<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Altnet tries TrueNames on p2p ops</title>
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8463</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8463</guid>
		<description>Very true, I just thought isn't DNA URL a hash, ie lets say p2pnet.net is usless unless you do search for it for it IP number 80.66.80.144.

By just using the name with out using DNS search for the IP and you are going no where.  Also TCP issue comes in to play as send CRC with it data as transmitted to vailed it.

Sounds so much like lame ar#s painted already!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very true, I just thought isn&#8217;t DNA URL a hash, ie lets say p2pnet.net is usless unless you do search for it for it IP number 80.66.80.144.</p>
<p>By just using the name with out using DNS search for the IP and you are going no where.  Also TCP issue comes in to play as send CRC with it data as transmitted to vailed it.</p>
<p>Sounds so much like lame ar#s painted already!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8460</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:05:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8460</guid>
		<description>A Hash as unique identifier was the whole idea behind hashing algorithms.  Earliest example I can recall was the Hash sorting technique.  In essence IBM's punch card sorting machines (pre WWII) are an early example of hash sorting.  In the punch card machine the hash was simply a nibble from a specific character column that is used to steer the card to a specific bin.  This hash is only perfect in the since that all cards having the same character in the selected column will be steered to the same bin.  To sort on a wider field, you simply start with the least significant column of the sort field; run the cards, re-stack first bin on top of second bin, and so on, repeating for each column in the field.

In data communications the CRC is a hash guaranteed to be unique over a specific number of bits.  A CRC-16 is unique for files up to 2^16 bits in length, CRC-32 for up to 2^32 bits.  Different CRC algorithms use different bits to generate the feedback used to digest the data into a hash.  (early 1970’s?)  CRC’s were first used to detect data errors over serial data links.  Early example: IBM mainframe to terminal equipment communications using SNA and SDLC protocols.  TCP/IP protocol uses a CRC-32 to detect packet errors. (Mid 19080’s)

The field of cryptography, specifically public key cryptography, needed secure hashing algorithms.  (Only secure in the sense that the estimated length of time to brute force content that will generate a specific hash value will take a very long time on the order of many CPU years.  RSA patented various Message Digest functions (in the 1970's, several RSA patents recently expired and are now public domain).   Most of us are familiar with the MD5 algorithm in which several P2P applications use to generate file Hash values.  The whole Idea of using a Message Digest function in cryptography was to generate a hash on a plain text document (file) such that it could be used to detect if that document changes in any way.  If any character in the document (file) is different then the hash will be different.  These hashes are used when digitally signing a document, to verify that a document is the exact same (uniquely identified) document you viewed before signing.  To prevent someone from changing the hash, it is encrypted using your private key so that others can verify using your public key.  The results of processing the document using the MD function should exactly match the hash decoded using your public key.

Databases have used such hashing algorithms to generate unique keys for locating data in a database.  Software has a good example in the C++ language standard template library in the implementation of the std map object.  The map object stores a key, the key can be plain text, but is usually a hash to minimize the number of characters that need to be compared when dealing with long strings.  The key is used in a binary search to locate the mapped data.  This technique was introduced in the STL library in the mid 1980's when C++ first appeared, but the general technique in software originates in Data structure text books well before that.   Earliest reference I can cite from the top of my head is in Donald Knuth's "the art of computer programming" from the early 1970's.

