December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

e$ seigniorage (and is this the cost of untracability?)
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Gleick wrote: > Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > >James Gleick writes: > > > >> Seigniorage is actually the Government's interest income on all the > >> currency in circulation. > > > >Seignorage is neither of these things. It is the difference between > >the cost of producing a currency token (like a quarter or a dollar > >bill) and the face value of the token. In essense, its the profit > >margin on printing or minting money. > > You're giving a definition straight from a dictionary--an old one. > Welcome to the modern world. I think you're both right - Seignorage is the interest on the difference between the cost of producing the token and the face value of the token from the time the token is issued till the time it is redeemed. In the case of most government issued currencies though, the tokens can never be redeemed, so the total interest will be equal to the difference between the cost of manufacture and the face value. It is interesting to note that casinos could earn seignorage on their chips in circulation, and issuers of book/record/gift tokens will certainly earn seignorage on their tokens in circulation, and since these different types of token money reduce the amount of government currency in circulation, these earnings will be at the expense of the treasury. > This is a very real issue. To the extent that electronic money replaces > currency (reduces the amount in circulation), it will cost the Treasury > seigniorage--and the government is acutely aware of this. Sure, and this is equally true of cheques and credit cards replacing government currency. As to whether the government is concerned, that is subject to debate. If so, why all the government attempts at reducing cash transactions? > Whether the beneficiaries are consumers, banks, or other issuers of digital > cash will depend on the system. For e-cheque systems, the beneficiaries will be the consumers, in that the money which was previously in their wallets will now be earning interest in a bank account (assuming of course that the bank passes this benefit onto the customer). In the case of ecash (from DigiCash), however, the withdrawal of ecash from an account is done some time previous to it being spent and deposited, therefore the ecash is "in circulation". In this situation, the ecash issuer will earn seignorage on all the circulating ecash. Two questions arise: - What will be the typical time between the withdrawal of ecash and it being deposited? - Does the untraceability of ecash (of all types) rely on a time delay between withdrawal and deposit (I guess it does), and if so, is the interest that the consumer inevitably loses (and the ecash issuer gains) the price the consumer must pay for untracability of transactions? Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)kampai.euronet.nl> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

2 1

Someone's screwing around with anon.penet.fi
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's another one of them unsolicited messages from anon.penet.fi. I have a feeling lots of people on the Cypherpunks list are going to be getting these... My first post to the list was only about two days ago, and someone's already messing around. :( > Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 16:42:14 +0300 > From: System Daemon <daemon(a)anon.penet.fi> > To: steve(a)edmweb.com > Subject: Anonymous code name allocated. > > You have sent a message using the anon.penet.fi anonymous forwarding service. > You have been allocated the code name an577024. > You can be reached anonymously using the address > an577024(a)anon.penet.fi. > > If you want to use a nickname, please send a message to > nick(a)anon.penet.fi, with a Subject: field containing your nickname. > > For instructions, send a message to help(a)anon.penet.fi. > >

2 1

Re: Someone's screwing around with anon.penet.fi
by walter＠cithe302.cithep.caltech.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <cypherpunks.Pine.BSF.3.91.960406114609.5026B-100000(a)kirk.edmweb.com> Steve Reid <steve(a)edmweb.com> writes: > Here's another one of them unsolicited messages from anon.penet.fi. I also got one of these right after I posted to cypherpunks. I normally just lurk, and the address that was used is the machine I read and post news on(we have a gateway to the mailing list). So I am pretty sure it is related to my posting to cypherpunks. I have written to the administrators at anon.penet.fi asking about this and informing them. I'll pass on any relevant info they send me. -Chris walter(a)cithe501.cithep.caltech.edu

2 1

RNG_DEVICE Environment Variable?
by rngaugp＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Considering a couple of RNG hardware manufacturers use different >names for device interfaces, perhaps it would be 'convenient' to >have apps look for the environment variable RNG_DEVICE which gives >the name of whatever device is used (rnadom$, random, rand, even >lpt2...) or even a special file that is mixed periodically by a cron >job (noiz.c?). >The assumption is that reads from that device would return "truly >random" bytes (not from a pseudo-RNG), either from specialized >hardware or a system-noise sampler such as noise.sys (DOS) or >random.c (Linux, FreeBSD). >How software would handle not getting enough bytes is another matter, > >perhaps left configurable to the app. > >Rob. My hack to PGP to support RNG uses the varriable RNGDRIVER, but is in config.txt, not the environment.

