December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an aircraft. Transponders will be affixed to all items of luggage and all passengers. If the system discovers a transponder on the luggage in the cargo hold without the corresponding transponder on the passenger on board, an alarm will sound. I am not making this up. As many of you know, I have long predicted subcutaneous transponders to become widely deployed in the near future. First for child identification and monitoring of criminals, then, as the children grow up, as universal ID, driver license, proof of eligibility for employment, PIN substitute, etc. Today, we moved a step closer to this future. [Note that the transponders will have to be affixed to the passenger. An example would be a hospital style bracelet that stops working when removed. Why embedding the transponder in a hand carried item, such as a card, will not work is left as an exercise to the reader. Even an affixed device does not provide perfect security. You'd really have to embed the transponder in the body at an early age to make removal nearly impossible.] -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:58 AM 8/2/96 +0000, you wrote: >>P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? > >It is my understanding that police need a warrant to tap *cellular* >phones, but not *wireless* phones. > >One should understand that monitoring cellular traffic is *much* more >difficult than tapping a conventional phone, because as the user >moves around in the service area the phone switches to different >repeaters, often several times during a conversation. I'd have to disagree on that point. Monitoring cellular traffic requires nothing more than a cellular phone, and some software which enables you to follow calls through the cells, for a total cost of about $500. This is exceptionally trivial with an Oki 900 and a ctek cable (which interfaces the fone with the computer). With this software you can monitor individual cells, choosing to "lock on" to a call made from a specific number, or to a specific number. You can follow calls, and record any dtmf digits. Also the caller will never be made aware that he/she is being listened to. A sophisticated land line wiretap that will not be detectable by the average citizen will cost well over $500, plus you have to install it without the target knowing, etc. //cerridwyn//

3 2

AP story: Police look for Olympic bombing Internet link.
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Search Campus Where Jewell Worked; Check Internet Link By Associated Press, 08/02/96 ATLANTA (AP) - Widening their investigation of Richard Jewell, federal and state agents descended on a small Georgia college campus Friday to hunt for evidence linking him to the Olympic park bombing. Among other things, investigators were trying to determine whether the former campus guard had tapped into the Internet via Piedmont College computers, a campus source reported. Bomb-making instructions available through the global computer network have contributed to an increase in bombings in the United States, authorities say. [From http://www.boston.com/globe/cgi-bin/globe.cgi?ap/apnat.htm ] Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

4 3

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:01:41 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd) > > > to yourself. The burden of proof rests on the individual to prove that such > > actions by a third party are a public nuisance. > > Bzzt, wrong anser. Thanks for playing. A state and it's political > subdivisions does have the power to enact an ordinance DEFINING what > constitutes a public nuisance. They need merely protect > constitutionally-protected rights. States don't enact ordinances, they enact laws. An ordinance is a regulation which applies in a local municipality regulated by a charter. Laws are enacted by a state or federal government regulated by a constitution. A trivial distinction I agree. I would be willing to accept the premise that in practice such terms are equivalent. They have the right to enact such ordinances if their charter permits. No community, state, or federal government in the US is given carte blanche in regards to the creation of laws, regulation, and ordinances. If you live in a state which permits the state government to enact such laws then you have my sympathy. At least here in Texas the state government is not given that job. It is left to the individual municipalities to define public nuisance. Here in Austin the homeless were allowed to sleep at the capitol because it is public property. Sad to say, that day is dead. I oppose those changes as well. I believe it would be a good thing if more of our public representatives had to face the homeless and other unpleasantries in modern life on a personal and daily basis. They might be motivated to get off their asses and serve the people instead of their campaign contributors. Which constitution? The Federal government is tasked with upholding the Constitution, not the states. The states are tasked with upholding their individual Constitution provided they don't conflict with federal laws. Municipalities are tasked with upholding their charters unless at odds with the state or federal constitutions. You make it sound like my local city council person is responsible for the Constitution, they are not any more than I am. > The City of Seattle may not define the act of disseminating anonymous > pamphlets as a nuisance. They may define the act of dissemination by > throwing them out the window of a moving vehicle, as a nuisance. I would call it littering. There is litte reason to expect people to pick up pamphlets from the middle of the street. As to handing them out, that is protected. If the person you hand it to throws it down on the ground then they are littering. It is called personal responsibility and respect for oneself. From this springs respect for others. > YOu are disconnected from reality. I am not going to waste further > keystrokes on this topic. My side already controls the electoral college > on this one. It's not my problem. I may be disconnected from your reality, but reality is observer dependant. But it is your problem because 'your' side is aging and my generation is just now coming into power (ie eligable to run for president and such). With a little luck we might be able to make a difference. All those people out there you look down upon living in the streets with mohawks and rings through their clits listening to Pigface and Skinny Puppy get to make the decisions now. My suggestion to those who support the status quo is to run, run very fast. We are the ones your mother warned you about. Were pissed off enough that we aren't going to use violence and such, we intend to use your own system of rules against you. Ravage Black Leather Monster

