You appear to have zero understanding of the subjective interpretation of language or the obvious biases you exhibit for all to see.

All you're doing is demonstrating what I said. You're making an emotional appeal and assuming the guilt of the accused, which has damaged their reputation.

clarified within a sentence or two in a discord chat.

I see! The old SILENCE IMPLIES CONSENT!!

Which we still don't know for certain. The original authors of the source-code that was claimed made up derivative portions in the voice.ai binaries could possibly take this to court and find whether that's the case in discovery ... but most likely this would never be made public knowledge due to the potential harm to voice.ai's reputation.

The law is a complex field much like any engineering discipline. It's foolish to believe the law is objective, it's really much like rational thought: emotional and logical elements are weighted and balanced to determine not facts, but to approximate a probable ideal. The public though isn't a party to a majority of the facts they'd need to make a judgement.

Why would you want to know if the person you're dealing with is a "thief"? Is this not emotional? If you have any private dealings with voice.ai (whatever they are, I have none and no knowledge or care whatsoever) you're not a member of the general public. Perhaps as part of a settlement the plaintiffs could require you be informed as a private party to business with the defendant.

The reason you'd generally be banned/silenced for sharing such information is that people are dumb. Announcing this in a public space makes your information sharing an attack on the reputation of the author(s). It doesn't matter whether the technical information is factual. It will be interpreted by the public in ways which harm the reputation of the author(s).

As others have said, this technical information is not of interest to the general public. It's of interest to programmers, most of all to the original authors and rights holders. Therefore this information should have been shared with those individuals privately and not placed in public.

Yes, that is why you do not have the Right to Read or view or listen until you've been injected with memory squelching nanites.

The brain may or may not work similarly. It's relatively safe to say the way the brain actually "stores information" is many orders of magnitude from ML models. Research has not gone that far and this subject is another one of those "about 20 years" hypothetical piles.

Methinks ye've missed out on the most important sort of peggin', there, partner.

Those are all part of the entropy of the complete system. We don't have any means of transmutation like Star Trek Replicators, as of yet. That said, the efficiency must be low for the scheme to work in the sense of advantage to early adopters. This obvious fact is one reason I didn't like the design, but it seems others insisted that such was a requirement for a functional system to materialize at all.

I still can't exchange any of these tokens for material goods or services without at some point exchanging currencies. A system like "BitCoin" will have succeeded in my eyes the day I can be paid for work and pay for goods and services entirely using solely that system.

I certainly appreciate discussion about the verse(s), although it's very difficult to source anything corroborated or to verify much in detail. I described the idea I recalled reading about in far more loose terms (from my post above):

I'd like to explain my understanding of it to the best of my current knowledge, nonetheless. The money changers were offering coupons that were useless outside the temple. The livestock and goods sellers were selling materials required for an offering to be made at the altar within the tabernacle. Much like bringing your own soda and popcorn to a theater, temple patrons bringing their own offerings were turned away outside the "marketplace" by "third parties" obviously completely unassociated in any way whatsoever with the money changers or livestock and goods sellers! This scheme allowed misleading advertising and other scams to flourish. For example someone selling the material for an offering might advertise a 1 for 10 offer, then as the patron exchanged currency for coupons to take advantage of this amazing deal and hurried across the floor the merchant would quickly switch the sign to 10 for 1.

So as far as I'm concerned there was some sort of scam going on, because there always is, isn't there? That's human nature to "pull one's self up by the bootstraps" and make something from nothing or preferably as little as possible. The simplification of the verse(s) is good, but I think a better modern version would make it much more explicit that the money changers and merchants in the temple were in fact mostly scammers and deadbeats. Instead, they seem to have relied upon the absolute "do not make my father's house a place of business" and being chased out with a bundle of stands (being whipped) by an enraged Jesus.

I'd need to ask whoever that alias belongs to.

As far as I know the alias was inspired indirectly by discussion related to anime, specifically I recall "one piece", "evangelion" and a number of other series coming into a discussion I had near zero interest in. My point of view was that Japan is, well, kimochi warui, and it was a fad likely to re-surge in the 2010s and onward similar to the 1980s. Discussion turned at points to how Japan was leading the western decline of birthrates and recession in the early 2000s, and we predicted this would recur in the west in "about twenty years" I think he said. He told me he was Russian, he was involved in the demoscene and had (?) attended scene parties, and he was using Swedish university open proxies for contact at the time.

