All ipv6 shortcomings discussion aside; What I think is the more vital problem to focus on is that the governments clearly don't want us mere mortals to expose our own servers running on our own hardware to the outside world (most often justifying that with "it's for your own security" mantra, for we're all deemed too dumb to figure that out for ourselves).
ISP-imposed ipv4 double NAT (imposed on ISPs by the governments, I am pretty sure about that) reduces our devices to all but dumb receivers which are scarcely superior to TV sets. And no amount of STUNning and TURNing, or buying VPSes can realistically fix this situation, when we can't simply connect our devices directly without resorting to some service provided by some Men in the Middle. And it gets worse, 10 years ago I could buy a static public IP from my ISP for some affordable extra - all ports open unless blocked manually in my firewall - nowadays there remain no ISP around to sell those to the general public. Just no such option anymore. Too much freedom it gave, I guess.
So this begs the question: can ipv6 fix that? Will ipv6 fix that? I'm afraid not.
CGNAT isn't imposed by governments, it's imposed by address space exhaustion in v4. v6 fixes it by having enough address space that NAT isn't needed.
Governments share some responsibility here for not mandating a move to v6, leaving everybody in "wait for other people to go first" mode, and one might ask why they've done that but the answer is mostly that governments don't usually get involved in the Internet at that level.
I've not seen an ISP do CGNAT on v6, even when they're doing CGNAT on v4. This makes sense because CGNAT is expensive and doesn't have any benefits for the ISP except for dealing with address space exhaustion. If they wanted to prevent inbound connections then all they would need to do is firewall them.
>If they wanted to prevent inbound connections then all they would need to do is firewall them.
Note that this already happens to an extent. Some ISPs try to protect their users from UPNP attacks and block certain inbound ports. On the outbound side, many ISPs ban port 25. ISPs could have easily claimed security and limit inbound connections far more - but the reasons for these limits are apparently money+security and not a secret government mandate, so they didn't limit everything.
Your theory is contrary to what happened in reality: It was governments mandating router and OS support of IPv6 that jump-started protocol support. Had the mandate not existed, MS would not have added IPv6 as early as Win XP (in preview during Win 2000).
This seems like a poorly-researched conspiracy theory. Nobody is forced to use double-NAT, and if there was some secret policy which somehow has avoided leaking for a couple of decades, you'd think they'd have blocked IPv6 deployments, too.
Count yourself downvoted for disguising your own combativeness as didactic neutrality, not being pinpoint-factual and on-topic and for actually being out to get me with your downvote for disagreeing with people who you think were right.
I think US cloud companies got a huge boost when ISPs in the US handicapped users with NAT and asymmetric download speeds. You basically are forced to use a middle-man to serve to the internet.
With IPV6, anyone anywhere can be a host again and p2p applications have a chance to be competitive with Cloud SaaS offerings.
- Comment sections getting closed for anonymous replies almost everywhere over the course of the last 15 years
- Undisguised surveillance becoming the new normal
- Confinement of all communication to a handful of platforms
- Snowden's disclosures
- Huge datacenters built by NSA to tap into telecom
- Crackdown on p2p sharing
- Push for The Cloud
- Closure of Lavabit and other independent email providers
- Rabid push for phone-based 2fa
- Ongoing merger and conglomeration of everything into a venture-fund-owned megacorporation invisible only for those who call these obvious practices "conspiracy theories" with religious zeal
- Failure of everything initially claimed to be decentrallized to live up the name, including blockchains, IPFS etc
These and many other similar issues combined don't quite make for an illusion that the govenments are willing to allow us to communicate freely via a greater number of tapping and datamining points than they could possibly manage.
Unconditional free money for everyone. Nice story for 5 yo children, but not for those who have even the most basic of grasps on the history of the humankind.
Everyone is free to indulge in naivety all day long, believing the legend that Vitalik is just a nice independent guy who does all of this for the greater good and does not care about money, but the entities behind him are quite notorious for exactly the opposite:
By May 2017, the nonprofit organization (Enterprise Ethereum Alliance) had 116 enterprise members, including ConsenSys, CME Group, Cornell University's research group, Toyota Research Institute, Samsung SDS, Microsoft, Intel, J. P. Morgan, Cooley LLP, Merck KGaA, DTCC, Deloitte, Accenture, Banco Santander, BNY Mellon, ING, and National Bank of Canada. By July 2017, there were over 150 members in the alliance, including MasterCard, Cisco Systems, Sberbank, and Scotiabank.
It's easy to paint conspiracy theories and it's hard to actually do the work. Vitalik is not in any way attached to the EEA - he's just some guy doing work because he thinks it will lead to good things. I think relative to most of the cryptosphere, or most of tech even the guy is practically a saint. Remember these are actual people behind the screens when you spew comments like these.
It's easy to gag opponents with "conspiracy theories" when you don't cut through the actual message. Academician Andrey Sakharov also did his work thinking it will lead to good things. Later in his life he had the gut to admit he was wrong. A researcher's good intentions and the actual use of his product when it falls into the hands of those who sponsored the work are orthogonal.
It was mainly "sponsored" by the ICO, i.e. crowd funded. I see your criticism as generally valid but the facts are upside down in that comment. Ethereum was neither founded nor supported by evil corporations, on the contrary for years the established mainstream lobbied against cryptocurrencies until one by one they flipped when they realized what smart contracts could be used for. Take someone like Warren Buffett, he's still doing it even now.
