I thought the same thing, but mind: That's what the victims did. See my other reply going into this more.

It reminded me of high-frequency trading.

---

Mind, the people who do that are the victims here!

I didn't explain how exactly they were harmed. It's actually kinda funny, too.

It costs virtually nothing to create crypto-tokens. So that's what people do. Do some wash trades, slip some money to influencers to hype their new token as the next big thing, then offload the whole supply and run with the money. The "investors" quickly discover that these tokens are only good for one thing: To sell to a greater fool. At that point, there are no more buyers.

The accused obtained such useless tokens. The indictment doesn't say how. I guess they simply bought it for next to nothing.

Effectively, they tricked the victims' bots into buying these tokens at face value. The victims were left with crypto supposedly worth $25 million but in reality unsellable. If this was stealing $25 million, then I wonder about the legality of selling these crypto tokens in the first place.

Eventually, all crypto is like that. Some cryptocurrencies are used as payment systems, but eventually something better must come along. Then that currency becomes unsellable. Someone must always be left holding the bag, as it is said in crypto circles.

I think they are guilty of fraud. But I do wonder: If we are to accept that leaving someone with worthless crypto is equal to stealing money, what does that mean for the legality of crypto as a whole?

Refreshing to see a post on this topic that has its facts straight.

EU copyright allows a machine-readable opt-out from AI training (unless it's for scientific purposes). I guess that's behind these deals. It means they will have to pay off Reddit and the other platforms for access to the EU market. Or more accurately, EU customers will have to pay Reddit and the other platforms for access to AIs.

I'll try a simple explanation of what this is about, cause this is hilarious. It's the kind of understated humor, you get in a good british comedy.

For a payment system you must store who owns how much and how the owners transfer the currency. Easy-peasy. A simple office PC can handle that faster and cheaper than a blockchain. But what if the owner of the PC decides to manipulate the records? No problem, you just go to the police with your own records and receipts and they go to jail for fraud. Their belongings are sold off to pay you damages. That's how these things have worked since forever. It's how businesses keep track of their debts.

Just one little problem: What if the government wants your money. Maybe you don't want to pay your taxes, or some fine. Or maybe you have debts you don't want to pay, like your alimony. Perhaps the government wants to seize the proceeds from a drug deal. They can just go to the record keeper and force them to transfer currency.

This is where cryptocurrencies come to the rescue (as it were). There are different schemes. ETH (Ethereum) uses validators. The validators are paid to take care of the record-keeping. The trick is, that you have to put down ETH as a collateral (called staking) to run a validator. If you manipulate the record/blockchain, then the other validators will notice and raise the alarm. That results in you losing your collateral.

This means the validators can remain anonymous. You don't need to know their identities to punish them for fraud. You just take their crypto-money. They need to remain anonymous so that the government (or the mob) can't get to them.

This is where it gets hilarious. These 2 brothers operated fraudulent validators. The stake/the collateral didn't matter at all. The whole scheme didn't matter. It was a horrible waste of money and effort. The indictment even details how they tried to launder the crypto. That is, how they tried to transfer it, so that it couldn't be traced on the blockchain. The indictment even has the search queries they used to look up the info on how to do that.

The whole point of it all is that you supposedly do not need the government to prosecute anyone. If validators are kept honest by the threat of criminal prosecution, then you do not need the whole Proof of Stake scheme. You do not need the whole expensive overhead.

The only rational reason for crypto to exist, is to avoid laws; buying drugs and what not. I'm not judging. The hilarious fact is that the law knew everything about these guys.

It's all a sham. The one thing that crypto is supposed to do: Foil the government. And it doesn't work.

---

When people want to buy crypto on the blockchain, they put out a request so that a validator will execute that transaction and record it on the blockchain. So, while the request is waiting, a bot comes along and scans it. It may be that a purchase changes the exchange value of a currency. In that case, the bot adds 2 more transactions. First, to buy that currency before the original request, and to sell it afterward. The original request drives up the price in between the buy and sell, so that the bot makes a profit for its operator. The original request has to pay a little extra. That's where the profit comes from.

Sound shady? I hope not, because that's what the victims did.

The accused operated their own validators. At the right time, they put out their own buy request to lure in a bot. When the bot proposed the bundled transactions, their validators feigned acceptance. But then switched out the lure transaction of buying for selling.

The indictment makes a fairly good argument. It's like there is a "contract" between these automatic systems. The trading bot wants the bundled transactions to be carried out exactly so. The validator feigns agreement, but does not follow through.

No one ever said ATM-code is law. Ethereum code is supposed to be. Code is law is one of their slogans.

Everything that a blockchain does could be handled by a single office computer. The whole reason for the huge, expensive over-head is to put crypto beyond the law. Stuff like this exposes the whole, huge waste of human effort.

I wish people would go straight to the source for these stories. No reason to link to something that only paraphrases a press release and adds some ads.

