December 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Tim May;Anarcho-phony,cheap fraud and despicable coward.RIP.Got Gabe?
by mattd 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

>> Interesting to note that the system you bash, for the sake of argument lets call it "timmayism" is really in favor of individual freedom (Tim, if you are not a libertarian, which is what I believe you to be, given your writtings, please correct me) << Well Tim just pissed on the faces of the Lib party faithful in a very recent post.Let the archive correct you. >>so things like "domination", "exploitation", "profit", etc... are perfectly acceptable so long as two people consentualy enter into an agreement. << Like those agreements that turned Thoreu into an implacable foe of the state? What planet are you living on? >>The simple problem with what you are describing is that is translates into "mattd decides whats is good for everyone else" << According to APster there can be no "assassination politics Tsar",Whats to stop a few quad anons lurking here to have me killed.My whereabouts and description are known. >>The very basic proof of this is that, given what you are writting, if I enter into an agreement with Mr. May to rent his property, an agreement I am perfectly acceptable to and that I am perfectly free to decline to enter into; he is being an evil landlor-profiteer. I am perfectly happy with the situation, but by your standards that wasn't a "free" (your definition of free baffles me) exchange.<< Your free to enter tammies asshole,you seem easily baffled.Would you like to buy a bridge? >>Hey! I think Lenin might like talking to you, knock on Stalin's door too, since you just described communism. << The right scream 'commies' at us while the MLers scream 'Fash! ' This is how we know we are on the open road to Anarchy. >>| Anarchism is a variant of socialism an7ar7chism (nr-kzm) n. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. so7cial7ism (ssh-lzm) n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Pick one, stick to it. Ah...Libertarian socialism? Anarchism is shorter.I'm picking my nose,you can stick to your funkin wagnells. >>Maybe your read on "free market" is different then mine, but I would say a worker has as much right to not work at a company as the employer has to not employ that worker if he chooses not to. << Todays free markets would not survive the collapse of govts.Tammy may used to pretend to be a 'crypto-anarchist',in favor of the ,'collapse of govts'.Its getting harder to do that now with all these real anarchists about.Choose the two headed dog,anarcho-capitalism as is your free right.Im not trying to convert anyone.Good luck with it. >>Anarchism also stands against state socialism and "Communism," because... Isn't this a little different than what you said earlier? << Im against state socialism and "Communism" What did I say before? Im only human so I sometimes express contradictions.Im opposed to violence in politics and paradoxically support APster.Go figure. >>Anarchism is a very often misunderstood political theory (not ideology,<< >> Hey, enlighten us, show us some background studies, show us some legitimate writtings and test cases to prove what you say. I would imagine I am not alone in thinking you are full of shit with nothing to substantiate what you have to say. << Google is my home page.I have no other God than Google.There is only one Google. >>because ideology means a fixed set of prescribed ideas that are Interesting that you should bring this up. We have seen nothing from you that falls outside this category. In fact, we have seen nothing from you that is worthwhile period. But since others might not know this and because some of us feel bored,<< Very punk of you,cool. we respond. If you really care about the topics you blab about, then get yourself away from that computer you must spend hours upon hours in front of, get yourself into a library and in a few years, come on out and lets have intelligent discussions. Read up on different political ideas and systems, different ideologies and pick the one you like best.<< Like Read in the encyclopedia brittanica on anarchism?Yeah I havent seen that yet. >>The impression one gets from reading what you write (other than, what the fuck, this list used to have decent shit on it)<< When Jimmy B was here is still interesting reading,soightonly. >> is that you have no idea what you are talking about, you musta picked up a little pamplet somewhere that said "anarchy is cool, we bust up stores in the name of freedom" and gone with it.<< Dear Abbie,shame he's not with us and creeps like tammy may are. >>If you are just wasting our time here, which is the more likely explanation, then well, I just hope you don't actually believe the shit you write, there are plenty other stupid people in the world, it would have been nice if this list didn't attract as many as it seems to. --Gabe Well we didnt approach the godwin la-grange point so maybe Ill keep writing this list till some patents run out.There's some thing called a filter? tammy may show you how to use it.Dont let him pick your pockets,or cornpatch ya though.

