Domain Registry Takes Sci-Hub’s .SE Domain Name Offline(torrentfreak.com) |
Domain Registry Takes Sci-Hub’s .SE Domain Name Offline(torrentfreak.com) |
They didn't even have a price list on the site. The only option was to give them your full contact info, and after I did they told me a sales representative would be call me on the phone to discuss pricing. That's the last time I felt any guilt about using Sci-Hub.
Yar.
I just don’t understand how they can be so shameless about it. For instance, one single paper on Phys. Rev. Lett. costs $35 without a subscription. $35 for a few pages of PDF; ~100% margin for the publisher and the publisher alone. (And the publisher here, APS, is not-for-profit.) Who the fuck came up with this kind of pricing?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-b...
That these online publishers are able to rent collect for papers that are in the public domain, or long out of copyright, is an example of how broken our system is.
edit: academics are who we're supposed to depend on in order to organize and maintain ourselves as post-Enlightenment people, and they're somehow inextricably caught up in such a simple and open swindle. Even fully knowing the real consequences of locking away some stray piece of knowledge from the random asshole who will stumble upon a way to change the world with it.
I remember even using sci-hub for some 19th century papers, which are surely in the public domain...
Wikipedia points to https://sci-hub.ru as the official URL, and that site lists all official mirrors as [1]:
sci-hub.se
sci-hub.st
sci-hub.ru
All of which are different from your list. I have no idea personally, I'm just wondering how to know what to use.
.se was the official, post-seizure Elbakyan suggests .ru.
Another thing, SH used to be accessible as a Tor hidden service, located here[0], which needs a v3 address since the older short .onions are now obsolete. Tor should have been the rightful home of SH since its inception. .Onions/hidden services are more resistant to censorship.
And since the admin has been doxxed, it's too late, unless the project is forked to new (anonymous) owners with good opsec and starts its new home in the dark web, unless it has new owners. I don't know, I don't follow all the latest news on SH.
https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/lofj0r/announcement...
I've got no direct use but every time it comes up I have a think just in case I know anyone it would be useful for.
Ta for the reminders!
https://www.ilovephd.com/working-sci-hub-proxy-links-updated...
Hmm I guess they don't want to get accidentally DoS attacked
Microsoft can get away with it, we might as well do the same
Handshake works with the existing DNS. "The guy who ruined Freenode" had a minor part in the creation of Handshake but does not control it. The core developers of Handshake are still active.
- "To protect the privacy of Sci-Hub users, we agreed that she would first aggregate users’ geographic locations to the nearest city using data from Google Maps; no identifying inter- net protocol (IP) addresses were given to me. (The data set and details on how it was analyzed are freely accessible at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.q447c.)"
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1126/science.352.6285.508 ("Bohannon, J. (2016). Who’s downloading pirated [sic] papers? Everyone. Science, 352(6285), 508–512")
2011-09-22 22:29:24 10.1007/BF01907940 www.springerlink.com/content/ppt42929g7645548/fulltext.pdf 213.87.138.* -176088 Russia
Sci-hub's offshore host: "DDoS-Guard is a Russian Internet infrastructure company which provides DDoS protection and web hosting services.[1][2] Researchers and journalists have alleged that many of DDoS-Guard's clients are engaged in criminal activity, and investigative reporter Brian Krebs reported in January 2021 that a "vast number" of the websites hosted by DDoS-Guard are "phishing sites and domains tied to cybercrime services or forums online".[3][1] Some of DDoS-Guard's notable clients have included the Palestinian Islamic militant nationalist movement Hamas, American alt-tech social network Parler, and various groups associated with the Russian state.[3][4][1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDoS-Guard
Sci-Hub In 2017, a U.S. court ordered all internet infrastructure companies to stop doing business with Sci-Hub, the shadow library which shares scholarly papers without regard to copyright.[22][23] As a result, Sci-Hub switched from Cloudflare to DDoS-Guard for DDoS protection.[23][8] Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan says that DDoS-Guard initially contacted her, and that the company volunteered that it works with piracy sites including Rutracker.org.[23] Some experts identify Sci-Hub's use of DDoS-Guard as a security risk given its involvement with the Russian state and that it could monitor Sci-Hub's traffic.[23] Elbakyan says she pays DDoS-Guard about US$1,000 per month (one sixth of Sci-Hub's operating budget), all for DDoS protection; an expert found this amount credible.[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDoS-Guard#Sci-Hub
(Sorry for the delayed reply, my account is heavily rate limited, so I don’t get to post more than 5 times per hour and less when someone with high karma like downvotes a post and leaves a comment.)