Press release (contains link to indictment):

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/two-brothers-arrested-attacking-ethereum-blockchain-and-stealing-25-million

I mean, yes, but I can't help pointing out that all money is made up. The only difference is the purpose of the money system.

That doesn't even make sense. I have the mild suspicion that the fossil fuel industry sponsors nonsense like that, as a distraction from sane measures.

What we need to do to stop global warming is very simple: Stop using fossil fuels. We must not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

AI has nothing to do with that. It's just one more use for electricity. If we wanted to stop global warming, we would get the electricity by saving elsewhere, or generating more carbon-neutral electricity, with solar, wind or what not. We simply chose not to do that.

It remains a dangerous dead end. Any competent fraud will remove the watermark, or use a generator that doesn't add one. Giving people the idea that the absence of a watermark makes something trustworthy, can only help bad actors.

https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui

Text-generation-webui, better known as Oobabooga.

Same year that the productivity-pay gap begins. Hmm.

In Germany, the last conscripts were called up in 2011.

Not saying you're wrong, but it's a bit late for that. EG Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. was decided in 2009. We can only hope that these mistakes are not repeated.

I don't understand why people here are so gung-ho on intellectual property. It doesn't fit with the values that are otherwise espoused here and I worry that it indicates a more general rightward shift in economic policy preference.

Hugging Face is the usual platform for sharing datasets and models.

Good question. That is (almost certainly) political speech and as such especially protected by law. It's also quite controversial and so companies will try to prevent their services being used for it.

Copyright preemption is a long-standing legal doctrine. Congress makes copyright laws. State law and contract law has to give way.

They can still use EU law to extract money, just not as much.

I don't think it's entirely clear what effect a login-wall would have. Facebook has been quite successful with that technique in the past. So there are some precedents. But I think today there is more understanding for the harmful effects these had.

In 2023, Taylor Swift got $100 million from Spotify. How much should she get?

The first thing the nazis did, was purge the bureaucracy. Taking away guns was no concern, at all.

Privately owned guns played no significant role in the nazis' rise to or hold on power. Anything else is simply marketing by american gun sellers.

Some of their victims hid, refused to give up their arms, and fought back. They didn’t survive.

About 10-15,000 jewish germans survived the holocaust by going underground in Germany. They were colloquially called U-Boote or Illegale. Of course, that has nothing to do with guns. Guns were, after all, handed out to any able-bodied male.

If guns were the answer to dealing with fascism and authoritarianism, germany never would have had the holocaust.

That is only partly true. Germans are only a small fraction of holocaust victims (<5%). The victims overwhelmingly came from eastern Europe, particularly Poland and the Soviet Union. The holocaust happened in the wake of the advancing Wehrmacht. A more far-sighted response to german war preparations would have made a difference. A lesson one must bear in mind in today's world.

They are not. A derivative would be a translation, or theater play, nowadays, a game, or movie. Even stuff set in the same universe.

Expanding the meaning of "derivative" so massively would mean that pretty much any piece of code ever written is a derivative of technical documentation and even textbooks.

So far, judges simply throw out these theories, without even debating them in court. Society would have to move a lot further to the right, still, before these ideas become realistic.

Assuming you want to know why France is islamophobic...

It's historically grown. France invaded majority muslim, north Africa in the 19th century. Present day Algeria was french territory. The native muslim population was brutally oppressed; somewhat comparable to the oppression of blacks in the US. Nevertheless, the Muslims were french and fought for her in its wars, such as in the trenches 1914-18.

Algeria eventually won its independence after a brutal war lasting from 1954 to 1962. The brutality of this civil war is showcased by the massacre in Paris in 1961. Police attacked a peaceful demonstration for independence, murdering dozens, maybe hundreds of citizens. The police chief was a criminal nazi collaborator, convicted for his role in the holocaust. For decades, information about the massacre was suppressed in France.

President Charles de Gaulle - formerly the leader of Free France, the french forces that did not surrender to the nazis - brokered independence for Algeria. In response, far right traitors attempted a coup d'état and to assassinate him.

In many ways this history is comparable to the terrorist campaign that the US far right unleashed in the 1950/60 against African Americans and the civil rights movement. But the struggle was far more brutally fought in France. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Over a million people, mainly of european descent, were forced to flee from what became Algeria.

The decades after Algerian independence will seem quite familiar to Americans. North African Muslims had become a minority in metropolitan France (the mainland). This hated minority was quietly, without much legal upheaval, pushed to the fringes of society. Information about past atrocities against them was suppressed. Small scale terror attacks continued to happen.

These are the origins of the french far right and its islamophobia.

They are also retained by anyone who has archived them., like OpenAI or Google. Thus making their AIs more valuable.

To really pull up the ladder, they will have to protest the Internet Archive and Common Crawl, too. It's just typical right-wing bullshit; acting on emotion and against their own interests.