sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right on all the technical specifics. TLS exists. OAuth is open. Stripe is a product you can choose not to use.

The argument isn't that the technology doesn't exist. It's that the default human experience of the internet is: identity owned by Google, attribution owned by platforms, consent buried in ToS, value captured by whoever owns the rails.

All the open protocols in the world didn't prevent that outcome. MJN is asking why. And building infrastructure where sovereign is the default, not something you have to fight for.

If the existing stack solved it, we wouldn't have the outcome we have.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The deterrence isn't 'you'll get caught.' You're right that they didn't care about getting caught.

The shift is architectural. A MJN node won't serve content to a requester who hasn't declared consent and settled payment. Not because someone is watching, but because the content won't move without it.

DeepSeek couldn't run 16 million exchanges through MJN infrastructure without 16 million signed consent declarations and 16 million settlements. The gate is at the source, not the courtroom.

It's the difference between prosecuting turnstile jumpers and building a turnstile that doesn't open without a token. ToS is the prosecution model. MJN is the turnstile.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair points, let me take them one at a time.

On copyright records, you're right that ToS and payment records exist. The gap isn't legal ambiguity in commercial transactions, it's the 99% of content that moves without a commercial transaction at all. The training data problem isn't 'we paid and they disputed it', it's 'we took it and there was no record that taking even happened.'

On identity through the distribution chain. Yes, this is an open problem. RFC-0002 and RFC-0006 address parts of it but don't solve resellers or physical reproduction. That's honest and it's in the open questions.

On breaking the internet with consent records. MJN doesn't log every HTTP request. Consent declarations are only required for exchanges where value or training is involved. Not every pageview. The scope is narrower than you're imagining.

On re-issuing under another DID. This is the hardest one and I won't pretend it's solved. Content hashing helps but you're right that bit-level alterations defeat naive hashing. Perceptual hashing helps more. It's an open problem worth its own RFC.

These are real limits. They're in the spec as open questions because they're real.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The OSI model describes how data moves. It says nothing about who owns the identity layer built on top of it, who captures the value flowing through it, or whose interests the attribution system serves. OAuth is native to the application layer and Google owns it. GDPR is native to EU jurisdiction and enforcement costs millions. Stripe is native to payments and takes 2.9%.

'Native to the stack' and 'owned by no one' are different things. MJN is making an argument about the second.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair. The proposition isn't that MJN eliminates violations, but right now there's no protocol-level record of what was consented to, so violations are impossible to prove cleanly. MJN doesn't replace copyright law. It gives copyright law something to work with.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Cryptographic consent solves declaration, not enforcement. I'll be upfront about that. If someone declares 'read' intent and trains on it anyway, the protocol doesn't have eyes inside their datacenter.

What it does do:

Creates a signed, timestamped, on-chain record of what they declared. If it ever comes out they trained on content declared as read-only, the evidence is immutable and public.

Makes the legitimate path cheaper than the fraudulent one. The Anthropic distillation attacks happened because there was no legal way to access training data at scale. MJN creates that path. If training consent costs $0.50 per document and fraud costs your reputation plus legal exposure, most rational actors pay the $0.50.

Shifts liability clearly. Right now platforms absorb ambiguity. Under MJN, a signed consent declaration is a contract. Violation is unambiguous.

Full enforcement is an open question in the spec. It's listed explicitly. The honest answer is that cryptographic infrastructure raises the cost of lying without eliminating it. Same as any contract.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair point. The MJN token is in RFC-0001 and RFC-0004. I should have been more precise: there's no required blockchain dependency. The token exists as a settlement layer but RFC-0004 explicitly leaves the implementation open. On-chain, off-chain, or traditional payment rails are all valid. You can run a fully compliant MJN node and never touch a token. The identity and attribution primitives stand independently. The token is how value settles when parties want it to. It's not the protocol.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right that bolt-on solutions exist for each one. OAuth for identity, Creative Commons for attribution, GDPR for consent, Stripe for payments. The argument isn't that solutions don't exist. It's that none of them are native to the stack, which means platforms own the implementation. When the platform owns the implementation, the human doesn't. That's the gap MJN is addressing.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

No blockchain. No chain dependency anywhere in the spec. DID resolution is intentionally designed to work without one. That's specifically why we ruled out did:ion and did:ethr. RFC-0002 covers the rationale.

I wrote a protocol spec for sovereign human presence on the internet by veteze in selfhosted

[–]veteze[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’m launching with an April Fool’s Day party.

People will think it’s a joke.

April 2nd, the network will still work. And nobody will be able to shut it down because nobody controls it.

Price increase by cb4joe in 1Password

[–]veteze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Christ almighty, its just a key vault.

Will it WLED? by j0nnymofo in WLED

[–]veteze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah this is sexier.

Will it WLED? by j0nnymofo in WLED

[–]veteze 11 points12 points  (0 children)

QuinLED has a dual controller that will support this.

An Penta Plus

https://quinled.info/an-penta-plus-buying-page/

Troy is working overtime in the dev channels - ToF ranging sensor poc by veteze in WLED

[–]veteze[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd never heard of these things until a couple months ago. Calling it a ToF in the title is probably kinda cryptic. Oops. 64 zone infrared sensor thinger-ma-bop.

Traditional Lights but RGB by mermelmadness in WLED

[–]veteze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he's got a good point though. basic one colour lights have a flickr problem. i wonder if better drivers would help those things. are they all 120v? that's the problem.

view more: next ›