1 0

"Shoes for industry!" Give May the Boot.
by mattd 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

>>"Shoes for industry!" The general point is that it is going to be very difficult to stop persons willing to die in their acts from carrying them out. Like real anarchists? Ones that propertarians want to shoot.Hard to get em all. >>Planes are very fragile things and explosives can be formed into ordinary-looking objects (cases of computers, coffee mugs, belt buckles, etc.) and with very little vapor emission (smell).<< Reputations are very fragile,tammies is gettin a bit on the nose. Chemical timers even let bombers get away (acid eating through something in a sealed ampoule...). An attacker who opens an aircraft emergency door in flight could also do a lot of damage (to the airline and travel industry, if nothing else). Fact is, soft targets abound. Jim bell picked up on that. >>There are solutions, but not necessarily the police state measures now unfolding. We talked about this a lot after 911.<< Your talking a lot.But your not sayin much.Say something once,why say it again?

1 0

Re: Simplest possible ecash mint.Mays going Simple.Blood Simple.
by mattd 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

>>This is a terribly important point. Implementing this "atomic transaction" would be a major step. Having a Web site that does this EVEN WITH PLAY TOKENS would be a useful step. (Many dislike toy applications, but a site which did this would be a way to play with the software, test the reliability, and get ideas for further developments. The "Play Tokens" would be of literally no value, ostensibly.) << Tammy May Obnoxiously after boosting 'sweet spots' and some rubbish called anarcho-capitalism I now want to play on Xmas day! Fork off uncle scrooge. >>Like a cellular automata, the basic rules dramatically affect future evolutionary paths.<< Like a sneak thief and coward stealing "anarchy".Now the virus seeks to hijack the cell.Theres precedent.Tammy "Mitochondria" May >>With the proper atomic transaction protocols, the rest unfolds naturally. Money changers can profit by returning some fraction (e.g., 0.99) of what they are given. << Im an expert on atomic energy(in favor) and micro-transactions,Dont listen to Dr jeckle May who scorns micro-payments. {Whats a millicent ghetto Dr May? Oh never mind,Ill just have some more egg nog} >>Tim May "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams You can keep your slaves as well and all.No wonder george Mason refused to sign that crap.Tammy boys now free to frantically oil his barrel ,low calibre,large bore.

1 0

selam 2
by ARZU COLAK 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

1 0

Re: More on remailers.
by Adam Shostack 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:21:27PM -0800, Len Sassaman wrote: | | In conclusion, I leave you with a question: if remailer users are reduced | to a small number of high-paying remailer customers for whom anonymity is | not a game, but a matter of life or death, could a mix-net be made to | provide any sufficient degree of security? "No" is the easy answer. Say | yes, and prove it. No. If your anonymity set is small, then using the system calls attention to you, and your adversary can simply attack all the users with physical layer attacks (bugged keyboards, video cameras in ceilings, tempest, etc.). Further, if the user set is small you're probably more concerned with unobservability than with unlinkability or untracability. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

3 3

Re: simplest possible ecash mint
by Nomen Nescio 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

Ryan Lackey writes: > > I don't believe "normal users" should ever interact directly with the > mint; using the mint as a reissue server only in normal operation is a > key optimization -- especially when coupled with tamper-resistant mint > hardware. Easier to develop, easier to operate, easier to audit. > Users should purchase cash from change makers; the issuer could also > operate a change maker, and can handle sales to change-makers separately. You're using some of these terms without defining them clearly: mint, issuer, and change maker. Earlier you said the change maker was responsible for changing between ecash and something of value, presumably including other currencies. Presumably the mint is the cryptographic engine which issues ecash coins. The issuer is apparently someone who is allowed to force the mint to issue coins at will, although the mint is supposed to log and report on such interventions. (Anyone can destroy coins, so an issuer is not needed for that functionality.) Can you explain how these three roles would work in a transaction where Alice gets some ecash for dollars, pays Bob in ecash, who turns the ecash back into dollars? Here is how it seems like it should work. The change maker Carol has a bunch of ecash she stands ready to sell. Alice gives her $X in dollars, along with blinded data to become Alice's ecash. The change maker does an exchange operation at the mint, giving the mint $X in the change maker's own coins, along with the blinding factors from Alice. The mint gives back new blinded coins which Carol passes to Alice, who unblinds them to get her ecash. Alice passes the ecash to Bob. He does an exchange operation at the mint to get new coins and to verify that Alice's cash is good. He then delivers whatever goods or service Alice has paid for. Bob later wants dollars, so he goes to change maker Carol and delivers to her ecash. She does an exchange at the mint to verify that Bob's coins are good, and then sends Bob dollars in return for his ecoins. This sequence conflicts somewhat with your model. Bob had to interact directly with the mint, and you said that normal users would not. But only the mint can verify the validity of coins so it seems to be necessary. The issuer was not involved in this transaction. Apparently he is only there to inflate the currency. You should consider eliminating the issuer, who can easily cause trouble. At startup time let the mint generate its keys and emit a single high-value coin. That will be the money supply for all time. Allow a banking system to grow around this "high-powered" currency and fractional reserve bank loans will automatically adjust the money supply as needed. See Selgin, http://www.terry.uga.edu/~selgin/.

