Talk:Ralph Merkle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Advisor?

Hey Matt, is it perhaps the case that Martin Hellman was Merkle's advisor? Diffie-Hellman isn't a person. ;-) (I'd have fixed it myself but I suspect you have the reference at hand.) Peter 05:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*grin*! Oops, I'll have to go into the library tomorrow and look it up again to see which of Hellman or Diffie it was... — Matt 17:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It has to be Martin Hellman. First, I just sort of know this (but do not have a reference handy, Merkle's thesis doesn't seem to be available). Second, Whitfield Diffie has never been a professor at Stanford. But, it would be nice to find a solid reference before putting the fact in. Peter 18:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merkle trees

I fixed the red link for "Merkle trees" to point to my new article on Hash trees since I think they are the same thing. Although I am not entirely sure and will try to verify that. An hour of googling did not give me a conclusive answer. (The only proper description of Merkle Trees I found was on RSA labs site and very confusing.) --Davidgothberg 01:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, update. I found some trustworthy sources and good descriptions: Merkle trees as invented by Merkle is the same thing as hash trees. Aparantly he invented them as a part of a crypto key handling system for signing messages back in the 70's. --David Göthberg 04:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Merkle, Freitas & Collins dispute

It is disingenuous to delete it and leave nothing because the major dispute did occur [1][2][3]. If you don't like that I wrote about myself (I tried to be as impartial as I could, per Wiki rules) write a line yourself. I am so tired of Wikipedia's bias! This sort of thing is what started the fraberj dispute in the first place as I was blocked wrongfully and you will notice admins refused to block this IP after lengthy explanations on the dispute given so please stop screaming "fraberj sockpuppet". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted again one time to express good faith at attempting to arrive at consensus on this. I hope that is respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont get it.... you're clearly a bright guy.....

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Don't write stuff about yourself.

Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. Don't use multiple accounts.

Wikipedia:Consensus. Convince the population that you're correct and the article will change.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Use this kind of stuff for backup.

Wikipedia:V#SELF. Something you wrote yourself generally doesn't count.

As long as you continue to ignore this, you're never going to be heard, and you do want to be heard. Don't you? People will just assume you're a crackpot. Prove them wrong. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the "crackpot" who is either bias or incompetent. I was blocked for reporting a hack by Yamla who called this a "legal threat". You are as well unaware of (or chosen to ignore) the rules that say that in Wikipedia you may initiate an article on yourself, proposing it to other editors who should pick it up and rewrite it if need be. But my enemies chose to just delete. When I see the piece of generality stuffed crap that Merkle wrote on me and Wikipedia editors such as you let that go without comment, don't scrape your politically correct finger at me for taking aggressive action. Where is the separate article on my technology? Where are the quotes of my point of view? Just because I'm not one of these political demagogues who calls themselves "professor". And in this case a clear thief.

