked Questions, by Chris Jaikaran, and Yaga et al., Blockchain Technology Overview, p. 11. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, “One can encrypt with a private key and then decrypt with the public key. Alternately, one can encrypt with a public key and then decrypt with a private key” (Yaga, et al., Blockchain Technology Overview, p. 11). 6. Yaga, et al., Blockchain Technology Overview, p. 11. 7. See CRS Report R45116, Blockchain: Background and Policy Issues, by Chris Jaikaran; Gary Gensler, “Blockchain and Money,” Massachusetts Institute of Technoloby, 2018, at 55:20, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 0UvVOMZqpEA; and Yaga et al., Blockchain Technology Overview, p. 11. |
CRS I Congressional Research Service (CRS) Marc Labonte Fixed Exchange Rates and Floating Exchange Rates: What Have We Learned? Washington: Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress 2007 CRS II Congressional Research Service (CRS) Paul Tierno Marc Labonte, Banking and Cryptocurrency: Policy Issues. CRS Congressional research Service Report R48430. Washington, DC. 2025 CRS III Congressional Research Service (CRS) Corrie E. Clark Heather L. Greenley, Bitcoin, Blockchain, and the Energy Sector. Washington, DC. 2019 CRS IV Congressional Reserch Service (CRS) Paul Tierno Cryptocurrency: Selected Policy Issues Congressional Reserch Service CRS Report R47425 Washington, DC. 2023 |
| Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Benkler | Benkler I 413 Digital Millennium Copyright Act/DMCA/Institutional Ecology/Benkler: No piece of legislation more clearly represents the battle over the institutional ecology of the digital environment than the pompously named Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). The DMCA was the culmination of more than three years of lobbying and varied efforts, both domestically in the United States and internationally, over the passage of two WIPO treaties in 1996. The basic worldview behind it, expressed in a 1995 white paper issued by the Clinton administration, was that in order for the National Information Infrastructure (NII) to take off, it had to have “content”, and that its great promise was that it could deliver the equivalent of thousands of channels of entertainment. This would only happen, however, if the NII was made safe for delivery of digital content without making it easily copied and distributed without authorization and without payment. I 414 (…) significant lobbying for “implementing legislation” to bring U.S. law in line with the requirements of the new WIPO treaties (…) placed the emphasis of congressional debates on national industrial policy and the importance of strong protection to the export activities of the U.S. content industries. It was enough to tip the balance in favor of passage of the DMCA. The central feature of the DMCA, a long and convoluted piece of legislation, I 415 is its anti-circumvention and anti-device provisions. These provisions made it illegal to use, develop, or sell technologies that had certain properties. Copyright owners believed that it would be possible to build strong encryption into media products distributed on the Internet. If they did so successfully, the copyright owners could charge for digital distribution and users would not be able to make unauthorized copies of the works. The DMCA was intended to make this possible by outlawing technologies that would allow users to get around, or circumvent, the protection measures that the owners of copyrighted materials put in place. There are two distinct problems with this way of presenting what the DMCA does. There are many uses of existing works that are permissible to all. They are treated in copyright law like walking on the sidewalk or in a public park is treated in property law, not like walking across the land of a neighbor. The second problem with the DMCA is that its definitions are broad and malleable. Simple acts like writing an academic paper on how the encryption works, or publishing a report on the Web that tells users where they can find information about how to circumvent a copy-protection mechanism could be included in the definition of providing a circumvention device. I 417 The DMCA is intended as a strong legal barrier to certain technological paths of innovation at the logical layer of the digital environment. It is intended specifically to preserve the “thing-” or “goods”-like nature of entertainment products—music and movies, in particular. As such, it is intended to, and does to some extent, shape the technological development toward treating information and culture as finished goods, rather than as the outputs of social and communications processes that blur the production-consumption distinction. It makes it more difficult for individuals and nonmarket actors to gain access to digital materials that the technology, the market, and the social practices, left unregulated, would have made readily available. I 418 It burdens individual autonomy, the emergence of the networked public sphere and critical culture, and some of the paths available for global human development that the networked information economy makes possible. Passing a DMCA-type law will not by itself squelch the development of nonmarket and peer production. Indeed, many of these technological and social-economic developments emerged and have flourished after the DMCA was already in place. It does, however, represent a choice to tilt the institutional ecology in favor of industrial production and distribution of cultural packaged goods, at the expense of commons-based relations of sharing in formation, knowledge, and culture. >Copyright/Benkler. |
