irihapeti

yes. What Tolya said was broken, was always broken, and will always be broken. Unless independent P2P channel (or some independent webservice channel like Sassy mention) is enabled to pass the start secret bypassing the SL channel altogether if are going to do this then is no point in sending anything over the SL channel anyways. Might as well just transmit the messages over the independent channel. [ If the objective is to hide what is being said from LL ] eta [ ]

Darrius Gothly wrote: irihapeti wrote: + how crypto actual works. Example: "the lark sings in the meadow" what does this mean ? is no need really to argle garble this text. Having computer to argle garble it, dont change what crypto actual is It means "the spare door key is under the doormat" or "Hitler's body is buried in Argentina" or "Boxers, not briefs". And my NEXT crypto product .. will be named "Argle". Do I owe you commissions? *grin* sorry!! you had your 3 goes oh ok then. I give you another go. I give you a clue as well "the dove coos as the crow hops" + ps sorry you cant have that name. Is the name of a sheep i think. Or maybe a woolly jumper (:

Darrius Gothly wrote: Heyyy . waitasecondhere if can wait another second I will say some more stuff (: + sometimes i think that bc computer, then we kinda forget how crypto actual works is whole generations of people now who are pretty good coders and are good at math and can read/write research papers and design/implement algos. And these are all they see like they go: I can do that. The math this, the math that, my skills this and that. Therefore + the people who wrote TrueCrypt for example. Was a quite noble and altrusitic effort. To help the people protect their stuff is a clever product used by zillions of people, and the devs are great coders for sure and they got into it after they think this and think that. Not only about their coding skills but also their desire to do some altruistic thing then as they got into it deeper and further they came to see hmmm! Now that we understand a lot more about this crypto stuff them ummm! the TrueCrypt devs have since abandoned their works and have also told people not to use it it actual cant do what the devs thought could be done - real time encryption safely and securely under all conditions. Or be made to do it even. No matter how well coded or mathematically robust the algo designs, as they once thought when they started. Is the under all conditions that is the hard part is the same the Tor network. If use it to hide your porns from your Mum or Dad then ok. Best not to bet your life on it tho + how crypto actual works. Example: "the lark sings in the meadow" what does this mean ? is no need really to argle garble this text. Having computer to argle garble it, dont change what crypto actual is

is a good time that. Good on you (:

jejejeje (:

yes. Character substitution ciphers are broken quite easy so i dont get any of your stuffs then ??! (: + just some more thoughts even with using more secure crypto algos (like AES for example) encoded short messages are notorious difficult to protect against. Particularly when the messages are a series. Like in a chat app convo (or phone call) for example when a codebreaker/snooper/hunter is observing these then knowing who is chatting to who (the metadata) and the enviromental aspects - what it is they are most likely chatting about and the language of the participants (the characterset that the decoded message is most likely to resolve to) then it reduce the field search parameters by quite a lot is even more difficult to protect when use algo types like End-to-End, which not only contain short messages but can also contain the key for the next message in the series. Mathematically/academically these algos types can seem sound. But they are pretty unsafe from the likes of the NSA for example, when the conversationalists are persons of interest to them, and where have the resources to do something about it lengthening the packet that contains the message is the most effective, in that the longer the packet the more noisy we can make it. However we still bound by the lengths dictated by the hardware and/or channel provider. Who tend toward, the most info in the shortest length for cost (to them) efficiency reasons. Minimum Distance Length (MDL) like channels. Particularly for convo type exchanges + with prime number based algos, the weakness is in the choice of the keys. That people are quite often overreliant on the key generator to choose a key for them, the key generator that comes with encryption software package. Key generators which quite often "randomly" choose from a quite narrow range of prime numbers (narrow meaning when compared to the set of [all]) so that the resulting public/private keys generated can look more "random" to the user people who are not cryptos (which is most of us) often have a interesting view of what we think "random" should look like. Is quite narrow as well the search field of "random looking". As opposed to the search field of the set of [all] quite often also when people choose their own prime numbers then they go for the ones that they think look more random to them add in the environmental aspects of the person choosing and it makes it more easy for the hunter to break them + while algos are pretty interesting in themself to me and heaps of other people. I think that people ordinarily should see encryption in the same way that they see locks. That is more a posted sign really than anything else. That when we see the sign then it tells us the the person wishes their privacy (stuff contained within) to be respected

ChinRey wrote: irihapeti wrote: Where people rather than content is king, Content may be king but without Queen Context he's nothing at all. (And yes, I know that was a digression.) a good one tho hope that LL digress from what seems to be their current thinking as well