This is the most important event in history and Merkle and Freitas want it killed. Are you going to let that stand? What kind of a journalist are you? Have you read my side of the story on my site:[4]? Have you really looked closely at the way I was deleted and blocked here? It was a crime! Did you spend some real time studying it? No. So do your homework before making accusations. This is not the Britney Spears article to only spend ten minutes with. How long you live with the breakthroughs going on here is actually at issue, life extension is the main aspect this technology will be used for. Did you know that? Not just for some government to steal away from the maker to make a weapon upon without responsibly involving the maker and many, many other very complex issues. None here even started an investigation on these issues. If you don't know what you are doing, you should bow out.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the Self-replicating machine talk it was decided with consensus that this controversy was "current" and noteable after the writings by Freitas and Merkle. You would know that if you read all the talk there (including the archives) and experts writing on their subject in absence of other's expert abilities is ok if fair and balanced, read your rules. It would be better if you wrote it, however, but somehow you won't which is bad faith. CMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it just looks like multiple accounts now as this ISP is one that rotates IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't rewrite the truth don't delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Collins claims that Freitas and Merkle do not give himself sufficient credit in their book and overrate previous work by von Neuman. Regardless of whether the opinion in their book is objective or rather subjective this dispute does not belong in Merkles biography. There are much more prominent topics to discuss here. If the dispute were important enough to be discussed somewhere then that would be the page on self-replicating machines. Fortunaltly the editors there did find a neutral approach, i.e. by simply listing all contributions. 85.2.124.197 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You left out that this is on a subject more important than Merkle himself: The making of a self-replicating machine (F-Unit System), the most important of all technology [5] as evidenced in the photos and letters from witnesses and the patent examiner himself (video was not used as evidence back then). Further, but not least is the fact that the book was used as cover for Freitas' stealing of the the "Trolley Car Means" at NIAC by such lofty character(s) as Freitas and resulted in such a vicious attack and copyright infringement of the patent's description in the book jointly written by the two which has been described as the "Biggest case since the Magna Carta" by a patent attorney observing the case. The F-Unit case overshadows Merkle and Feitas who stole portions of the self-replicator. You just do not know, sir the value of the facts you weigh or ignore them, as Wikipedian editors seem to do. Frabberj (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that the text of a patent is in the public domain. You can drop that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. The description was copy-written, use of it becomes subject to the limitations of fair use (400 words, which was well surpassed) and I can see you have not read it thereby which is why you remain in the dark (even though it is quite dismembered by the legal battle with the examiner). Maybe if you started thinking for yourself instead of letting these pieces of garbage think for you then you might have an inkling of insight, unless of course the old being partial to some political dogma itch still prevails you. It is your well being you are threatening, amongst others as you side with these thieves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from threatening me. Please also consult your lawyer regarding copyright on patent text. You might read here http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/copyright.htm as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat? What threat? You are paranoid or a hacker third P is involved. Lawyer? He's looking over my shoulder and taking names. Check: 37cfr 1.71 (AT THE TIME THE INFRINGEMENT OCCURRED AND WHEN THE STAMP WAS IMPLEMENTED!) Oh yes but of course, you are a GNU thief, what difference does PROOF of protection mean to you? You will troll on, as I must in response. By the way, are you Merkle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What I was saying is this tech will lead to huge extensions in your life span, that is what is at risk. More valuable than your stupid politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your edits. They are not welcome here and they do not represent facts. You are constantly bending facts so that they seem to support your claims. E.g. while the video you reference above is very interesting the speaker does not claim that self-replicating machines are the most important technique ever invented. What he claims is that "breeding" is the most important technique ever invented by humans. Of course, if someone want to argue that there is a lot of interest in self-replicating machines then all this person has to do is to point out the book by Freitas and Merkle with its 1000+ references. There is absolutely no copyright violation by Freitas and Merkle. All they do is pointing out a few passages in Collins patents with which they do not agree. And of course these passages are clearly referenced. E.g., they point out the lack of references in Collins patents. Given the large amount of material that Freitas and Merkle reference one really wonders why Collins does not admit any prior art. 85.2.20.143 (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia that "all can edit". I could care less if an idiot like you and your corrupt friends "want me here". Most liars and thieves don't want me around. After the scammers like you have ran off all the honest editors you are all that is left. I'll edit until the truth is known and until my heart's content. Got that? I'm getting ready to diff some of you thugs if you keep it up.

And once again, let me add that this dispute does not belong here. This page is about Merkle and not Collins. Merkle is a co-inventor of public key cryptography, which is of course relevant and a major achievement. His opinion about a patent (even if that opinion were wrong) on the other hand is not important. 85.2.20.143 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If Freitas and Merkle are corrupt it belongs here.