3 2

Re: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Because none of these issues have ever been tested in a court of law any comments I or any other person makes (even if a lawyer) is simply personal opinion. To find out what is 'really' going on we will have to simply wait for that first case. Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 22:28:37 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd) > > A. Where does Jim get the terms of the contract he implies from > the simple word "public"? As far as I can see, he simply made > it up from whole cloth. Interesting, but totally without any > legal basis. Public - of or pertaining to the people; not private or secret; open to general use; accessible to all; serving the people. Community or its members; a section of community. Making known to the public; proclamation; printing in a book, etc. for sale or distribution. To make widely known; to advertise. The state of being generaly known; notoriety; advertisement. I first learned about the cpunks list in Mondo 2000 several years ago not long after I got PGP 1.0 off Adelante BBS in Co. Wasn't Eric's girlfriend involved in Mondo 2000? (Hi Jude, I think we will have a RoboFest this year in Austin, as always you are invited) Which would indicate a certain level of premeditation regarding letting people know of the list. I think that qualifies as public, I also think a court would accept that argument. The bottem line is that the list operator crossed that line whether they were aware of it or not. If they feel uncomfortable with this then they should consider very strongly dropping the list or enacting some form of registration more preferential than majordomo's subscribe system. This registration should clearly define what is and is not allowed on this list. > B. I'm unaware that the Cypherpunks list has ever been advertised > as "public" by the list owner. It has appeared in many publications which are intended for general or 'public' distribution in every one of those publications it was made clear that anyone was welcome and the subscription address was provided. The list operators ignorance of the consequences of their actions in no way alleviates them of the consequences of those actions. > C. Combining A & B, I know of know instance where the owners of > the Cypherpunks list ever made any indication that they were > adhearing to the Byzantine interpretation of contract law as > suggested by Jim. (It sure doesn't comport to what I learned > in my Contracts classes.) It isn't my interpretation. Perhaps you should have paid better attention in class. These issues have never been tested in a court of law in the US in regards to computer networks and their special nature. > > > A restaurant or bookstore is a public place in that it is open > > > to the public. > > > > I know of no state in the union where a bookstore, restaurant, > > mall, etc. is considered public. > > Actually, it's the law in ALL states in the union since the Public > Accomidations Act was enacted some time in the '60s (with the > possible exception of Texas, I guess). Not in Texas. We recently passed a law (Jan. 8) which permits citizens legaly registered to carry concealed weapons. Because the way the law was worded it was made clear in many newspapers and such that the ONLY way that business could prohibit patrons from entering their premises with those weapons was because they were PRIVATE property and therefore excluded from the constraints of the law. [When I worked at UT the rationale that was used to throw the dumpster divers off campus was that even though it was a publicly funded school by taxes it was private property (didn't make sense to me then or now). I can also state unequivacly that if the UTPD catch you on campus after 10pm or before 6AM w/o proof of either being a current student or staff consider it a graceful and considerate officer if they only escort you off campus.] Even now there is a big discussion here over whether this is realy a strong enough distinction. It is only a matter of time before a case comes up here to test even this limitation of private ownership (which I happen to support, a person with a gun on my private property is definately subject to my desires and wants, they represent a clear and present danger. If they don't then why do they need to register the weapons and why are they classed 'deadly weapons'?). The really sad part is that it will probably be another one of those shoot outs at Wendy's in Waco or some such nonesense as some loony toon goes postal. I wonder if that was what Jeffeson meant about watering the tree of liberty with blood? If my business property is really public simply because I am open to the public then I feel the police have a responsibility to provide an officer on my premises for whatever hours I am open for business to protect me, my property, and my patrons just like they do at the courthouse, tax accessors office, etc. They also have a