I don't remember ever being involved in discussion of adopting such a nickname. I recall discussion about "BC" coined as "BitCoin". I recall "proof reading for the release" and being offered the ability to "mint" (what they'd call "mining" to elicit greater association with precious resources) pre-release. I turned the offer down and stated that I'd only ever accept the currency as payment for services once it was possible for me to exchange it for goods.

So all that said, all parties remained anonymous enough that I couldn't actually tell you that I'd ever spoken to such an individual. Our conversations dated from around Jan 2003 (invasion of Iraq) through near the end of 2009. Although I'd never spoken to anyone using such an alias (IRC nickname or otherwise), the topics our small group discussed seem to overlap in interesting ways.

What I can tell you about my personal views are that trust and risk should never be involved in such a process if at all functional. Relying upon trust with a 3rd party to make an exchange sets you up for all sorts of risks. Ideally, something like public key cryptography should be possible to exchange risk-less tokens that could facilitate a trustless 3rd party exchange. I recall discussion involving the idea that trust is involved no matter what and ultimately comes down to the moment you take your wad of bills out of the safe.

What do you mean pegging? Ancient tribes used seashells or grains of corn for exchange, it just wasn't very practical to trade 12 tonnes of corn for a horse and saddle.

Energy has the issue that all known processes (see special relativity) involving energy <> mass are lossy in terms of entropy expanding outward and being lost. What we'd need to achieve "AD" is some new physics that would allow that transmutation at approximately 100% efficiency.

The author told me he was "moving on to other things" which was quite a lot of change from the excited "it works!" I'd heard. The general idea is reasonable and that was really what we'd wanted to sell. I disagreed immediately once I heard of the "proof of work" in detail, albeit I didn't mind the idea that burning diamonds for BC was nearly as humorous as burning fossils to propel your Flintmobile. In the end, although humanity was doing well enough destroying precious non-renewable resources I felt that the fundamental idea of evolutionary capitalism leading to cheaper energy = higher profit might actually work.

If we could really get to the point where there is no fuel left and prices are rising exponentially, perhaps that might motivate us?

I don't mind calling it "the book" in so much as worshiping it contradicts "no graven image". I understand "God" to mean objective reality, and therefore taking as fact anything other than fact ("take no other God before me") would be foolish. Ancient spoken-word stories were passed down by representing ideas and concepts as characterizations. This is obvious in the "book of Job" which represents reality as "God", accusations as "Satan" and honesty as "Job".

The original intention wasn't in fact to "supplant" the United States Dollar, but rather provide a new, completely online, theoretically anonymous (given anonymous IP like a 2007 macdonalds/starbucks WiFi) medium of exchange. What if you wanted to pay someone to rip and offer that torrent? What about that questionable cracking or programming job? What if you were Russia and wanted to access western markets you'd been banned from?

Providing this alternative was the original intent. The idea was that currency represents energy at the Nth abstraction. So this is why "proof of work" as it's called now was chosen to ensure minting required an ever growing investment of energy. "BitCoin" was a later choice, actually "BC" chosen to reflect coming first before a medium of pure limitless storage and exchange of energy "AD". That's all far in the future perhaps. We're still stuck here in the now.

I'd like to explain my understanding of it to the best of my current knowledge, nonetheless.

The money changers were offering coupons that were useless outside the temple. The livestock and goods sellers were selling materials required for an offering to be made at the altar within the tabernacle. Much like bringing your own soda and popcorn to a theater, temple patrons bringing their own offerings were turned away outside the "marketplace" by "third parties" obviously completely unassociated in any way whatsoever with the money changers or livestock and goods sellers!

This scheme allowed misleading advertising and other scams to flourish. For example someone selling the material for an offering might advertise a 1 for 10 offer, then as the patron exchanged currency for coupons to take advantage of this amazing deal and hurried across the floor the merchant would quickly switch the sign to 10 for 1.