Note the following: Going beyond Fair use was found to be the case in the precedent setting case in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, the use of less than 400 words from the copyrighted President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial. This is identically the case in the Collins's copyrighted description reproduced verbatim, constituting the heart of the work. Interestingly, is how Freitas and Merkle seemed to try and mitigated calling them "patent filing documents which are of public record" even though this does not allow use in a for profit publication as seen here in their book: [6]. This and the fact that grant money was purveyed at NIAC involving Collin's patented trolley car means as seen here: [7] all cast doubt on these two scientist's scientific conduct and if you read their and other's book on this the importance of any claimed self-replicator is worthy of note (far more so than any public key encryption work they may have done or other).

Note how user: Guyonthesubway vandalized here by needlessly and against rules removed the talk section here to archiving. Talk proving Merkle's corruption. This is just another on a long list of corruption tactics here at Wikipedia allowed to go on (as well as Collin's improper banning). This is stinking putrid, bald face political skullduggery. Witness it first hand right here!

Merkle, Freitas & Collins dispute

It is disingenuous to delete it and leave nothing because the major dispute did occur [8][9][10]. If you don't like that I wrote about myself (I tried to be as impartial as I could, per Wiki rules) write a line yourself. I am so tired of Wikipedia's bias! This sort of thing is what started the fraberj dispute in the first place as I was blocked wrongfully and you will notice admins refused to block this IP after lengthy explanations on the dispute given so please stop screaming "fraberj sockpuppet". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted again one time to express good faith at attempting to arrive at consensus on this. I hope that is respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont get it.... you're clearly a bright guy.....

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Don't write stuff about yourself.

Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. Don't use multiple accounts.

Wikipedia:Consensus. Convince the population that you're correct and the article will change.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Use this kind of stuff for backup.

Wikipedia:V#SELF. Something you wrote yourself generally doesn't count.

As long as you continue to ignore this, you're never going to be heard, and you do want to be heard. Don't you? People will just assume you're a crackpot. Prove them wrong. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the "crackpot" who is either bias or incompetent. I was blocked for reporting a hack by Yamla who called this a "legal threat". You are as well unaware of (or chosen to ignore) the rules that say that in Wikipedia you may initiate an article on yourself, proposing it to other editors who should pick it up and rewrite it if need be. But my enemies chose to just delete. When I see the piece of generality stuffed crap that Merkle wrote on me and Wikipedia editors such as you let that go without comment, don't scrape your politically correct finger at me for taking aggressive action. Where is the separate article on my technology? Where are the quotes of my point of view? Just because I'm not one of these political demagogues who calls themselves "professor". And in this case a clear thief.