This is already the case with the current dns, since paying $10 per year is pretty much nothing to any middle class investor, so they do in fact "own" it forever for "free", relatively speaking.
Apps on blockchains already play the role of that centralized structure. The most successful I'm aware of is ENS on Ethereum. Whatever economic model you prefer can be implemented this way.
Handshake reserved the top 100,000 Alexa domains and allowed all trademark name holders to claim theirs.
Not to mention the ten million in FOSS grants for developers to build tooling
Sadly the ideologues will somehow decry their attempts for an alternative while defending the indefensible ICAAN.
There’s no difference between a blockchain and a cryptographically secure write ahead log, indeed that is how blockchains are defined. Perhaps you assumed that I meant cryptocurrency when I said blockchain? I did not.
(Sorry for the delayed reply.)
I prefer the current registrar setup over anarchist blockchain hellscapes. You can sue Verisign, you can't sue 0xEf1c6E67703c7BD7107eed8303Fbe6EC2554BF6B.
There's Handshake, ENS, and UnstoppableDomains.
Brave supports .eth domains out-of-the-box, hopefully Handshake soon.
For Handshake you can use a local resolver that reads the blockchain or use NextDNS.
NFTs aren't just for art, y'know. They have real [digital] world use cases for ownership, like DNS.
The early adopters got the first twitter names, instagram names, etc for free forever. People invested time signing up when you never thought of it and they get rewarded.. the platform gets the early adopters. We don't force users to pay and let other take the name and continue to be that person.
Domains should be the same. When a domain expires someone can buy it and pretend they are the original owners.
If they were free you could buy coolformatbestnamecoolformat still get the name you wanted and use a prefix postfix custom format to identify with a group. rubycooldomainruby reactcooldomainreact
Then they wash themselves with philanthropy and everyone praises them. The masses are easy to steer and have no interest in the esoteric power structures or foreign worldviews of the absolute elite.
In all serious the idea that the West is not profoundly corrupt in its own way is ludicrous.
Were it all went wrong is not clear. I'd say probably the first Gulf War era was an inflection point but not a start.
Perhaps the Kennedy Assassination or the literal defenestration of former Secretary of Defense Forestal.
Yes, handshake can work alongside, technically, but the leadership did not want to, in practice
I'm not here to convince you of the merits of Handshake, you clearly don't see nor care for it. Just clarifying facts over opinion.
EDIT: FWIW, I don't know who your best friend is but JJ remaining a part of Handshake is a major plus in my book. I personally don't find Andrew Lee (there are two in the Handshake story, we're talking about the Freenode one though) palatable and have clashed with him on occasion. Jackasses exist everywhere but IMHO, good people outnumber them by a massive margin.
Hmm. At some point, a user agent would need to disambiguate between competing identical names somehow (at least for the sort of names that identify global internet resources). Are you assuming the existence of a web-of-trust of some sort as an arbiter?
If that is what you've encountered, you can bypass the delay by clicking the timestamp of the comment you want to reply to. This opens the comment in its own page with a reply box.
My question to you is: if I donate MAC addresses to FOSS projects, can I tokenize ARP? I promise to be nice about it. The first 10,000 IP addresses can have their ARPCoin for free.
Seriously, this FOSS donation thing with Handshake: it's like selling people the Brooklyn Bridge, but promising generous new bike lanes. See, the FOSS stuff? It wasn't the problem with the plan.
And Brave and NextDNS aren't popular enough for your threshold?
Handshake is exactly what would stop the issue happening in TFA, yet everyone ignores it here.
For something to go mainstream, you have to talk about it...
HN is not a very good tech site if you only talk about the tech that the common person already knows about.
The projects mentioned in this thread aren't the first to offer an expanded DNS solution for one reason or another. None of them gained traction.
Hence why Twitter still has no viable competitor or replacement, especially when the money is still there despite all the hype and mania of it 'dying'.
By your logic the evolution of the internet would forever stagnate because developers would be stuck reserving an infinite amount of tlds that keep on popping up, it's just unrealistic and not pragmatic. reserving 100k of the most popular domains is a good faith effort and a pragmatic solution.
And if you want to talk about fairness let's first start talking about the corruption of ICANN[0][1][2] before criticizing emerging solutions.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/icann-int...
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/09/website-domain-more...
[2] https://circleid.com/posts/20210413-insult-and-injury-of-us-...
I was recently quoted $250,000 to buy a .com that is not being used and as far as I can tell has never been used but some guy bought in the 90s when I was a young child. Aside from the level of extreme is that really different from "You could then probably buy readable domains for exorbitant amounts of cryptocoins."