responsibility to help assist in the operation and funding of my business (something I oppose strongly) since they have now found my business to be public; as a matter of fact they can help pay my damn taxes. For the record Florida and every other state with 'Right To Carry' laws looks at it this way. It is the only way under the current statutes to allow businesses to control access by gun toting folks. Now there is one caveat that most of you will have caught. That is the definitions of public above. In short, we have a circular argument as the law is worded now. Logicaly the courts have two recourses. They can first declare that no agency has the right to regulate gun ownership and possession (what I want to see) or else regardless of the 2nd, nobody has the right to carry a weapon on their person in public, since police are not awarded special consideration from constitutional law this would mean they could not carry a weapon on their side in public. So the courts eventualy must either refuse to review the case or else they must make some major change in the current law which goes against the government either way. Either everyone gets to wear weapons or nobody including the police get to carry them. Either way with the last two the police are in a situation where they are less likely to employ force for enforcement since they are no longer the strong side in the 'discussion'. > > Legaly a public place is someplace which is operated using > > public monies. > > Like the Cypherpunks list? Citation, please. The Cpunks list isn't a place. It is a steam of characters. Does the list reside on my computer? It does at least to some degree since I obviously have access to discuss these issues with you. It also resides on your computer as well as the thousand or so subscribers. It resides at least in part on the screen of my crt, the RAM in my computer, the network cable, the ISDN line, my providers router, my brain, the EM emission of the computer, etc. ad nauseum. So there is no single 'place' where the list resides, any more than a single place that an idea resides. This whole issue is the reason that I contend that eventualy it will be seen clearly that postings on usenet, public accessible mailing lists, irc channels, etc. are actualy automaticaly public domain in regards to their content. At some point I feel that it will turn out that unless you encrypt your data or place copyright symbols on it with special, and likely convoluted, riders allowing various distributions and storing via computer networks the author of computer text such as this will grant all rights and privileges to the work to the public automaticaly. This belief is the reason that I am interested in crypto, outside the simple curiosity I have about nature. I don't believe the cpunks list has ever been involved in a legal case. As a matter of fact this issue has never been tested in a court of law. Perhaps we should look at forcing a case. The best strategy would be for Eric to throw somebody off the list sureptitously (sp? I put the dictionaries back and I ain't walking over there again...sorry) and then for that person to bring a civil suit alleging infringement of civil liberties (ie equal access under the law). Eric would claim the list is private while the expunged user would claim it was public. We would of course have to resolve the cost issue first. I have two lawyers on retainer for my businesses but I don't believe either would touch a non-commerical case like this would be and I don't have anywhere near the personal capital to finance it myself. As a added bonus we could pick a handicapped person and they could sue under the various laws relating to those issues as well. This would get the whole issue of handicapped access to computer technology to be explored. Currently the handicapped (eg blind) find GUI interfaces nearly unusable. It would be pretty weird (to me) to see court rule that every os and software manufacturer must provide a CLI interface to their products because of the new equal access laws regarding handicapped individuals. > The problem with Jim is not that he doesn't know anything, but > rather that he knows so many things that aren't true. (But I > would not favor enforcing the state granted monopoly on the > practice of law if Jim wants to hang out his shingle. If he can > get someone to pay him for legal advice, more power to him, but > /caveat emptor/.) That is a two edged sword. Where did you get your law degree? My lawyers both got theirs at UT Austin Law School. Both are federal lawyers and both have argued before the Supreme and are currently allowed to argue before the Supremes. The bottem line is that this whole issue is so full of circular arguments and contrary views it may take quite a few years to work out something that makes any kind of sense at all, if ever. Course by then we will have a whole new generatio of technology to argue over. Take care all, and watch your sixes. Jim Choate