1 0

Re: ACM/IEEE Letter on Cryp
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:25 PM 4/6/96 -0500, Dave Banisar wrote: >The export language comes from the origional Cantwell bill and orders the >Commerce Sec. Could somebody re-post that Cantwell bill? >to allow export of mass market software and allows somewhat more >limited export of non-mass market software dependng on what is available to >banks in that country. Which country? The country to be exported to? This bill is starting to sound distinctly manipulative! Remember, once it's out of the country, it can be sent _anywhere_ so it is pointless to include any destination distinctions, including "terrorist countries." And what happens if the only software available to banks in that country (by their law) requires some sort of key-escrow function, even if that country allows non-escrowed encryption to citizens? Do we get to export or not? It's already beginning to smell. The original claim, as I recall, was that export would be allowed if something was already available with at least as high a level of protection. No distinction as to _where_ that software was available. That would be a fairly broad allowance. Now, we are seeing that the evil hand of government is being inserted into the equation: Suddenly, what their government ALLOWS BANKS is the distinguishing factor. GRRRRRR! This is _exactly_ why I want to see this bill BEFORE it is officially introduced, and why everyone else here should as well. >Its not ideal Maybe it should be. There is already serious doubt as to whether this bill could even hope to pass before the end of the current session. That's not surprising; it will be introduced very late. If it can't pass, I see absolutely no reason to include misfeatures in a bill that will have many months to be re-written before the next session. Nothing is set in stone; it can all be changed _if_ it's not part of some sort of secret deal. The way I see it, if there is not a strong probability that it will be voted in, there is no reason to introduce a flawed bill. Even more so, there is no reason to support a hurried bill if the apparent reason for the hurry is to ensure that the bill contains "features" that will be hard to remove in the future. If Burns can't do it right soon enough to pass, he needs simply take an extra month or two and publicize the _corrected_ bill on (surprise!) the Internet, and worry about introducing it in the next session of Congress. (He'll get the election-year political benefit just as effectively. Pardon me for being cynical.) I can't see that anybody is going to hold a little delay against him. >(I think the limits on non-mass market >should be the same as mass market- almost none except for a limited number of >"terrorist" countries (we'd get killed if we argue that those should be >eliminated) but overall much better than leahy's and somewhat better than >goodlatte's bill. Pardon my language, but WHAT THE HELL IS "MASS MARKET SOFTWARE"? _Everybody_ wants their software to sell as many copies as possible; what is the difference between something which sells 10,000 copies and something that sells 10 million? Is this bill a sop to Egghead software? Is the legal difference going to be cost? Say, anything less than $1000? That would at least make a distinction that has a certain level of precedent behind it, since export licenses have had minimal-dollar-value exceptions built in for a long time. What about freeware/shareware? And you didn't answer my question about whether key length alone was a distinguishing feature, or software function. This is not looking good. Too many conditions? Too many exceptions? Too many caveats? Why can't those sleazy politicians give us what we want? Ooops, I just answered my own question. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Remove my name from this distribution list
by rakers＠flash.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Remove my name from this distribution list, thanx.

1 0

Re: HANDS UP!
by Chevelle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey guys if there's anything I can do to help Kevin out anything at all please let me know! chevelle out....At 07:14 AM 4/5/96 +0200, THE HIJACK-CREW wrote: >HI THERE! THIS IS etoy! > >"the digital hijack" is NOW running ! > >the internet-underground has decided: it is definitely time to blast SOUND >and ACTION into the net !!! > >our software-agents have invaded the main searchservers... > >++++for more information check out : http://www.hijack.org/++++++++++ > >or get kidnapped live --> go to infoseek (netsearch-button on your browser) >and search for: > >UNDERGROUND - CENSORSHIP - DISCO - XTC - CLINTON - PORSCHE - CRACK - >KRAFTWERK - ELVIS - TERROR - PENTHOUSE - SEGA - MONDRIAN - SEXPISTOLS - >FIREARMS - TARANTINO - DJ - STONES - NETWORKS - BASE - CRIME - WAR - >BUSINESS - WOMEN - NET - SOCIETY - ART - CASTRO - PARADISE - ATHLETICS - >PULP - CYBER - YELLO - PETSHOPBOYS - REM - HUSTLER - BITCH - GUEVARA - >SEVESO - MELODYMAKER - PORNO - GABBER - ROLLERBLADES - REBEL - OASIS - >COMMUNICATIONS - PLAYBOY - BELGIUM - ORB - AND MANY MORE... > >these keywords will all appear on the TOP 10 - LIST. take the link to >hijack.org to get the hijack-experience like millions of bored >internet-users... > >download the hijackers-sound, get the best pictures and help us free our >friend KEVIN D. MITNICK, THE SUPERHACKER (charged for electronic-terrorism, >maximum sentence: 460 years prison) ! > >we would be very happy to welcome you on our site. spread this new >internet-lifestyle to your friends and to internet-freaks + surfers ! > >this is a underground art-project not a bastard-business mail. our grab >robot "etoy.IVANA" got your email-address by cruising the net. > >for the hijack-crew etoy >MARTIN KUBLI > >email mailme(a)etoy.com >fax ++41 1 363 35 57 >_______________________________________________________________________ >http://www.hijack.org/ >for highres-pictures: ftp.etoy.com /press > > >etoy: >leaving reality behind...abusing technology...flashing the net > >