Sassy Romano wrote: rapelcgvba vfa'g nobhg ubj fgebat gur nytbevguz vf gubhtu, jr nyernql unir gubfr, vg'f nobhg xrl trarengvba, xrl genafcbeg naq xrl pbasvqragvnyvgl. Vs V trarengr xrlf bhgfvqr bs FY naq genafcbeg gurz bhg bs onaq gb zl pbubegf, V pna fraq pvcure grkg nyy qnl ybat va VZ'f naq YY pna'g gbhpu vg. V pbhyq unir cevzf vafvqr FY npgvat nf jro genafcbegf sbe zl pvcuregrkg jvgu ab fabbcnoyr frffvba xrlf rire tbvat guebhtu YY'f favssvat. Encryption isn't about how strong the algorithm is though, we already have those, it's about key generation, key transport and key confidentiality. If I generate keys outside of SL and transport them out of band to my cohorts, I can send cipher text all day long in im's and LL can't touch it. I could have prims inside SL acting as web transports for my ciphertext with no snoopable session keys ever going through LL's sniffing. + you are so broken. Imma own all ur stuffs q; (:

ChinRey wrote: I think the real question both we and LL should discuss is: How can Linden Lab ensure that enough of the revenue stream is channeled to the content creators and service providers to make it economically viable for them? yes. this the question. And what the answers might be if this is not the question bc there is no satisfactory answers, then Sansar will be like Ebbe said at the start. like SL but better. kinda sorta and different. a online environment on which curated experiences can be enjoyed by the mass consumer for sums of money that fit within their entertainment allowance/budget that while anybody can work at creating these experiences (stuff, communities, clubs, roleplays, games, shops, products, etc) and some people will make a financial go of it, lots more wont a pastime pretty much where we just play at being shopkeepers and merchants and club owners and landlords and arena monitors and gamemasters, etc, and where we play at being customers and patrons. And make new and sustain friends and social relationships with them we meet doing this + if so then kinda like the shinier things get, the more they stay the same the inworld will still basically be a game, a pastime, something else to do in our leisure time, for most for us. Just a little bit shinier that what it was yesterday i hope that it can be more than that, that it could pioneer a economic structure to rival the RL, where people could like earn RL livings on it, have RL equiv paying jobs even, etc. And the platform owner is understanding of this. Where people rather than content is king, as a philosophical underpinning of the economy and the guardianship / governance that this involves but if it isnt then I will just enjoy it for what it is. A internets game. Look for the sunny sides in it and be happy as best I can

i actually conflated two things so that it came out like the 30% is something intended for SL Ebbe was talking about Sansar in the interview and he chucked in the example of SL as 65 / 65 (in the same way he chucks in the 900,000 number into these convos). He was making a observation that 3% or about, wont work for them (LL) going into Sansar, That they would be looking at about 30% commission on the Sansar platform he indicated that when (or if so) then LL would be able to offer "sims" at a lower price than SL + what I was trying to say is that whatever is the cost price for sims ($10, $100, $1000 or whichever) and whatever is the commission rate for products (3% 6% 30% 60% or whichever) then just raising or lowering prices to benefit the platform owner, without also considering the supply problem and the effect this has on the margins for the resident merchants then things are going to turn out for Sansar the same as they have for SL the products and merchants will end up in over-supply + personally I think 30% or any % is a fail. I think that merchant fees (tiers) is the way I would do it. Big shop more tiers. Little shop less tiers. Whether that shop be inworld or onweb if a inworld sim costs 100$ for 10,000 items (LI) then so does a onweb store reason: if the cost of entry to my store is 0$ and I dont have to do anything or pay anything for evermore for my listed products and LL take 30% 60% or even 90% then what I care ? I just take what ever I get if I get any. Is not my worry that other people are trying to make a actual RL living this the issue. LL do need to care about these people trying to make a RL living. They need to accept that is not just about them (LL) and what they (LL) get out of it LL need to accept that Sansar is not a game. That is a platform on which grown ups can actual do business to the standards that apply in the RL. RL business, not internets bizness. Internets bizness is a game + hopefully they will get this and it will happen on Sansar. And when so then it might even come to SL as well

ps now that I have accused LL Board of timidity I will now accuse them of covetousness as well (: Ebbe said this thing in a recent media interview he said that LL takes about $65 millions in tiers. That the resident-to-resident economic activity generates a further $65 million for the residents of which LL gets only 3%. He then said that LL needs to reconsider this, that they should look at increasing their share of the take to something like 30%. With a view to balance their revenue streams, tiers vs commissions what this doesnt do is address the economic effect on the wealth-generating classes. The merchants and landlords Creators dont generate wealth. People who buy and sell stuff [and services] do Creators add value to the well-being tho for sure. Is not wealth this tho, in the sense that it dont pay the bills in itself all by itself + eta and services + eta more am not sure I explained this well i put it in a personal context i can create stuff. I can script as well. I add value to own well-being when I do this. I can add value to somebody else when I share my creations with them i dont create wealth (bill-paying wealth) doing this. I can only do this if I become a merchant

