mircea_popescu: now, conversely -- it is impossible, leaving aside how it is impracticable, to try and make software "secret". from the color of bits to what have you, the notion that you can somehow wrangle ~a concrete, objectified representation~ of the abstract in question to "carry value" is also broken.

mircea_popescu: "color their bits", the 2019 version of 1970s "grab 'em by the pussy."

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-09-30#1856000 << i kinda don't follow the logic here ? i thought unlocking is a take-ownership-of-item-in-possession affair, what's the color of bits to do with anything ? ☝︎

mircea_popescu: THAT is the underlying, "Particularly "criminal" - using a computer in the manner it itself allows to be used." in http://trilema.com/2015/a-new-software-licensing-paradigm/#footnote_2_59725 ; that's WHAT "color of bits" is all about.

mircea_popescu: kinda like how imperial text production / shannonization works : they got an ancient piece of paper and a cutout, they put the cutout on the piece of paper and spray the right color bits.

mircea_popescu: there's an exponential at work. which is the point here -- meshable micro will beat tyhe shit out of "color of bits" imperial bullshit.

mircea_popescu: sv item, it hoped to bambozle "investors". without note from stalin affirming their correct rosy color of bits, there's no free fed money.

mircea_popescu: whereas the one user one box tmsr approach sticks with the general purpose os philosophy, and expects spurious color-of-bits considerations to be implemented in the realm in which they belong -- if you want to own the bits own the box, there shall be no legislating here.

mircea_popescu: we have the perfect mechanism of antipantsuit publishing ; http://btcbase.org/log/2018-01-13#1770196 . what's the "color of bits" pantsuit system supposed to do, get trinque to swear in court you sent it to him ? ☝︎☟︎

mircea_popescu: by the time you ask "why would anyone choose the wrong color bits" you've moved from protocol to promise.

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-01#1731785 << no but the 2012 statement doesn't count because it was you know "unfairly" too soon. only the 2017 restatement counts, because CORRECT COLOR OF BITS!11 ☝︎

mircea_popescu: right, maybe there's some color-of-bits finally imported into bitcoin this way ? please ? so usg can still has a point in world ?

mircea_popescu: color of bits unimportant, we're not racists.

mircea_popescu: anyway, this notion that you'll color bits with ownership or righteousness or whatever... it dun work irl.

mircea_popescu: also happens to be what's of interest, what with all "color of bits" eternal imperial quest.

mircea_popescu: so then, this exact idiocy repeats itself time and again. 1. usg.apple tells ustards to use $item-which-sets-all-passwords-as-p-independent-of-user-input ; 2. ustards do. 3. republic owns them, and puts them to whatever use more adequate to their tard genes, such as fap fodder, lulzcow, whatever. 4. the usg comes up with a color of your bits "goes without saying".

mircea_popescu: you know the excellent "Color of bits" essay ?

mircea_popescu: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=25-12-2015#1353048 << no. this is a color of bits issue ; i couldn't care less what the technological constraints [appear to] be. a contract is a single item, not a text and a separate signature. ☝︎☟︎

mircea_popescu: there are what, 24 bits of color ? take the 24 signatories most highly ranked by mike and set or unset bytes accordingly.

mircea_popescu: mod6 no, do this : use the color bits!