This is the most important event in history and Merkle and Freitas want it killed. Are you going to let that stand? What kind of a journalist are you? Have you read my side of the story on my site:[11]? Have you really looked closely at the way I was deleted and blocked here? It was a crime! Did you spend some real time studying it? No. So do your homework before making accusations. This is not the Britney Spears article to only spend ten minutes with. How long you live with the breakthroughs going on here is actually at issue, life extension is the main aspect this technology will be used for. Did you know that? Not just for some government to steal away from the maker to make a weapon upon without responsibly involving the maker and many, many other very complex issues. None here even started an investigation on these issues. If you don't know what you are doing, you should bow out.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the Self-replicating machine talk it was decided with consensus that this controversy was "current" and noteable after the writings by Freitas and Merkle. You would know that if you read all the talk there (including the archives) and experts writing on their subject in absence of other's expert abilities is ok if fair and balanced, read your rules. It would be better if you wrote it, however, but somehow you won't which is bad faith. CMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it just looks like multiple accounts now as this ISP is one that rotates IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't rewrite the truth don't delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Collins claims that Freitas and Merkle do not give himself sufficient credit in their book and overrate previous work by von Neuman. Regardless of whether the opinion in their book is objective or rather subjective this dispute does not belong in Merkles biography. There are much more prominent topics to discuss here. If the dispute were important enough to be discussed somewhere then that would be the page on self-replicating machines. Fortunaltly the editors there did find a neutral approach, i.e. by simply listing all contributions. 85.2.124.197 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You left out that this is on a subject more important than Merkle himself: The making of a self-replicating machine (F-Unit System), the most important of all technology [12] as evidenced in the photos and letters from witnesses and the patent examiner himself (video was not used as evidence back then). Further, but not least is the fact that the book was used as cover for Freitas' stealing of the the "Trolley Car Means" at NIAC by such lofty character(s) as Freitas and resulted in such a vicious attack and copyright infringement of the patent's description in the book jointly written by the two which has been described as the "Biggest case since the Magna Carta" by a patent attorney observing the case. The F-Unit case overshadows Merkle and Feitas who stole portions of the self-replicator. You just do not know, sir the value of the facts you weigh or ignore them, as Wikipedian editors seem to do. Frabberj (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that the text of a patent is in the public domain. You can drop that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. The description was copy-written, use of it becomes subject to the limitations of fair use (400 words, which was well surpassed) and I can see you have not read it thereby which is why you remain in the dark (even though it is quite dismembered by the legal battle with the examiner). Maybe if you started thinking for yourself instead of letting these pieces of garbage think for you then you might have an inkling of insight, unless of course the old being partial to some political dogma itch still prevails you. It is your well being you are threatening, amongst others as you side with these thieves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from threatening me. Please also consult your lawyer regarding copyright on patent text. You might read here http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/copyright.htm as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat? What threat? You are paranoid or a hacker third P is involved. Lawyer? He's looking over my shoulder and taking names. Check: 37cfr 1.71 (AT THE TIME THE INFRINGEMENT OCCURRED AND WHEN THE STAMP WAS IMPLEMENTED!) Oh yes but of course, you are a GNU thief, what difference does PROOF of protection mean to you? You will troll on, as I must in response. By the way, are you Merkle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What I was saying is this tech will lead to huge extensions in your life span, that is what is at risk. More valuable than your stupid politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your edits. They are not welcome here and they do not represent facts. You are constantly bending facts so that they seem to support your claims. E.g. while the video you reference above is very interesting the speaker does not claim that self-replicating machines are the most important technique ever invented. What he claims is that "breeding" is the most important technique ever invented by humans. Of course, if someone want to argue that there is a lot of interest in self-replicating machines then all this person has to do is to point out the book by Freitas and Merkle with its 1000+ references. There is absolutely no copyright violation by Freitas and Merkle. All they do is pointing out a few passages in Collins patents with which they do not agree. And of course these passages are clearly referenced. E.g., they point out the lack of references in Collins patents. Given the large amount of material that Freitas and Merkle reference one really wonders why Collins does not admit any prior art. 85.2.20.143 (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia that "all can edit". I could care less if an idiot like you and your corrupt friends "want me here". Most liars and thieves don't want me around. After the scammers like you have ran off all the honest editors you are all that is left. I'll edit until the truth is known and until my heart's content. Got that? I'm getting ready to diff some of you thugs if you keep it up.

And once again, let me add that this dispute does not belong here. This page is about Merkle and not Collins. Merkle is a co-inventor of public key cryptography, which is of course relevant and a major achievement. His opinion about a patent (even if that opinion were wrong) on the other hand is not important. 85.2.20.143 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If Freitas and Merkle are corrupt it belongs here.

Note the following: Going beyond Fair use was found to be the case in the precedent setting case in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, the use of less than 400 words from the copyrighted President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial. This is identically the case in the Collins's copyrighted description reproduced verbatim, constituting the heart of the work. Interestingly, is how Freitas and Merkle seemed to try and mitigated calling them "patent filing documents which are of public record" even though this does not allow use in a for profit publication as seen here in their book: [13]. This and the fact that grant money was purveyed at NIAC involving Collin's patented trolley car means as seen here: [14] all cast doubt on these two scientist's scientific conduct and if you read their and other's book on this the importance of any claimed self-replicator is worthy of note (far more so than any public key encryption work they may have done or other).