1 0

Improve The Reliability Of Windows With This Product 23233
by k20619＠inbox.ru 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

1 0

Re: simplest possible ecash mint
by Ryan Lackey 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

I don't believe "normal users" should ever interact directly with the mint; using the mint as a reissue server only in normal operation is a key optimization -- especially when coupled with tamper-resistant mint hardware. Easier to develop, easier to operate, easier to audit. Users should purchase cash from change makers; the issuer could also operate a change maker, and can handle sales to change-makers separately. The mint should be able to report to the world exactly how many coins it has issued -- for without this figure, it would be difficult for users to trust that an issuer has not inflated the currency (I think free banking theory would disagree with this, proposing instead that competitors attempt to test withdrawals regularly, but I still think publishing a float figure is important). This also demands that certain keys be generated on the mint and only under the mint's control, not under even the issuer's control, except through logged and proscribed actions. I simply want there to be a way for the issuer of a currency to increase the authorized amount and withdraw the tokens, in a way which is logged by the mint itself. Otherwise, you need an external means of generating the initial batch of signed currency, the problem with currency withering away over time, etc. Much better to make it a clean part of the design. The issuer of the currency would be able to increase or decrease the authorized amount of cash (treasury), and could request from the mint an amount of tokens up to that amount. The issuer could also send coins and have them destroyed, and they would be subtracted from float. The reason for doing this explicitly is that in the future one may replace "issuer manually sets the treasury" with "mint directly contacts an external server to see account balance, publishing that as treasury", with rules internal to the mint on how much of various assets must be held to issue a currency -- perhaps you could have a derivative instrument issued against another token-based currency, where the mint itself held a single large coin in another issue. If you made it a single step (increase treasury directly results in increase in float, by sending coins to the treasury) it would make automatic/external changes to the treasury more difficult, due to the need for a multi-stage blinding protocol. A multi-currency mint would just have multiple accounts of this form, two for each currency, plus associated keys. This makes it very easy to separate mint-operator from currency issuer, etc. > > [linkage of signing keys and external keys] I'd like there to be a way for a textual description of the issue, the issuer signing keys, and external means of reputation/identity to be verified; this is just a question of what keys sign what and how to present it. -- Ryan Lackey [RL7618 RL5931-RIPE] ryan(a)havenco.com CTO and Co-founder, HavenCo Ltd. +44 7970 633 277 the free world just milliseconds away http://www.havenco.com/ OpenPGP 4096: B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F

1 0

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/23/plane.investigation/index.html
by measl＠mfn.org 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

This just gets better and better... "Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration announced Sunday all U.S. airports are required to add random shoe checks of passengers to the already established practice of random baggage checks." -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Hillary style health plan to save US
by mattd 24 Dec '01

24 Dec '01

AU has a national health scheme,I used it to have a graft on my eardrum several years back.Didnt cost a cent. There are gaps in the system such as long waiting lists and poor dental cover,its also under pressure from the economic 'rationalists' esp in the liberal party.The only reason I mention such a creation of the hated state is that it could soon be a matter of life or death for many septic tanks.The foot and mouth outbreak in Britain would have been nipped in the bud a lot quicker had computerized tags been used.There's some scrambling around now in the US to shore up sagging public health infrastructure.What's probably really needed is something like I seem to remember Lady C proposing.I'm boosting 2 things here that on the surface may seem anathema to anarchists.IDs for all and socialized medicine.Am I wrong to?

2 2