Exo

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Hash as unique identifier was the whole idea behind hashing algorithms.  Earliest example I can recall was the Hash sorting technique.  In essence IBM&#8217;s punch card sorting machines (pre WWII) are an early example of hash sorting.  In the punch card machine the hash was simply a nibble from a specific character column that is used to steer the card to a specific bin.  This hash is only perfect in the since that all cards having the same character in the selected column will be steered to the same bin.  To sort on a wider field, you simply start with the least significant column of the sort field; run the cards, re-stack first bin on top of second bin, and so on, repeating for each column in the field.</p>
<p>In data communications the CRC is a hash guaranteed to be unique over a specific number of bits.  A CRC-16 is unique for files up to 2^16 bits in length, CRC-32 for up to 2^32 bits.  Different CRC algorithms use different bits to generate the feedback used to digest the data into a hash.  (early 1970’s?)  CRC’s were first used to detect data errors over serial data links.  Early example: IBM mainframe to terminal equipment communications using SNA and SDLC protocols.  TCP/IP protocol uses a CRC-32 to detect packet errors. (Mid 19080’s)</p>
<p>The field of cryptography, specifically public key cryptography, needed secure hashing algorithms.  (Only secure in the sense that the estimated length of time to brute force content that will generate a specific hash value will take a very long time on the order of many CPU years.  RSA patented various Message Digest functions (in the 1970&#8217;s, several RSA patents recently expired and are now public domain).   Most of us are familiar with the MD5 algorithm in which several P2P applications use to generate file Hash values.  The whole Idea of using a Message Digest function in cryptography was to generate a hash on a plain text document (file) such that it could be used to detect if that document changes in any way.  If any character in the document (file) is different then the hash will be different.  These hashes are used when digitally signing a document, to verify that a document is the exact same (uniquely identified) document you viewed before signing.  To prevent someone from changing the hash, it is encrypted using your private key so that others can verify using your public key.  The results of processing the document using the MD function should exactly match the hash decoded using your public key.</p>
<p>Databases have used such hashing algorithms to generate unique keys for locating data in a database.  Software has a good example in the C++ language standard template library in the implementation of the std map object.  The map object stores a key, the key can be plain text, but is usually a hash to minimize the number of characters that need to be compared when dealing with long strings.  The key is used in a binary search to locate the mapped data.  This technique was introduced in the STL library in the mid 1980&#8217;s when C++ first appeared, but the general technique in software originates in Data structure text books well before that.   Earliest reference I can cite from the top of my head is in Donald Knuth&#8217;s &#8220;the art of computer programming&#8221; from the early 1970&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Exo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8440</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8440</guid>
		<description>Patents for software are 90% old idea's re-hashed with idea of an software view.  Think out of the box and where has this all been done before but not in software.  

Has such thing been do science for years, in mathermatic's, in nature and has been made public.

One thought DNA in nature, DNA has been know about for about 20 years.  They have know each and everyone has DNA code and I will not have same DNA as you the reader (or something with odd's of 1:1000000xxxx's).  Then find out when the first DNA database was built (ie police) and there you have it.  DNA is now software.

Get the idea.  Software patents are as darft as a bush.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patents for software are 90% old idea&#8217;s re-hashed with idea of an software view.  Think out of the box and where has this all been done before but not in software.  </p>
<p>Has such thing been do science for years, in mathermatic&#8217;s, in nature and has been made public.</p>
<p>One thought DNA in nature, DNA has been know about for about 20 years.  They have know each and everyone has DNA code and I will not have same DNA as you the reader (or something with odd&#8217;s of 1:1000000xxxx&#8217;s).  Then find out when the first DNA database was built (ie police) and there you have it.  DNA is now software.</p>
<p>Get the idea.  Software patents are as darft as a bush.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8439</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8439</guid>
		<description>What we have to do is see if there are any patents which they could be in breach with IBM.

Hopefuly 1 of those 500 the have breached and counter suit can be issued.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What we have to do is see if there are any patents which they could be in breach with IBM.</p>
<p>Hopefuly 1 of those 500 the have breached and counter suit can be issued.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8438</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8438</guid>
		<description>If anyone wants to see the patents, you can do so here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;d=PALL&#038;p=1&#038;u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;s1=5978791.WKU.&#038;OS=PN/5978791&#038;RS=PN/5978791#top
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;p=1&#038;u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;co1=AND&#038;d=ptxt&#038;s1=6415280.WKU.&#038;OS=PN/6415280&#038;RS=PN/6415280#top