3 2

Liberating Clipper Stuff from Mykotronx Dumpsters
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:24 AM 8/3/96, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 09:20 AM 8/1/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> reminded us: >>Also: Clipper was fabbed by VLSI Technology. A few pointed inquiries might >>work wonders here. > >It was made by Mykotronx, using tamperproof programmable gate >array chips from VLSI, though I don't remember whether they were >entirely programmed at Mykotronx+NSA, or whether they were >mostly mask-programmed at VLSI first. By the way, newcomers to the list (I'm not referring to Bill, of course) may not know some of the background on this Mykotronx story. An interesting use of remailers, too. One of the early list subscribers went "Dumpster-diving" outside the Torrance, CA headquarters of Mykotronx, a previously little-known defense subcontractor. Amongst the stuff in the Dumpster, unshredded, he found: - payroll information - copies of contracts with VLSI Technology, the NSA, AT&T, etc., showing the work to have started back in the early 90s - yield information on the chips, and some limited test information - copies of various memoranda between AT&T, the NSA, the FBI, Mykotronx, Sandia, and VLSI Technology - a bunch of other goodies He scanned or typed this stuff he found into a text file and sent it to one of the earliest members of the Cypherpunks list, asking for it to be passed on to someone who could do something with it. A few hours later, via anonymous remailer posting, it went out to the several hundred subscribers to the Cypherpunks list at that time. (It's somewhere in the archives, such as they are. This would be around late April, 1993, possibly May-June.) I later heard that Mykotronx was mightily embarrassed to have this kind of stuff found in Dumpsters out where anyone could find it, and that "the authorities" ordered a tightening up of security. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: SOUP KITCHENS
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:39 PM 8/2/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >I find it amusing that the law is supposedly so concerned with >food purity for the "homeless." Hang out near a fast-food place >sometime and watch the street people dumpster dive for the >half-eaten remains of other people's Big Macs. That is the true >alternative to volunteer feeding programs. (That, or getting a >job.) I thought the point you were about to make when you said "Hang out near a fast-food place..." is that a _lot_ of "roach coaches" are much filthier than any "Food Not Bombs" soup kettle I've ever seen. (Fortunately, people survive all kinds of dirt and germs. If dogs and cats can eat stuff off the floor, and our ancestors did before hot water, soap, and autoclaves, then so can we. Not to mention children. But I digress.) The use of zoning and health code ordnances to harass certain classes of people is nothing new. Like I said, the Boy Scout Cookout and similar "good" events are not bothered by City Inspectors descending on them to shut them down. >The truth is that local officials are perverting the health codes >to harass these operations, not to "protect the homeless." At >it's core, it is a hypocritical abuse of power, not unlike the >invocation of the Four Horseman to keep strong crypto out of the >hands of average Americans. Further, in time past the operation of a "street food" service (hot dogs, ice cream, various knoshing items, etc.) was a way for otherwise poor persons to start a business. My own city, Santa Cruz, has no pushcart vendors, and only one officially-approved sidewalk hotdog vendor. A loss for us, a loss for would-be vendors, and with no gain in "food safety" that I can plausible see. I actually think this shows another side of the harassment of food giveaways and low-cost vendors: it cuts down on competition with the established food entities. While I tend to dismiss "corporate conspiracy" theories about how Giant Corporations are repressing and suppressing the Little Guys, there is little doubt that licensing, zoning, and other governmental restrictions are often used by established entities to keep out competition. Licenses get used for what economists call "rent-seeking" behavior. (Examples abound in other areas, too, such as where large chip companies like Intel actually relish the vast amounts of paperwork they are required to fill out, becuase this overhead and legal burden can be handled by their buildings full of paper pushers, but helps to keep small companies from entering the market. Intel has actually insisted that small companies file the same environmental impact reports, labor reports, etc., that they have to fill out. Understandable at one level, but also an example of using "the system" to put pressure on upstarts. Or, the rent-seeking of professional guilds, well-known to all of us.) As to Alan Horowitz's bizarre notion that "public streets" are not to be used for giving away food, does he believe the same to be true of giving away speech, giving away ideas, passing books to other people, etc.? "There are bookstores for selling or buying books, and anyone who engages in this sort of action on a public street will have his attitude adjusted with my billy club." "Public" areas cause problems for analysis of rights, I will grant. The "commons problem" is well known. But I think that the specific cases we've been discussing, of whacking bums with nightsticks for the crime of not maintaining "proper decorum," and of Food Not Bombs being shut down while the Boy Scouts are not, are clear cases where the law is being misapplied. (Were I a lawyer, and had the Food Not Bombs case come to trial, I would've collected evidence that a large number of other groups were not sanctioned for not having food preparation permits, and I would've argued it was a case of "selective enforcement" for political reasons.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:42 PM 8/2/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:50:01 -0500 (CDT) >> From: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> >> Subject: Re: A Libertine Question >> >> As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a >> problem, but to force some one from cooking food for homeless people, and >> allow a family barbeque, is IMO wrong. > >Not at all. Businesses have no rights, individuals do. Businesses have a <snip> >Blueberries they bought at the local HEB). Individuals have a right to >privacy, that includes cooking themselves food without harrassment. Business >on the other hand are selling products of potentialy questionable quality. A I disagree with your sentiments about Business and rights, however, in this instance, even that wasn't the issue. Food Not Bombs is NOT a business, it's a not-for-profit organization that gives out (not sells) food. They are the same as, I think Tim May pointed out, a Boy Scout picnic, except for the homless, not the boy scouts. //cerridwyn//

