December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Something of Interest
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JM provided IRS Inpsector message Number 5, which is earlier than the four I posted a while ago: Return-Path: <owner-pdg(a)ifi.uio.no> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:25:26 -0400 From: IRS Inspection <irsnwpr(a)net.insp.irs.gov> Message-Id: <199707171625.MAA02707(a)net.insp.irs.gov> Starting with these 5 we'll put the full message headers we get at: http://jya.com/irs-header.txt And post here the brief version. JM also provided Treasury's mail echangers: >Checking DNS for MX records for net.insp.irs.gov >indicate (as shown below) three mail exchangers: > >QUESTIONS: > net.insp.irs.gov, type = MX, class = IN > >ANSWERS: > > -> net.insp.irs.gov > MX preference = 20, mail exchanger = tcs-gateway1.treas.gov > ttl = 86400 (1 day) > > -> net.insp.irs.gov > MX preference = 30, mail exchanger = gotcha.treas.gov > ttl = 86400 (1 day) > > -> net.insp.irs.gov > MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = tcs-gateway2.treas.gov > ttl = 86400 (1 day)

1 0

Re: Attention Shoppers: Internet Is Open (NYT, 12Aug94)
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hart(a)chaos.bsu.edu (Jim Hart): >All in all a good article. I have a couple problems with it, >which may be due more to the people interviewed than to the >reporter: The biggest problem I have (obviously) with it is that the premise is wrong: NetMarket was *not* the first company to take a credit- card order via automatic encryption software. Over a month before the sale they site, Bibliobytes made its first sale with an automatic encryption program: the only real difference is that NetMarket used hhtp, where bibliobytes used e-mail -- so their interface is much prettier (and that we used RIPEM where they used PGP). Well before us, people were taking orders via PGP -- the thing about our client was that the user didn't have to know anything about encryption programs. We've contacted the author of the article and he claims that he'll be retracting the claim... we'll see. The Voice already snickered at the NYT's fuck-up in this week's edition. My other company (and the one I have the larger interest in), HKS, is about to announce a point of sale system (called ICE, for Internet Creditcard Encryptor -- don't blame me, I didn't name it) that'll be a drop-in solution for companies, end to end from customer to delivery for soft products and delivery lists for hard products. The problem here, and the one that's of interest to Cypherpunks, is how to change this system, using credit cards and all the loss of privacy they entail, into one using anonymous digital cash. HKS certainly has a commitment (though in word only at this point, since it's vaporware) to support digital cash, but as I've noted before it a very difficult bootstrap problem. There has to be some reason people would use digital cash over credit cards and frankly, I don't see it happening in the near future except by some large power (like banks) decided to support it. The american people keep claiming in polls that they want better privacy protection, but the fact is that most aren't willing to do anything about it: it's just a preference, not a solid imperative. Until something Really Bad happens to many people as a result of privacy loss, I really don't think much will be done that requires real work and inconvenience from people, like moving to something other than credit cards for long-distance transactions... and that's a tragedy. -- L. Todd Masco | "Large prime numbers imply arrest." - Meaningless cactus(a)bb.com | grammatically correct sentence. Right.

1 0

ACTION ALERT! PTO Commission Lehman's Intell. Property report
by Jim Warren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all -- [blind cc'ed to numerous folks] Just spotted this in Dave Farber's interesting-people msgs. Personally, I think that Lehman and the PTO is permanently-entrenched in offering nothing better than band-aids to protect the past. I think that the *only* chance we have for a more-enlightened approach to freedom versus software monopolies is massive, virulent [articulate] *torching* of our Congress-creatures. (At the least, it will force the monopolists to spend much more loot bribing friendly votes from the representatives they are buying.) Like always, freedom requires vigilence AND action. --jim Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. jwarren(a)well.com -or- jwarren(a)autodesk.com 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 ===re===