Note how user: Guyonthesubway vandalized here by needlessly and against rules removed the talk section here to archiving. Talk proving Merkle's corruption. This is just another on a long list of corruption tactics here at Wikipedia allowed to go on (as well as Collin's improper banning). This is stinking putrid, bald face political skullduggery. Witness it first hand right here!

Vandalized again!

Also: The link on Adrian Bowyer has been hacked (of course, around here, as before and perfectly timed!). He was speaking of any form of self-replication as being important. I would love to quote it verbatim but the reference has now been deleted which is exactly what has happened before on attacks to Collin's reputation by these stinking putrid government thug sockpuppets and Wikipedia core admin editors. Further, do your homework!: There was never an existing von Neumann self-replicator of any kind and he stated his work was not rigorous, and died before he could do much on it. Further still, the self-replicator he discussed is not only very general discussion but entirely different than Collin's self-replicator in every way (and used no "trolley car means). It is you who is distorting the facts, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The only person being "defamed" is Collins by corrupt Wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty low standards to attack and delete sections of an article on me for what you disagree here, and you really have not a clue about the science of self replicators. Working with you people is like working with shock jock journalists or something. All I'm saying, is that Merkle is a fraud on what he wrote about me and you know it. You should not ignore that just because you are "open source" and because he attacked my patent and pile on. You are completely incorrigible. Further, you are sticking up for Napster? That's down in the dirt and you appear to be "Napsterizing" self-replicator science which is unconscionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.37.70 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, who blocked Bower's site I was discussing? That's hacking. Just like before when I reported it to police and was blocked by that nefarious "Yamla" as "legal threats" that started all the flaming. Go ahead, hack and block Bowyers site. See if I care, less PR for that fraud. Wikipedia is a total fraud. An "open source puppet". You have no call to scrape your finger about standards with this level of clear unadulterated bias shown here and all over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.37.70 (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also something very suspicious and scary about a psychologist like Freitas teaming up with an atomic scientist like Merkle, both with foreign names attacking a major United States Patent holder like Collins with nothing but a load of hot air. Further Merkle tops the Echelon's and Carnivore's "trigger" words [15], obviously a deep military figure. Collin's comments about the government "stealing his technology" may hold true, seeing how an attempt to commit him by both Quantico MCB (case# N004860, thrown out with prejudice) and the Prince William County Circuit Court (LA 49530) occurred with the chief of police indicating on the affidavit the reason was for "saying the government was trying to steal his invention" (mental case thrown out). Looks like another private scientist/inventor was indeed kidnapped by the U.S. government concerning "globalist" interests.Antiliby (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI... .this user IS CMC again. He'll be blocked shortly I'm sure.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new...Stinking putrid Commissar wikipedia, blocking the truth. 71.114.40.113 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The facts of what happened are source enough because the facts speak for themselves (that they occurred). But mostly, Merkle and Freitas are source on it because they initiated the dispute when he wrote the controversial page in the book:[16]. So the other facts follow as documentation to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.33.233 (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit history and archive merge

I have just done some unusual operations on this talk page and its archives. Here's why and what I did:

• I have merged the content from /Archive 2 into /Archive 1, since they both were so short archive pages.

• I have merged back the edit history of this talk page. So as far as I know it now has the complete edit history again. The edit histories got split up and moved to the two archive pages some time ago when this page was archived through using page moves.

To do the above I had to do some page deletions, page moves, page restorings and some cut and pastes. (In case someone wonders: I could do these operations since I'm an admin. That is, only admins can do a history merge.)

Next time anyone archives this talk page, please archive it by cut and paste. Since then all the edit history is retained here at this talk page, instead of the edit history becoming split up into the different archives. I know we don't have a policy stating if archiving should be done by page move or by cut and paste, but cut and paste is the least confusing of them.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It was done that way to cover up talk on the theft of the Collins patents, as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.10.150 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)