2 1

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:36:37 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Jim Choate's dog wrote: > > > Really? Then would you mind explaining why costs rise over time > > instead of going down? > > Gladly. Prices rise over time because of inflation of the money > supply. While it is possible for private actors to temporarily > inflate the money supply (e.g., extension of credit by banks), > only the government can increase the money supply indefinitely. > Inflation is the most insidious form of "taxation." It steals > silently and punishes the savings in favor of consumption. Then why didn't the costs rise at the same rate as the general inflation rate instead of tens of times faster? If the cost of airline tickets matched the rise in milk then my gallon of milk would cost over $10 instead of the $2 (this x5 factor I got from a news show the other nite, I have not verified it) it costs now (and it has remained pretty constant over the last 10 years or so arguing that something has been balancing that inflation rate). Since the inflation rate on a dollar is flat across the board in our economy simple inflation does not account for this rise in prices in a niche market. I guess it could be in the case of airlines because they have had to increase the fairs to pay for the increase in aircraft loss due to crashes and fatigue (airlines are not replacing their aircraft as fast now as they did in the regulation days, one of the reasons Beoing and other commercial companies are having such a hard time.) over the last few years as well as the rise in the price of their insurance premiums since deregulation to compensate for the increased payouts both due to increased frequency of crashes since deregulation and the increase in the payouts to the victims and their families. I would guess that insurance companies don't like paying for a multi-million dollar plane unless they have to. They are in the business of not paying off after all. > > Insurance has become involved in the medical industry, what > > happened? The cost has gone through the roof. The airplane > > industry was deregulated in the late 70's, what happened? The > > price of a ticket went up...yada yada yada. > > Technically, Jim's logical fallacy is called /post hoc, ergo > propter hoc/, after this, therefore on account of this. If it was a single case I would agree, the reason that I put several unconnected fields which share one thing, the loss of government regulation. What we are looking at is a inflation rate for unregulated commodities like milk (for example) and compare them to the difference in operating costs between a regulated versus a unregulated role. It is clear that with a increase of x5 in this area and something like < x2 in the commodities area that something is at play here other than pure inflation. > > If this is so then by your own argument, business are operated > > by people therefor they are people... > > Nope, that's not what I said. This fallacy is called a "straw > man." It is a weak or mistated opposing argument set up by a > politician or debator, etc., in order that he may attack it and > gain an easy, showy victory. A straw man is where I take one situation and compare it to another. I am taking your supposition and applying it to a economic model that fits both cases. Both businesses and individuals survive by trading their outgoing products for incoming products. The issue is whether the rules that apply to one should apply to another. If you look at the gross cash flow between a business and a individual they are identical. Since we are talking about gross cash flow in both cases it does not qualify for straw man status. > > Is your contention that because I own and > > operate a computer it should be given rights? > > Nope. Whatever gave you that idea? Your contention was that a business should enjoy some of the same rights that a person does because it was owned and operated by a person or persons. Since I own and operate my computer and it is an inanimate object like the system of rules and procedures used by a business they are comparable in this case, as is comparison to any other inanimate object. The key points here are that people have rights and your contention that because businesses are owned and operated by people they should have rights as well. My goal is to determine your litmus test (if you will) as to how you determine that a business is eligible for such right but a automobile is not. Simply saying they are different is not sufficient in this case. > > > > Businesses are a system of rules and procedures... > > > > > > Made and enforced by PEOPLE. Jim is begging the question. > > > > Which question would that be? "Should businesses be considered > > people with the same rights and priviliges?" > > Nope. You just don't get it, do you? I get it, it just doesn't make sense when looked at the way you are looking at because you have still failed to elucidate your litmus test. Obviously it is more complicated than simple ownership or else anything owned would qualify. I am simply requesting clarification of the remainder of the test. It is hard to evaluate a theory if you don't have access to the whole thing. Sorta similar to analyzing a crypto algorithm via public peer revue. Generaly considered a bad thing. Jim Choate