1 0

coming soon: secure digit
by weidai＠eskimo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- tcmay(a)netcom.com wrote: > Their work involves having the user compute a hash of the document > he wishes to be stamped and sending the hash to them, where they > merge this hash with other hashes (and all previous hashes, via a > tree system) and then they *publish* the resultant hash in a very > public and hard-to-alter forum, such as in an ad in the Sunday New > York Times. Can you give a more detailed description of the system? The specific question I have is how exactly does a third party know that a time stamp is not forged? What algorithm or protocol does he use? If there is more than one time stamping service and if they use different systems, how do the courts know which ones to accept? Wei Dai cc: TCMAY(a)NETCOM.COM in 0009 on ESKIMO -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLlad5Tl0sXKgdnV5AQFjXQQAuIU+eb/yLxrhXWwDwOfuK/rKi7Tq+Pz8 3FFe+BD6ZB+nLrXPnb5geNQuVFQX3K4cW1JEm4dVPvo5DDXFZaM/sH5g2XySrjaz 9FeeTa4wYtEydhJXAlzpENuWxyXTn+NIQov+e5kKQybKgOW5AglwnMexd+ls7o1U juUxkbqdSZY= =FyNB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- PGP Public Key available

1 0

ride to crypto 94 (santa barbara) available
by phr＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The person who I planned to drive with made other arrangements. Anyone interested, send mail to phr(a)netcom.com ASAP, or phone 510-843-8236. Leaving Berkeley preferably Sunday midday, but flexible about departure time and route. Probably going to take 101 all the way down for speed, but might be willing to take highway 1 back for the view. Paul

1 0

WORKING ALONE...A new book
by felsher＠tmn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

List members will be interted in acquiring WORKING ALONE, by Dr. Murray Felsher (Berkle, NY) just published. Felsher, a former professor and former NASA and EPA headquarters scientist, left government employ (that's quit --- not retired) without paycheck and without pension in 1980. He formed an aerospace consulting firm and began publishing newsletters. He has been so engaged since then --- working alone! WORKING ALONE, now available at your local bookstore, is comprised of 67 short (1-5 page) pieces which detail the mindset required to undertake such a venture, and the experiences encountered along the way...

1 0

Cray/NSA Info
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SUBJECT: CRAY COMPUTER CORP. AWARDED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CRAY-3/SUPER SCALABLE SYSTEM COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Aug. 17 /PRNewswire/ via INDIVIDUAL, Inc. -- Cray Computer Corp. (Nasdaq: CRAY) and the National Security Agency (NSA) have entered into a joint development contract, valued at up to $9.2 million, to produce a CRAY-3/Super Scalable System (SSS). The CRAY-3/SSS will be a hybrid high performance system that will offer vector parallel processing, scalable parallel processing and the combination of both. Under the terms of the contract, Cray Computer Corp. will be paid up to $4.2 million for development costs, and the Government will provide approximately $400,000 in software consulting services. The company is responsible for the balance of the development costs. In addition, the company will have rights to use certain Government technologies. George Cotter, chief scientist for the NSA stated, "NSA selected Cray Computer Corp. to develop the CRAY-3/Super Scalable System because of its advanced technologies and the CRAY-3 architecture. This is an important initiative of the Federal High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program." Chuck Breckenridge, executive vice president for Cray Computer Corp., noted, "The CRAY-3/SSS will provide unparalleled performance for many promising applications. We are pleased to participate in this