[drraid0]

That's a stupid idea. What if you ever wanted to start a revocation list, when a domain is added genuinely by mistake? You'd have to use the same priv key for signing those as well, at which point you might as well have a single text file with provenance (aka git)

[oelmekki]

Well, maybe that if it sounds stupid to you, you didn't think about it enough (that's usually the case).

Make a address which creates transactions containing the domains blocked. To find the list, check the transactions from this address. If an error is made, then you can just use an other address to build the list again without the domains you want to remove, and make adblocks look for transactions from this address. The adblockers only reference an address so they have no illegal content. Domains can't be removed from transactions. Adblockers can use an other address as basis if they agree too.

[jlgaddis]

I wonder if there's ever been a better real-world illustration of Maslow's hammer at work.

[yadenoyad]

So is your use of the term "Maslow's hammer". Using the block chain for maintaining a list of domains that is not subject to the whims of DMCA seems like a good use of the technology to me.

[drraid0]

Then go ahead and build it. Maybe it'll get adopted like name coin by dozens of people. Actually, name coin was actually a decent idea because dns needs to be decentralized. Text files like this do not, at least no more than git already is.

[davidgerard]

or ... don't try to "but with blockchain!!" an idea with no use for it and which would be ridiculously infeasible and fragile with it.

[efdee]

So everytime there is an error on the list, all adblockers have to be re-released to start using the new address?

Doesn't sound very practical.

[oelmekki]

This can be automated quite easily : have an other address which transactions contain the last up to date source address for list. Now adblockers just need to look for the last transaction from this address.

Note that I'm not saying it's better than the current management from the github repos. Nothing beats plain text files. What I'm saying, though, is that if DCMA takedowns on those lists become something common, engraving those domains in blockchain is a good way to defend from it.

But most people here could have got to this conclusion taking 5 minutes to think about it. I get it, guys, you've heard enough of blockchains. Let's not answer to irrational outburst of feelings with outburst of feelings in the opposite direction, please (note to parent: this remark is for the whole discussion and the downvotes, not just for you).

[stale2002]

Github can take down your single text file.

Nobody can take down your signed blockchain message that was published on bitcoin, unless they physically find you, and force you to sign a revoked list.

[cyphar]

If it's a special-purpose blockchain they can just sue everyone who is participating in propagating the blockchain. If I were on their side, that's what I'd do. You can also sue everyone who distributes software that uses those particular blocks. And using BitCoin would be the wrong technical decision (and would still not protect people who distribute special-purpose software that extracts that information).

This is a situation where trying to use technical measures to try to get around a law is not a good idea. Aside from the fact that the DMCA is incredibly generic and states that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." So it doesn't matter /how/ it's circumvented, all that matters is whether it was circumvented. But more importantly, if you use a technology to try to get around copyright law (even if your usage is completely legal), you're just asking for the copyright lobby to attack you. Just look at what happened to BitTorrent.

[stale2002]

You don't have to build special purpose software, though.

All you got to do is know the block number that it was published on.

Maybe you could even have the "speciality purpose software" published in the bitcoin blockchain itself.

It might still be "illegal", but the purpose is not to be 100% bullet proof.

The purpose is to make enforcement so expensive as to be impractical.

I am glad that you brought up bittorrent, though.

Bittorrent and torrents in general is a great example of how you can spend billions trying to enforce copyright law, and yet free Game of Thrones episodes are still a click away, for me.

Technical solutions to fighting DMCA have worked extraordinarily well.

The copyright lobby has massively failed to achieve its goals.

[cyphar]

> You don't have to build special purpose software, though.

> All you got to do is know the block number that it was published on.

> Maybe you could even have the "speciality purpose software" published in the bitcoin blockchain itself.

Okay, and how is your web browser going to access that list? At some point there has to be a path from the "anonymous" blockchain to your browser, and that's who will get sued.

> The purpose is to make enforcement so expensive as to be impractical.

I still think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Breaking the law doesn't help your cause. You need to challenge people who are abusing laws, because that's how you actually make a change in this arena.

> Bittorrent and torrents in general is a great example of how you can spend billions trying to enforce copyright law, and yet free Game of Thrones episodes are still a click away, for me.

> The copyright lobby has massively failed to achieve its goals.

That's an incredibly optimistic view. The copyright lobby has successfully managed to create the most pervasive DRM systems in existence thanks to the threat of "piracy", including EME. While a large number of people still torrent, the copyright lobby has managed to smear the entire technology. Who distributes their own content via BitTorrent? Almost nobody (distributions are the only example I can think of).

That doesn't sound like success from our side to me. In Australia, ISPs will DNS-block torrenting websites and also null-route any torrent traffic.

[oelmekki]

> Okay, and how is your web browser going to access that list?

Through blockchain.info, which is also the perfect tool for law enforcers to track possibly fraudulent money transactions, so they can't do without it.

> You need to challenge people who are abusing laws, because that's how you actually make a change in this arena.

Why choose? We can do both. EFF has expanded in parallel to TOR development. That's nothing uncommon. Plus, it's a huge argument for political groups to be able to say : "we can fight this through technical tools that we already have, but we want to find a peaceful solution with you". You don't negotiate when you can't achieve anything the other side doesn't want.

> Who distributes their own content via BitTorrent?

There's at least Blizzard that I noticed, I suppose others as well. The thing is that they don't advertise it - why would they? It's an implementation detail (built in their client). But I think of bittorrent legacy as way more than that. I'm not sure we would have had Spotify and Netflix without it. Sure, there are DRM, now. But music and movies are now affordable. Everybody wins, which is the desired end result.

Regarding ads, how could everybody win? There's one thing people made clear : they hate ads. So instead of fighting adblockers, ad industry should find a way to allow people to discover products without annoying them. For now, some prefer to fight adblockers with legal tools. We're entitled to answer with means just as aggressive, while still maintaining discussion channels with opposite side.