ChinRey wrote: irihapeti wrote: as you say we can see whats in it for the creator class. I missed that. The answer is of course not much. The clothes and other avatar accessories market keeps going because of fashion but not bnearly at the level it was. There is a market for collectibles - finely crafted items that you take out and look at every now and then but are far too laggy and/or primmy to keep rezzed. But for in-world objects, nope. It's the good old question about supply and demand: The supply is steadily increasing while the demand is dropping. It's very hard to sell much to old-timers who are struggling to manage their overfilled inventories and the only thing that can change the downwards trend is a significant requitment of new users. Oh, and maybe make it possible for people to actually buy the Lindens they want - I hear there have been some problems with that recently and that definitely doesn't sound like a good busniess strategy. i just pick up on this part. Where a objective is to increase the supply of new money (new users) to the merchant and landlord classes i think that it starts with what is it that the new money is being sought for. Like into what environment will the money be spent. i try put this in a context. expand on it + whats in it for creators and always has been is the continous improvements in the toolset over the years that LL have directed most of their resources towards also the introduction of Marketplace, which lowered the cost of entry to 0$, for a creator to be a merchant whereas LL have done little to improve on land ownership. There have been some improvements to the Estate tools and parcel tools, (banning capabilities, parcel visibility for example) however the tools that influence the economic model of land hasnt changed since forever examples being: - a rental system built into About Land (in addition to Buy/Sell Land) - a more fine graduated tier scale - the ability to transfer tiers to another resident - advance pre-purchasing of Tiers enabling discounts to be offered for periods of longevity. Ie if I pay 12 months of tiers in advance then will be cheaper for me than if I pay month by month - when I can pay my estate landlord in tiers and the estate goes under then any tiers that I have paid them in advance can be returned to me automagically - landlords can pay their dues to LL in whole or part with Tiers, surplus tiers can be bought/sold on the Tiers Exchange i agree with Prokofy that LL have never liked the land model they have now. I think also that it has been the timidity of the LL Board to address this. Basically I think they have been far to afraid over the years + about the price race to the bottom for made products as a consequence of over-supply and under-demand is not a creator problem this really. Creators in SL have always had it good, LL resource allocation-wise to improving the toolsets enhancing their capability to create the price race is a merchant problem, a economic problem and LL have been way to timid to address this also. As a economic problem they treat it as a toolset problem. That by improving the ability of merchants to more easily market their products then a subsequent increase in sales has the best chance of occurring that if we make it more easy to market stuff then this will be more attractive to more customers who introduce more money as a strategy for over-supply on a rising economic cycle then is ok this. However it dont address the downturns that come in economic cycles. LL have no economic strategy for dealing with customer under-demand the way this is typically done is to reduce stock, by reducing the supply of merchants in the market place in a economic downturn. This is done thru costings. Like you have to pay the full costs of being a merchant. Tier payments for Marketplace for example. Dont sell anything then the store will close. The stock of products is reduced. The over-supply of merchants is reduced

with tradeable land I mean that LL would not be printing any more land. Neither mainland or islands meaning that there will be no more new investment in expanding the server farm. Maintenance and service only from now on what sims/parcels LL do sell by auction will be any existing thats abandoned + residents can continue to trade amongst themselfs tho. Buy and sell parcels/sims. On both mainland and private islands/estates that if we want to own a private island then we would have to buy it from another resident is a big change this, in terms of parcel/sim tradeable capital value and has a follow-on effect for mainland as well, in terms of the value of mainland parcels. Given the Estate owner is LL and not some resident + about the mess of mainland half continents LDPW to tidy up by add a LDPW water sim where necessary to smooth the terrain down below sea level. They are not for sale to residents + if is not $300 a month then some other amount. Say $150 tiers. And say instead of 25,000 sims then 20,000 150 * 20,000 = $3,000,000 and say is only 40,000 people interested in this works out at $75 for 1/2 a sim each average there is a number in here somewhere that makes it viable for LL to continue with SL regardless of what might happen with Sansar. The cake point + if the objective is to continue with SL and generate income for the company on a continuing basis then whats in it for the resident land owners ? as you say we can see whats in it for the creator class. What do we see in it for the land owner class ? Nothing really, other than they work really hard to get and keep renters for relatively little reward i think whats in it not only for barons but also individuals is the capital value of their parcels. Which I think can be maintained, or enhanced even, when there is a fixed amount of land in total. Like a planet has + the Linden Homes thing is a factor for sure in a fixed world where the capital value of land is enhanced then LH would be a bit like immigrant housing I think. And I think this would be best managed in the same way that is managed in the RL eta: meaning that we dont get to stay in the hostel forever