transfer of Government technology and we are eager to help potential customers explore and develop appropriate applications." This development project is based on a September 1993 feasibility study recommending a hybrid supercomputer composed of a CRAY-3 and a large number of Processor-In-Memory (PIM) chips, developed by the Supercomputing Research Center (SRC: Institute for Defense Analyses). The SRC will provide significant technical assistance in both the software and hardware aspects of the system. The Government's technology transfer program is intended to maintain the country's technology leadership position by providing a cost sharing arrangementfor development and commercialization of advanced Government technologies. The high performance system will consist of a dual processor 256 million word CRAY-3 and a 512,000 processor 128 million byte Single Instruction- Multiple Data (SIMD) array. This CRAY-3/Super Scalable System will provide high-performance vector parallel processing, scalable parallel processing and the combination of both in a hybrid mode featuring extremely high bandwidth between the PIM processor array and the CRAY-3. SIMD arrays of 1 million processors are expected to be available using the current version of the PIM chip once this development project is completed. The scalable array will connect to the CRAY-3 memory interface and will be addressable as standard memory to facilitate use of the SIMD array with minimal delays for data transfer. The PIM chip, containing 64 single bit processors and 128K bits of memory, was developed by the Supercomputing Research Center for NSA, and tested on a Sun/SPARC workstation with a parallel version of the C language. Cray Computer Corp. will package PIM chips utilizing its advanced multiple chip module (MCM) packaging technology that allows the CRAY-3 to operate with a record breaking 2.08 nanosecond clock rate. The PIM chips are manufactured by National Semiconductor Corp. The CRAY-3/SSS is expected to be demonstrated in the first quarter of 1995. After this initial demonstration, interested parties will be invited to try out other applications. The CRAY-3 memory interface bandwidth will allow the application specific SIMD array to provide dramatic performance improvements over existing architectures for bit and image processing, pattern recognition, signal processing, and sophisticated graphics applications. A notable strength of the SIMD processor array is variable precision floating point for those frequently occurring applications requiring less (and sometimes more) than the standard 64 bit IEEE floating point arithmetic. A substantial applications base is available for the CRAY-3 and Cray Computer Corp. is committed to working closely with customers to develop traditional high performance vector and scalable applications. For suitable applications, the SIMD processor array option offers up to 32 Trillion Bit Operations per Second and provides price/performance unavailable today on any other high performance platform. The CRAY-3 system with the SSS option will be offered as an application specific product and will be well positioned in the evolving supercomputer marketplace. Seymour Cray stated that, "The CRAY-3/SSS development project leverages the Company's existing technologies and accelerates our program to develop parallel architectures and software to reach the TeraFLOPS performance level. I see a strong SIMD architectural component as crucial to a complete parallel supercomputer capability." Cray Computer Corp. is engaged in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of CRAY-3, CRAY-3/SSS, and CRAY-4 supercomputer systems. /CONTACT: Terry Willkom, president, or William Skolout, CFO, 719-679- 6464, both of Cray Computer; or Mary Ann Phillips, director of Corporate Communications, of National Semiconductor, 408-721-2646/ (CRAY)