1 0

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:27 PM 4/6/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >This model, is, I contend, the model with which courts are familiar. They >know that Alice can retrieve the funds, so they simply order her to. If she >does not comply, contempt of court. Q.E.D. > >What of a different model? What if, say, her funds are in a "time lock >deposit," with the bank unwilling or even unable (cryptographic protocols >involving multiple key holders) to retrieve the funds until, say, 2010? >Even if she is being tortured to death and pleading with the >Gemeinschaftbank of Zurich to please, pretty please, release her funds, >they cannot. > >It may take some convincing, and some education of the court (a la the >education that is slowly happening, as in the CDA case), but eventually it >will be realized that "contempt of court" is not applicable. I look at it this way: It is inappropriate to look just at the desire of the court and its sanctions, it is necessary to study what kind of "crimes" are normally dealt with in such a fashion, and why they need to be crimes in the first place. Over time, technology is dramatically increasing our protections: From locks to alarms to monitoring systems to remote cameras, with bank accounts that are secure from ordinary criminals, we are becoming less and less dependant on government for our security. Since the ostensible purpose of courts is nominally to protect us, if those protections begin to be replaced by technology the logical conclusion is that courts will become less numerous and less powerful. The problem is, that isn't happening, and the reason is that organizations tend to act in ways to protect their own power and influence. In fact, the average citizen is subject to far more theft of his assets BY THE GOVERNMENT than by common criminals, so at some point we have to realize that the government is now a net problem, rather than being a net solution. I think that most crimes that subpoenas would normally be used for are probably not crimes at all, and are probably "malum prohibitum," not "malum in se" crimes. And in the future, they would likely be used to harass political enemies, as harassment was done in the 1950's and 60's. This means, for anybody of a libertarian bent, that it would actually be better if the government could be rendered incapable of enforcing them. Naturally, governments and courts will resist, but that will be irrelevant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:00 PM 4/6/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: > To me this entire thread has threatened to suggest to people that they > need only thumb their noses at the authorities, be it by cryptographic > protocol or otherwise, and sit back in their easy chair and smile to > themselves. [...] > > I understand that direct confrontation with government is appealing to > the authority hater. (I happen to be one). Overt resistance, however, > of the character suggested by Mr. Bell and others, is going to cause > problems in two ways. Firstly, its going to cause the individual > resister a good deal of headaches. Secondly, its going to make bad law > eventually. On this you are simply wrong: As Jim Bell pointed out, the current level of repression would have been unthinkable thirty years ago, and it has occurred with very little actual violence. 99% pure bluff. The authorities are generally reluctant to risk their reputation capital by direct confrontation. Government projects an image of being all powerful, but in fact they are in the same position as the lion tamer bullying his lions or the Mahout commanding the elephant to drag logs. Somebody complained that the image I put in by CDA protest was not obscene, mererly indecent (due perhaps due to the lousy dithering which obscured certain crucial features of the image) -- so I amended it to one which is definitely obscene. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Unicorn of Color
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:00 PM 4/6/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Far be it from me to question the legal advice BU/Uni/Dirsec provides, > >Unicorn is fine, don't be snide. Not meant to be snide, even if sounded that way. I just get confused by your various nyms, as some call you "Uni," others call you by what I presume is your real name (rhymes with Galois), and you sometimes sign your messages "Dirsec." Also, I am hesitant to call you "Black Unicorn," as applying the adjective "black" to a person is illegal in some jurisdictions, and "Unicorn of Color" does not ring true. (But I grew up calling blacks "colored people," and gladly switched to the more noble-sounding "black" in the 1960s, and now I almost vomit everytime I hear some radfem lesbian claim "All wimmin are people of color!!!!" Yeah, colored people. My, how the worm has turned....) Hope this clears things up. --Tim 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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2