Higgy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If anyone wants to see the patents, you can do so here:<br />
<a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;d=PALL&#038;p=1&#038;u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;s1=5978791.WKU.&#038;OS=PN/5978791&#038;RS=PN/5978791#top" rel="nofollow">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;d=PALL&#038;p=1&#038;u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;s1=5978791.WKU.&#038;OS=PN/5978791&#038;RS=PN/5978791#top</a><br />
<a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;p=1&#038;u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;co1=AND&#038;d=ptxt&#038;s1=6415280.WKU.&#038;OS=PN/6415280&#038;RS=PN/6415280#top" rel="nofollow">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;p=1&#038;u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;co1=AND&#038;d=ptxt&#038;s1=6415280.WKU.&#038;OS=PN/6415280&#038;RS=PN/6415280#top</a></p>
<p>Higgy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8437</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8437</guid>
		<description>Isn't an bar code on good the same thing.  Well the bar code for good dosn't have any connection to what the item is.  But if know what bar code number is and what goods use that bar code well you know what it is.  In other words 555-555 could magazine ie Wired, or can of coke.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t an bar code on good the same thing.  Well the bar code for good dosn&#8217;t have any connection to what the item is.  But if know what bar code number is and what goods use that bar code well you know what it is.  In other words 555-555 could magazine ie Wired, or can of coke.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8436</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8436</guid>
		<description>I could be horribly wrong but I think the patent is on identifying a file using its hash. So, for example, a URL may point to a file, say, called 'song.ogg' using its hash, producing a URL like this: http://www.fakeserver.com/fh3748y3yn4f2n8hv2357fh2

That hash is just a random string. If it matches anything, not my fault ;).

I'm not sure how much prior art there is on this, but I'd think there was something. If anyone can find any prior art on this, please let us know.

Higgy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could be horribly wrong but I think the patent is on identifying a file using its hash. So, for example, a URL may point to a file, say, called &#8217;song.ogg&#8217; using its hash, producing a URL like this: <a href="http://www.fakeserver.com/fh3748y3yn4f2n8hv2357fh2" rel="nofollow">http://www.fakeserver.com/fh3748y3yn4f2n8hv2357fh2</a></p>
<p>That hash is just a random string. If it matches anything, not my fault ;).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure how much prior art there is on this, but I&#8217;d think there was something. If anyone can find any prior art on this, please let us know.</p>
<p>Higgy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8434</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8434</guid>
		<description>Sooo stupid patents!
Prior art anyone?
Didn't like windows 3.1 come in archives that tested integrity?
And, isn't the whole url concept a "Uniform Resource Locator" which is named to reflect the content of the document?

In Canada we don't have software patents.
And this case amply illustrate why we should not have them.

Lame duck patents indeed.
If this case is as ludicrous as it looks, this might be a job for the EFF.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sooo stupid patents!<br />
Prior art anyone?<br />
Didn&#8217;t like windows 3.1 come in archives that tested integrity?<br />
And, isn&#8217;t the whole url concept a &#8220;Uniform Resource Locator&#8221; which is named to reflect the content of the document?</p>
<p>In Canada we don&#8217;t have software patents.<br />
And this case amply illustrate why we should not have them.</p>
<p>Lame duck patents indeed.<br />
If this case is as ludicrous as it looks, this might be a job for the EFF.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8423</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8423</guid>
		<description>All I have to say isn't a hash like cyclic redundancy check (CRC)?

I dont know but isn't that a prior art to this idea.

http://www.japanprize.jp/e_1999(peterson).htm

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All I have to say isn&#8217;t a hash like cyclic redundancy check (CRC)?</p>
<p>I dont know but isn&#8217;t that a prior art to this idea.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.japanprize.jp/e_1999" rel="nofollow">http://www.japanprize.jp/e_1999</a>(peterson).htm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8421</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8421</guid>
		<description>nothing about altnet is great, or bde</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nothing about altnet is great, or bde</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8417</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8417</guid>
		<description>Nay, they don't need to. They are on their own side, and we should remember that. Their patent is only dangerous, because it could be used against small startups to keep them from ever evolving into mature p2p-networks. Just oimagine you being a small programmer without much knack for patent-law and getting such a letter. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nay, they don&#8217;t need to. They are on their own side, and we should remember that. </p>
<p>Their patent is only dangerous, because it could be used against small startups to keep them from ever evolving into mature p2p-networks. Just oimagine you being a small programmer without much knack for patent-law and getting such a letter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8409</link>
		<author>Reader's Write</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3512#comment-8409</guid>
		<description>I think it's great that they're trying to use this against anti P2P companies like MediaSentry, but going after P2P networks is low.  They need to decide which side they're on.

Drake</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s great that they&#8217;re trying to use this against anti P2P companies like MediaSentry, but going after P2P networks is low.  They need to decide which side they&#8217;re on.</p>
<p>Drake</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
