[exrook]

I think the distinction this protocol makes is that by using XOR as the "encryption" method, given any input block you can choose a "key" to decrypt with to produce any other output block. A block in isolation provides zero information to the downloader. I think it could be argued that it is the knowledge of which blocks to combine is where the actual data is being stored, and maybe that's where the copyright owners could stake a claim.

[adhoc32]

So, the copyright owners will have a more difficulty job going after the users of the network. They have to prove that there is copyright infringement by monitoring the blocks downloaded as opposed to BitTorrent file hash identification.

[heavenlyblue]

So does that mean if I store child porn on AWS I don’t technically own it since it’s somewhere in the virtual cloud?

The only way I could access it is through that weird SSH key that doesn’t contain any videos in it.

[exrook]

I don't think we are in any disagreement that whoever is uploading the data "owns" the data. The interesting idea is that the entity storing the bytes has 0 information about the data they represent, in the information theoretic sense, since they can decrypt the data to any value by choosing a sufficient key. This is not true for most other encryption schemes where the encrypted data has enough structure to it that theoretically it could be retrieved without the key, although the whole point of the encryption is that this isn't a practical undertaking.

[heavenlyblue]

Oh no - wait. Let’s take this idea even further.

I don’t actually store child porn - the videos I have are all decryption keys to files filled with zeros that I have encrypted with a one-time-pad cypher.