Benkler I Yochai Benkler The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom New Haven 2007 |
| Free Speech | Lessig | I 236 Free Speech/Cyberspace/Lessig: on top of this list of protectors of speech in cyberspace is (once again) architecture ((s) the technical structure) . Relative anonymity, decentralized distribution, multiple points of access, no necessary tie to geography, no simple system to identify content, tools of encryption (1) — all these features and consequences of the Internet protocol make it difficult to control speech in cyberspace. The architecture of cyberspace is the real protector of speech there; it is the real “First Amendment in cyberspace,” and this First Amendment is no local ordinance.(2) >Internet protocol, >Internet, >Cyberspace, >Internet culture. 1. Built by industry but also especially by Cypherpunks—coders dedicated to building the tools for privacy for the Internet. As Eric Hughes writes in “A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto” (in Applied Cryptography, 2d ed., by Bruce Schneier [New York: Wiley, 1996], 609): “We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronicmoney. Cypherpunks write code.We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it.We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunksmay practice and play with it.Our code is free for all to use, worldwide.” 2. John Perry Barlow has put into circulation the meme that, “in cyberspace, the First Amendment is a local ordinance”; “Leaving the PhysicalWorld,” available at link #78. |
Lessig I Lawrence Lessig Code: Version 2.0 New York 2006ff |
| Language | McGinn | I 186 Language: from our ability to learn the native language very quickly, does not follow that we even remotely understand the principles of learning ability. Reason: as in other areas, the language ability is probably designed modular. There is no reason to believe that our reasoning ability is able to see through the operation of these modules. I 187 There is no reason to believe that we even possess a second-level cognition, which grasps the first level performance. I 232 Gene/McGinn: must include a marking of human grammar, so as to generate an innate language ability. (> Chomsky). Whether linguistics could read this genetic information one day, depends on whether the reason is able to give an account of what represents the genes already, and that is not necessarily true. It could be that the grammatical encryption does not happen de dicto, but only de re. But probably de dicto if the physical realization of the same grammatical properties may vary in different organisms. --- II 53 McGinn pro Chomsky: pro innate language modules. >Chomsky. II 71 Our language is useless when it comes to see the world as it is, as the eye cannot speak. E.g. functional analysis: what makes the kidney efficient as a filter system, it makes it as inefficient as the pumping system at the same time. >Functionalism, >Functional explanation. |
McGinn I Colin McGinn Problems in Philosophy. The Limits of Inquiry, Cambridge/MA 1993 German Edition: Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996 McGinn II C. McGinn The Mysteriouy Flame. Conscious Minds in a Material World, New York 1999 German Edition: Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001 |
| Meaning | Poundstone | I 339 Meaning/PoundstoneVsPutnam: meaning is in your head, that is in the consciousness of the one who knows the encryption (cryptography). Vs: Putnam: meanings are not in the head. >Twin Earth, >Meanings are not in the head, >Meaning/Putnam. An extreme case: rules result in "iii ...". Then it is divided between the text and key. >Code, >Information, >Encoding, >Text, >Understanding, >Decoding. |
Poundstone I William Poundstone Labyrinths of Reason, NY, 1988 German Edition: Im Labyrinth des Denkens Hamburg 1995 |
| Scheme/Content | Wiener | II 15 Schema/Vienna: two schemata are identical if they can be brought into an unambiguous relationship with each other. >Functions, >Relations, >Unambiguity, >Identity. II 16 Example An information transmitted by dots and dashes. >Information, >Code, >Encryption. |
WienerN I Norbert Wiener Cybernetics, Second Edition: or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine Cambridge, MA 1965 WienerN II N. Wiener The Human Use of Human Beings (Cybernetics and Society), Boston 1952 German Edition: Mensch und Menschmaschine Frankfurt/M. 1952 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.