ChinRey wrote: irihapeti wrote: 5,000 mainland sims at $300 month tiers 20,000 island sims at $300 month tiers $7,500,000 tiers income a month approx. It would be more like 500 occupied mainland simes at $300 month tiers 4,500 abandoned mainland sims with $0 revenue 1000 island sims at $300 month tiers 19,000 closed down island sims dunno about the closed down sims in a virtual never-ending expansion of sims then for sure there is a collapse point. Which LL/SL hit way sooner than they expected, bc of their projections that would be millions and millions of users. And tbf the actual signup trajectories did indicate that in the golden years of SL that with millions and millions of signups then there will always be another buyer was not only LL who bought into this projection and bet the bank on it. Was also every wouldbe virtual real estate investor, who bet there banks as well, looking to flip parcels/sections for profit to the millions and millions of new world settlers was pretty heady days those were + when a resource is scarce (fixed, limited) then is a whole other thing, to a ever-expanding thing i just put $300 as a cake point. It could be any number. $10, $50, $100, $1000. $10,000. There is a cake point tho which if you hit turns your limited resource into a cash cow, pretty much for at least another decade. 2 or 3 decades even + is quite interesting to try work out what is that cake point for example theres approx. 900,000 unique signups signins each month. How many of them own parcels/sims, discounting the about 60,000 who got Linden Homes ? say is 100,000 then at 25,000 sims then 1/4 sim each avg. 300 / 4 = $75 a month each would you pay $75 a month for a scarce resource to live, on use etc ? and that you can sell for this amount, or 2x or 4x or 10x, or 100x even if was a beachfront with 3 or 4 side LDPW protected ? Knowing that the view will never ever get built out if not you or me then how many of the other 900,000 would. is it 100,000 at $75 ? or is it some other number ? + on your estimates then is 6,000 people at $75 each i think is a bit low this estimate, given that theres about 60,000 who got a Linden Home already.So if 6,000 then the estimate is that only 1 in 10 SL users (in this planet not world scenario) would/will buy mainland or private estate parcels i think 1 in 10 is a bit on the low side. 100,000 might be to high as well, but I think the cake point is closer to 100,000 than is to 6,000 + eta signins and last para

ps the End-to-End that the TPV viewer (way back in the day) was a fail bc the secret seed for the first message that each end needs to encode/decode the start message was transmitted in plaintext over the same channel as the encoded message which was kinda ummm!! at them scripties who thought they had a made a: LL dunno what we saying thingy + for End-to-End to work them need to use either public/private key encoding, or transmit the secret seed over another channel independently and even if so then theres what you and Sassy mention also, the viewer capture keystrokes so can peek the message before is encoded and sent. Then at other end the viewer displays the decoded message, so dont need to try decrypt the message at all if you the channel owner. Just wait until the reciever opens/decodes the message, and peek it then, and thats it

i would give you a kudos if i could

Prokofy Neva wrote: big GAME OVER sign a alternative to GAME OVER sign could be the sign: SL IS NOW A PLANET (not a World) meaning that LL says that from this date: xx xxx xx, there will be no more resident tradeable sims added to SL No more mainland sims. No more private islands only new sims that might be added are non-tradeables: LDPW sims for mainland continent edge tidy up, and Linden Homes (if new signup demand warrants) rough figures: 5,000 mainland sims at $300 month tiers 20,000 island sims at $300 month tiers $7,500,000 tiers income a month approx. except for Founder 4096m perpetual parcels which remain as is (forever) - all existing grandfather and estate discounting tiers (and mainland tiers) will be increased over 3 years until parity the whole grandfather island sim thingy started bc server type classes. Which dont apply these days, so is no reason not to phase them out on a now fixed-sized planet - all homesteads and openspaces sims will be upgraded to full sims and tiers increased over 3 years until parity in a fixed-size planet, mainland sim parcels are more valuable (bc LL landlord) than island sims (bc Resident landlord), so is not reason why the tiers should be cheaper - the 10% mainland group bonus abolished progressively over 3 years until parity. For same reason above - edu discounts to remain at 50%, No renting or selling on edu sims + if there was a certainty that there would be no more new SL land ever then LL can have its cake ($7.5 million a months worth) and eat it to (Sansar) and us residents can have cake as well. The resell value of our sims/parcels will increase, and when they do we wont let them go easily or cheaply in this fixed-size planet, we be all in like robbers dogs on all that empty mainland (: And the island barons will gobble up any island sim as soon as the For Sale sign goes up, at just about any price so lots of cake for us residents as well I think, in parcel value and we will go off-planet to Sansar also for the other new experiences/stuff that this brings us

like twerking you mean can you let us know how that goes for you ?!