Ethereum and the crypto space are at a crossroads for sure. You have chains like Monero on the one side, many in the Ethereum community walking a tight rope trying to balance grassroots free software development with mass adoption, and on the opposite end of the spectrum you get stuff like Solana, the venture capital bro chain.
True that, and I am pretty sure that humble, modest and good-intentioned guys working on a project that attracts the biggest sharks in the business can certainly fight against trillion dollar assets of the latter with their bare scientific rigor and austerity to defend their work from any possible overtake.
I hope everyone else also shares this belief, this is how we create belief systems that outlive their subjects and may go on to float freely among platonic solids and spherical cows in vacuum, forever.
As much as I would like to argue against it, things do degrade over time. It is very much unknown how much Linus' passing will change linux ecosystem as a whole ( and one could argue some of his original vision was distorted already ). It is a king problem. Even if you find one good king among all men, what are the odds whoever follows will be at least as good? Usually not great.
And ethereum is very much new. While I personally think it will exist for a little longer, because there is now real money behind it, I think you are right on that generic point ( if I understood your argument correctly ).
It's apt that you bring up another leader, whose ostensible independence from big-money-driven agendas went up in smoke with his initial refusal, then embarrassed acceptance of the CoC that was peremptorily imposed on the Linux project.
Seems most likely that you're not the chosen one to hype this new shiny trendy thing, so it doesn't waste precious CPU cycles on you.
It is only if you have truly, zealously dedicated your life to promote ChatGPT in mainstream IT circles, as in getting paid to do so, only then will it completely unleash its vast potential into the reply form, writing you a desktop OS in Brainfuck that is ready to compete with Linux, OSX and Windows, proving the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, simulating 2^1024 qubit machine that cracks 4096 bit RSA, finding out 23 hidden bugs in x86 microcode, telling you which gene to edit to get rid of peanut allergy, etc etc etc, all at your correctly formulated finger snap.
Full disclosure: this reply was generated with ChatGPT.
Feed it some CMake files from llvm repository and ask it why would the windows build with LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS="all" keep failing, so that it chokes to death in its infancy, and save the humankind before it's too late and there are autonomous human zappers and T-1000s berserking all over the place.
Now, me personally, I seek determination as hard as I can, but keep finding only useless crumbles of it, seeing the way things evolve around me. It takes an enormous inner stoic to become e.g. a painter these days when AI imagery is all the rage. Or maybe an inner visionary, for this AI fad might be destined to be blown away as dust by a fresh breeze of spring...
I may not like this but I think these art AI works the same way as artists work in brainstorming process. They stare at a shit tons of some one else's arts all day, and let that sink in brain, let brains do the training process.
This is how you promote a technocrat to be later put in the role of the head of one world government:
You censor, mute, cancel all dissent for years. You turn homes to prisons and enforce inhumane conditions for people to just be able to "get back to normalcy". You turn voluntary to compulsory. You deprive people of individuality by defacing them with masks. You school their obedience with barefaced surveillance. You edit the hell out of living language with bullshit like replacing "he/she" with "they", infesting it with newspeak, you make up 100500 new gender identifications that all camouflage the same psychic disorder, you deluge all the key platforms with hordes of shills, trendsetters and discourse steersmen. You start senseless wars with the only goal of reducing as many human beings to dust as possible. You implant terms like "tin-foil hat" and "conspiracy theorist" as a prefabricated gag, you discredit by associating all independent thinking with lunacies like Flat Earth. All in all, you do your best to make this society a hell to live in for everyone having the guts to tell a spade a spade, or at least to recognize the underlying roots of one's cognitive dissonance. You boil it until it all but blows up.
Then you start moving the queen, that is, the so-called "self-made man" who invented PayPal (not), personally developed the blueprints of Falcons and Teslas (not) and has now been saving the world (not) from the oppression of all things mentioned above by jail-breaking Twitter from the tentacles of censorship, thus winning himself an army of supporters, especially among young, idealistic and geeky. Then you probably make him a key figure in exposing the medical fascism of Corona Era and stopping all the bloodshed stirred up by the "incompetent national governments" of the world.
Then, one day, "ladies and gentlemen (sic!), meet the first President of the World!"
Screenshot this comment when it's almost faded to ivory, with all the cavils replied, to prove that the gist of it wasn't that obvious for everyone back in the day - or maybe that I was wrong, hopefully.
If you think that adding new words to the language to express concepts with more precision was what 1984 was about - you've really misunderstood 1984! (As the Newspeak project undertaken in the book worked by deleting words to prevent certain ideas from being expressed - the Newspeak dictionary became smaller with every addition.)
I don't feel anything personal towards inanimate things like software and corporations, even less so do I want them to treat me personally. For I know that all such plausible pretensions are in fact nothing but mercenary.
Mozilla, why won't you ask your users if they need your products to be personal?
Listen to the echoing silence from Mozilla; the users built them, but they don't talk to the users. Not even on the bugtrackers. They're a bit like FIFA, or the International Olympic Committee - they've discovered that they're totally immune to criticism, so they get more and more bold.
What does it take to make a failing corporation go broke?