3 2

TrustBucks
by TrustBuckFella 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An alternative model of electronic money. Every model of electronic money I know of except one retains some degree of centralization. There is always a central "mint", usually a bank. If you can't find a bank that acts the way you want, you're SOL. And the only thing that enforces non-abuse (inflation, etc) by the bank is the equivalence of electronic money to some form of "real" money. The sole exception is Digicash. Unfortunately, Digicash has no restraint on infinite spending-into-debt. I want to present an alternative model I call "TrustBucks". TrustBucks is decentralized but zero-sum and needs no assistance from "real" currency. Its central idea is a "web of trust": Local, trusted contacts are linked in a web that at some remove can extend everywhere. I'm not going to try to develop the cryptographic protocols for TrustBucks. I haven't got the requisite paranoia and pickiness (compliments both) for that. TrustBucks also has nothing in the way of anonymity and restraint on double-spending right now. If you can see how it could be anonymous or restrain double-spending and still work, please feel free to add. The basic rules of TrustBucks: - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Each individual using TrustBucks has their own individual variety of currency, notated here as TrustBucks( <name> ). Each individual is considered to have an infinite supply of their own TrustBucks. Each individual accepts payment only in their own variety of TrustBucks. There are only two fundamental operations with TrustBucks: A and B swap TrustBucks, of any two varieties. A pays B in TrustBucks( B ) for something external to the system. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Examples: Say Alice wants to pay Bob in TrustBucks, and Bob agreed to accept payment in this form. Alice has several options for paying him. * Alice already has some TrustBucks( Bob ). Alice pays Bob. * The amount is small enough that Bob trusts Alice directly. Alice and Bob swap TrustBucks( Alice ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. I know this looks like an extra piece of complexity, but it's really not. By insisting that only TrustBucks( Bob ) are payment to Bob, we insure that Bob can't manipulate what currency he will accept to his advantage, which would otherwise be a problem. For instance, Bob cannot refuse to make good on his debts while accepting other people's money. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), but does have TrustBucks( Carol ), and Bob trusts Carol directly for that amount. Alice and Bob swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), but does have TrustBucks( Carol ), and Carol has some TrustBucks( Bob ). Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), and Carol has some TrustBucks( Bob ), and Carol trusts Alice directly. Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Alice ) for TrustBucks( Carol ) Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. Using some combination of the above methods, Alice can pay Bob as long as there are accessible parties in the system who, in total sum, trust Alice for the amount of the payment, and there are accessible parties in the system whom, in total sum, Bob is willing to trust for the amount of his credit. Which gives the scheme its name: TrustBucks. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disadvantages: Lots of overhead. Third-party traders must be perpetually available. Not anonymous. Not clear how double-spending can be avoided. Not a true disadvantage: It could "stall"; that is, there could be catch-22 situations where if only some people trusted to begin with, the system could continue, but not enough people trust each other to get it started. I say this is not a true disadvantage because the same thing happens in other currency-schemes, to an equal or larger degree. If it's merely more visible with TrustBucks, that should not be called a disadvantage. In practice, I think the threshhold of trust neccessary to start the system would be considerably with TrustBucks than with other systems. Advantages: Decentralizable. It is not neccessarily decentraliz_ed_, but can become so as needed. Nobody controls the "mint". Few conceptual parts. When counting the parts in other schemes, don't forget to count the parts neccessary to fix or ameliorate problems that don't occur in TrustBucks, like deciding who "prints money", keeping them from abusing the role, stopping others (IE counterfeiters) from assuming the role, and so forth. I don't claim that the above neccessarily adds up to a positive rating, but it's worth hashing out, especially if it inspires more secure protocols along the same decentralized lines. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not the first person to notice that decentralized ideas tend to take off more abruptly and firmly. For instance, PGP vs. Kerberos, or the internet vs. AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve. Especially Usenet and the WWW. That's why I thought a long time about bringing this idea out. Once it's out, it and its successors are beyond my control or anyone else's. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBMgLz8pi7GCxryNrZAQEfAAQApDzHN9PSpARe/MUZgDDk8F+eFLlKNAHZ 5H6KaX3SlWxL9itM8aFMoudpnBU2gAO7Kn9YHV+dFS1l/tE+NJDhSpTRL1EMKVw9 rGrL8lypX9bLsuw0+thMl1djJjQhc3To6qaLhJvZVji7TRXlKYuVMFW5D6Sm988a Zg8nRsCQrIo= =EOKl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1