i thought about what you said Chin. Turns out I am way faster by heaps on my other hand

wooo fast times coming in now so i had another go with my strafe hand (keyboard hand). Not with my mouse hand i might have to change how i play fast action games i think

jejejeje (: eta blinking sim crossings. They every where these days (:

Dresden wrote: How dare you insinuate * i am not a Insinuate ok jejejeje (:

Dresden wrote: . ...Dres *thanks you for explaining the ends and outs of the situation* the innies and outies can be a bit confusing for new people sometimes like you know. So we do the best we can to help them get unconfused in the end is just the end can be merciful that can when we not confused anymore to know that is the end and not a end. bc if is only a end then it might not be the only end. Like there might be another end. At the other end might not be either tho. Like it might be endless. but only on one end. The end not on the top or bottom. In which case the top or bottom end will be the end just not for us tho when we start at that end, the top or bottom end. Unlike the another person who started at the other end or inbetween. obviously. Unless the inbetween person went the other way, which is the same way we going, and never end up on top or bottom end, and never found the other end either and even if they do find a end on the other end then it will not be the end, just a end. bc they not at the top or bottom end. So they might wonder if the end is at the other end. Which would be the end for them. But not the end for us, just a end. obviously also assume that is not endless, the other end. If is endless then the other person will never find the end, or even a end, unless they turn round. Unlike us. We at the end already when is no end on the other end. but we dunno if is the end for sure. Just that is a end which in most cases is pretty ok. bc we are not confused anymore (:

is other factors to consider like do you/them/they/royal have a tight end, or do this question only apply to loose ends ? and if so then isnt that discriminatory against tight ends ? or if it isnt discriminatory (like active discrimination) then is it exclusion from participation thru silence ? Like if we dont mention it then tight ends are of little importance. Compared to loose ends that is. Or compared to ends, not loose or tight. Like inbetween ends. And is this something that should be questioned ? And is so then should it be answered before or after or simultaneously with the original question posited ? not that is anything wrong with discussing issues that loose ends face in a increasing complexity. However is maybe not good to exclude tight ends, or inbetween ends, in these questions even when we never meant to. Or maybe we did mean to exclude the tight ends deliberately, and also we just dont much care about the issues facing inbetween ends ? And if so then why is that ? or maybe is just that we sick and tired of any old body either loose or tight or inbetween, just jump on any old thing to make their greivances just as important, more even, than the whatever was the issue suffered by others who are maybe less needing a answer than the jumperonerer ? Or even that was any suffering at all, but got jumped on anyways like there never was any greivance at all, it just seems like it. Or is it just that we got nothing better to do right now and so we make stuff stuff up to fill in the time ? and if so then why we do this ? Why not just let it go and not say nothing at all ? Altho if we do this then are we not guilty of indifference to the issues facing those excluded by our silence ? + so howeever, whichever, these factors are really important to some people. And without any considerations of them then I think that the question wont produce a sufficient answer. Is more likely to produce a long something something about something different. Which is often the case dont you think ? before we ask questions then should we not careful consider the difficult circumstances we can create unwittingly for people sometimes. Even when we have no understanding of what them difficulties might be. Or even that they might or might not be a actual difficulty at all ? Just that it might seem like they do and when so the difficulty of the circumstance can be real even when the issue is imagined, or is that not the case ? + with out careful consideration of the whichevers then people can easy misunderstand whatever is the question. Or even whatever their answer is about. Or even that they even have any answer or any question. Or whichever which then posit something else to consider. Is this pertinent. And if not then is it impertinent ? Or is it that we just dunno either way or even we dunno, bc we never actual got this far already. bc we fell asleep way before now (:

World \ About Land \ Objects \ Auto return other Residents' objects if set this to say 3 minutes then they can rez. If they dont Sit on their vehicle it will be returned to them after 3 minutes. If they Sit on their vehicle then it wont be returned until they Stand, so they can drive it until they do Stand the others to set (tick to enable) are: World \ About Land \ Options \ Build \ Everyone World \ About Land \ Options \ Build \ Run Scripts + for visitors, building and rezzing are the same thing. What seperates them is the Auto return time