1 0

e$: buyinfo, internet commerce, and GMU
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:41 PM 8/20/94 -0400, Pat Farrell wrote: >C'punks: > >There is another Professor Denning who is chair of a CS department >in the Washington DC area. Here is a position paper that was >published in a packet distributed at the 1992 Computers, Freedom, and >Privacy conference (CFP-2) Washington DC. > [snip] >Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There are some people from GMU ("Coalition for Electronic Markets; George Mason Program on Social and Organizational Learning") talking about superdistribution schemes (one put an article in the new Wired) and internet commerce on the new (?) www-buyinfo list I just started watching. The buyinfo folks seem to be reserecting the discussions which used to take place on the imp-interest list, which has pretty much croaked. They are talking on buyinfo about secure mosaic, digital signatures, digital cash, etc. I think the list is driven by majordomo and its address is: www-buyinfo(a)allegra.att.com If anyone has comments on this bunch, it may be interesting to hear them here. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

2 1

Re: In Search of Genuine DigiCash
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 AM 8/21/94 -0700, Hal wrote: >One difference between ecash and bonds is that bonds generally pay interest >(to the bond holder, not to the lender!), while ecash may not. I also >suspect that most ecash will have a fixed maximum lifetime beyond which it >is no good, due to technical problems in keeping lists of spent notes. So >it would not necessarily be callable in theway Bob describes. We could equivocate back and forth about who the lender is in this case. It's the behavior of the financial instrument I'm talking about. At some point, the principal goes away and has to be called from wherever it is (a bank account, the money market, etc.) to meet a cashed-out piece of digicash. In the meantime it earns interest. Thus it has principal, and interest, and it is called. It's a callable bond. If it has a fixed maturity, it's still a callable bond. If it's a perpetuity, it's a callable bond. It doesn't matter who gets the interest. It doesn't matter what the exchange fees are, it still behaves like a callable bond. The market will pay discounts or premia on them, and thus price them, just like any other fixed income instrument with a call provision. A callable bond, in other words. I'm not sure the lifetime issue is a big deal now, because the durations on these instruments are probably going to be pretty short. Like I said before, people will eventually get used to hanging on to digital cash until they need to spend it. That keeps it out of circulation longer, and the duration up. At some point in time people will spend a piece of digital cash several times before it goes back to the bank. That will keep the duration up also. >Fair? Who cares? The question is, is it useful? Sure it is. I'd rather >use cash which bore interest than that which didn't! Sure, it's a little >more complicated to buy something with notes which are worth $1.05 - $1.10 >than $1.00, but that's what computers are for. The value increase accrues >to whomever holds the note during the time they hold it. I think the complexity is probably not worth it. Suppose you get a piece of digital cash that's been out there a while, say 10 years (it's not likely, ever, but I'm using it to make a point). 1 dollar at say 10% compounded for ten years is 2.59. It's like winning the lottery, for no reason except the person you last transacted business with paid you old cash for what you sold him. It's not fair. That's what I meant by not fair. >>The solution is, keep the interest, use the money to fund the issuer's >>operations. If that's not enough, charge exchange fees. A competitive >>market will sort out who's got the most efficient operations, and thus >>ecash users get ecash at its most efficient price. > >Sure; just don't say "the solution is". You issue non interest bearing >notes and live on the float; I issue interest notes and live off the >exchange fees. Let the market decide. Agreed. "A solution is", then. There are many ways to skin a cat. I think you'll find that the overhead of my system beats yours, and lets me price my cash more competitively in an efficient market. That's why I said "the solution is". Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

3 2

Re: ecash-info
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:02 PM 8/19/94 -0700, Eric Hughes wrote: > Anyway, when I screwed up the guts to ask, Chaum told me that the going > price for the underwriter's license/code was $275K plus a percentage of the > net profits. > >It's no small wonder that he's not gotten anywhere. Anybody who wants >an operational cut of a finance system is asking for way more money >than anybody might want to pony up. A bank (or similar) wants to buy >technology, not a partner. Here I was thinking it was common knowlege, and that's why I never said anything about it. I have to say that I have several friends who build real good financial models for portfolio analytics, and they get a cut of the trading profits. A bank is one of his customers. Of course, they're in Switzerland. I'm sure it happens on this side of the Atlantic with people who do currency analysis. Soft dollar stuff is a pretty common way to pay for research and software. That said, I think that there are probably cleaner ways for him to make money, like leasing his software, for instance. > the increase in traffic about his inactivity in promotion leads me to > believe that he's either working hard in getting his product market-ready, > which makes sense, or he's dropping the ball, which I would charitably say > is an unfair reading of the facts. > >A third possibility is that he's just not getting anywhere. If you >want too much money for what someone else is willing to pay, you don't >make a sale. Agreed. I was trying not to tread on the sainted reputation of the master by using the word "charitable". I count your "third possibility" under "dropping the ball", by the way. In fairness, it may be true that he's really trying to bring something to market. We may never know until we read about it on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, or in the same paper's legal notices... >There are three potential benefits from any Internet money system: > >1. The ability to transact and settle to the outside banking system. [snip] >Here's the crux. ONLY property one has large and direct and immediate >economic benefits to the issuer. [snip] >If you were a bank, would you pick system 1, 2, or 3? System one will >result in direct customer fees. [snip] >So, with these three kinds of transaction systems in competition with >each other, which do you think will win? > >Let me answer that for you. It's system 1. > >Now Chaum wants to offer system 3, and it's expensive to purchase. >Surprised at lack of success? Not at all. I think you're right. It goes back to the haggle we had when I first joined this list. I learned rather quickly that privacy ain't necessarily the point here. The technology of privacy, in particular strong crypto, yields something useful in a much larger arena digicash and other e$. Privacy is a beneficial byproduct of immediate and final clearing on the internet through digicash. It is not necessary and sufficient for it's use. It's possible that Chaum is immersed in the cryptographic details that he thinks that privacy is digicash's primary selling point. It certainly is the enabling technology. However, it seems that his marketing approach to date has been more product driven ("Look, you can fly, and we'll let you do it, but you'll have to do it our way.") possibly sales driven ("C'mon, fly, and I won't bother you anymore."), but certainly not market driven ("Look what you can do if you fly!"). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

2 1