You touch on what I think the core issue is with domains when you talk about suing Verisign. In some very limited cases, it's possible through litigation to get a domain you feel like you should have. But therein lies the crux of the whole issue: What standard needs to be met before you qualify for a domain name, especially one that is in contention?
In cryptocurrency, the criteria to receive the currency was originally solving problems with computing power because they needed some arbitrary measure. In the world of domain names, it's been a lot of different things but mostly just money and time.
That standard - what "qualifies" you to own a domain over someone else I think would have to be decided before truly effective regulation can be made or enforced, blockchain or not. Right now it's basically temporal, with some carveouts from lawsuits for trademarks.
The current regulations around how domain names work is woefully inadequate (like most regulation around technology) and gives outsized power to private entities. This is something that I think people don't talk about enough when they criticize blockchains.
If there was a better job being done with public policy, you'd likely have less people who think a system where there's no way of imposing real regulation is desirable.
It's especially bad with technology. My go to example is Apple's App Store, but this area is a good topic too.
To me, a happy mix of public/private policy would be best. The government allowing private TLDs, but regulating them. An anti squatting law, price capping new TLD name registrations, an enshrined "specificity system" to claiming an unused (or even used) domain would make the situation so much better, but it'll never happen.
Some TLDs have provisions against domain squatters and in case of copyright disputes, you can sue the squatters (or request ICANN to release the domain if that isn't possible for some reason). If you have a good reason to demand a domain currently unused, there are ways to get it.
With crypto-TLDs, nike.com and microsoft.com would be registered by a malicious player without any kind of recourse. The lack of enforceability makes the entire system pretty useless the moment it takes off.
The auction system is actually fairer since it gives enough time for every party to bid the highest amount according to their interest instead of relying on sniping services like in the current legacy systems.
> whereas a cryptographic system can do all that offline inside the data centers of the cryptosquatter.
what does this even mean?
>Some TLDs have provisions against domain squatters and in case of copyright disputes, you can sue the squatters
Sure, but this is also a double edged sword, since it also opens up abuse i.e. reverse domain hijacking which is a real and common problem. Just this week Charles Schwab tried to rob the legitimate owner of a domain that contained "Schwab", while they tried to hide the fact that the owner's name is also Schwab. [0]
>With crypto-TLDs, nike.com and microsoft.com would be registered by a malicious player
That's why good builders put in the time and effort to reserve these names from the start.
>The lack of enforceability makes the entire system pretty useless the moment it takes off.
Sovereignty has its price. No system is perfect, everything has its trade-offs, but I see a lot of people highlighting the best properties of the legacy system while ignoring the best properties of the new systems. The comparisons should be fair and compare the full range of positives and negatives instead of picking and comparing in a bad faith manner.
[0] https://domainnamewire.com/2023/01/24/charles-schwab-tries-t...
The on-chain contract could be written such that a buyer generates a token, supplied to an on-chain verification oracle that checks token.owned-domain.TLD exists, and if it does grants issuance of the new on-chain version.
This essentially allows for a fair transition from the old system to the new system, while eliminating squatting.
This system just seems to be traditional DNS with extra steps and a lack of manual recourse against bad actors, to be honest.
I suppose it could be configurable at purchase to allow it to be a recurring verification, if that was desired, but it would seem to overcomplicate for no reason. "Subscribing" to domains each year is legacy inefficiency.
I'm not sure what you mean about DNS, any chain-based system would be... chain-based, and therefore cryptographically-assured that a domain points where the owner chooses. "Not your keys, not your domain" applies.
Though ENS doesn't implement this, it'd be possible to add paid arbitration by humans for resolving trademark disputes. You couldn't get damages but you could get the domain.
http://web.archive.org/web/20210118172102/https://squaretria...
You need some kind of "admin access" for the system that can fix things like lost keys, at which point you might as well stick with DNS.
aaronsw proposed that you could expire unrenewed names after 12 months
i forget what solution namecoin and ens use
It wasn't designed to replace DNS, but there are an increasing number of people using it for that.
No matter how you dice it, getting humans to remember 128 bits of entropy is going to be a non-starter. Encoding those 128 bits using words doesn't really solve the problem.
I mean, people can recite poetry far longer, even nonsense poetry ("Twas brillig, and the slithy toves / did gyre and gimble in the wabe") so it's not impossible. But generally speaking, yeah. Nobody wants to navigate to that bit of jabberwocky instead of google.com
It does kind of make me long for the days of the HOSTS file, where anyone might alias a hard-to-remember address as something locally meaningful.
When we talk about the WebPKI being coercively annoying, what we're really talking about are the roots of trust that the browsers have chosen to trust. No browser requires OV/EV.
and also - there may be a way for the naming contract to use social recovery for keys.