December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:09 AM 5/16/96 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: > > The entity calling itself jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > is alleged to have written: >> >> But what I'm looking for is full payee/payor anonymity. (three guesses as >> to why...) Can you do this? If not, why not? > > >Let me get this straight. You are asking for full payee/payor >anonymity so that you can institute a program of anonymous >assassination contracts, right? It's not just for me. I seem to recall a comment around here (Tim May, perhaps?) who said that when he first read of digital cash in the late 1980's, the feature of payee anonymity was present, and that he was surprised later to see early implementations not containing this. Deal with the devil? Any "complete" digital cash implementation has to provide for payee anonymity. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

[NOISE] Hackers soundtrack
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Update on an old thread... Apparently it was released last week in England, so it may be available in some import racks. Simon

2 1

[long irrelevant post] Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apologies to other CPunks. I hate theses posts, but I just couldn't let it pass by. On 15 May 96 at 9:09, Doug Hughes wrote: > No, because they are too poor to live in your neighborhood. > Sure, they can live in the same geographic region, but it's still > rural and poor. People live where they can afford to live. Just like volition-free cows? > Are you saying those poor people in rural West Virgina only live > there because they are not trying hard enough to get out? Maybe they lack the knowledge. But does that justify turning me into a milk cow for them? Should I break my leg because somebody else did? Should the common euphemism "to provide" justify the common euphemism "to redistribute wealth"? Or in straight talk, should we distribute free-lunches that were took away at the point of a gun from peoples who produced them by their own work? > >> So, because they live in a poor district they are > >> not entitled to the same level of education as a rich city > >> suburb? Not because they don't live in a rich suburb, simply because they cannot pay for it. Breathing air does not entitle you to anything that is produced by another breather of air... > environment, lack of education, lack of money, lots of factors. Who is responsible for it, who should be considered "response-able"? > Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head saying "Don't Read". Here is an example of "creative mis-reading". What I meant by gun is why hold a gun to *my* head for having them to read? > improving literacy is a goal that needs to be undertaken. You are free to donate as much of your *own personnal* earnings to them. Feel free to do! I, for one, like to help kids to learn to read, to use a microscope, to learn chemistry and physics and maths and sciences in general. I always give my time to any kid that needs help, wether he is 5 years old in first grade or 25 in university. But why stick a gun in my back to get part of my paycheck? > agree that low literacy is a bad thing Yes, absolutely. > and needs to be taken care > of? At whose expense? > But, why, given a good learning environment and an > inspiring teacher would you not want to? You'd be surprized how so many peoples just don't care. We have here a *free* education system up to high school. Then college, which is not very expensive. Then university that cost around 2000$(US) per year. But still, we have one of the highest rate of dropping out in the world. And all collectivists their with grand schemes wonder why... > But the statement that > we shouldn't subsidize >> rural customers because they CHOOSE to > live there (even though some >> are poor and can't afford to live > anywhere else) is just plain >> fallacious. Agreed. But you are building a worst straw man. The only reason is that we should not turn some productive individuals into a milk cow for thoses that are less productive. And the source of the whealth necessary for your grand schemes are those most productive individuals turned into sacrificial animals. Under any governmental red tape pile of paper lies a GUN. > Some people on this list argue that the current representative govt > system is bad, and that true democracy is better. But again, some other peoples think that true democracy, i.e. the dictature of the majority, wouldn't be better, mainly because the issues are too numerous and the individual's knowledge is too limited. Some Cypherpunks want, is "Live and let live", some other "Live and let die" and a few even proposed "Live and let live, of get killed" or "mind your own business or get a prize on your head"... > True democracy relies on people being educated, the more the > better. (Actually, education benefits the entire society.) > >> Just because you choose to live in the city does not > >> mean people always choose to live where they live. > >Who cast their feet in concrete blocks? > Where is somebody making less than $5000/year going to move to? > (Answer: somewhere rural and poor). Or, if you prefer, they can > move into tax-payer subsidized housing? (I'd prefer not, thanks) I lived on that for several years. It was not easy but I could still learn and read. Actually, it is almost the sole thing I did during theses years. And I am not talking about our almost free education system. > >> Education is one > >> thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in > >> this country. > >I think that it should not be subsidized. > >If you feel like subsidising education, then by all means, do it. > >But why should you stick a gun in my back to do the same? What if > >I do not want to do the same as you? > Then you will be living in a country with lower education standards, > increasing illiteracy, and a pretty pitiful base with a declining > socio-economic structure. > Are you arguing that people are not equal Absolutely. Why is it that my friends always got straight A's while I got C's or D's... > and those with more money should of necessity get better education? What somersault of rationalization made you conclude that? Thoses with more money can *afford* more. Only that fact. > You can vote that poor people shouldn't be > educated at all What you are telling here is that education is *only* a direct function of wealth and that wealth is strictly a direct function of education. I am sorry to tell you that reality clearly show that this basic premise is not true. > You don't understand at all. It's not about being people down, it's > about bringing them 'UP'. Dear Doug, would you please tell me where you will take the ressources to bring peoples up? I have no objection if you were setting up some sort of charity fund. > I'm not talking about being meek. > I'm talking about learning to read and multiply 4*9. It was done in the days of non-mandatory, non-subsidized education. Actually, the country (USA) had it's biggest growing period in thoses days. The improvement slowed down with the advent of collectivist schemes. > I'm not getting into this anymore. It's totally off topic of the > list, but I felt I had to respond to your > let-the-poor-be-poor-and-uneducated posting. Not at all. The essence of my post is "do not treat productive individual as sacrificial animal for the unearned benefit of the less productives". You see, I do not believe in sacrifice nor in original sin... > We're straying far off even my point. My point was not that I agree > with subsidizing internet connections for every school in america. > I'd have to be convinced that that is a good thing. However, making > sure everybody has a good education is of paramount importance to > any society. I am of the opinion that giving the country a thorough coverage of the net is of paramount importance. But I do not think that the govt is thinking the same, notwithstanding what it says. I suggest you try to set up a foundation to promote the private setup of inter-villages links in rural areas. It would be great. But to tax for that, to confiscate money from producers against their best judgment and will? OTOH, you might be operationnally (while not ethically) right. I'd rather be taxed for the installation of the net than for some museum... JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

1 0

Re: CyberTraveler Auction - Unsubscrive MoleKule's.
by molecul1＠molecule1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>This is an automated reply to your e-mail request. > >The only way to remove yourself from our CyberTraveler >program is to go to > >http://www.cathay-usa.com/remove.html (make sure you spell this exactly like >this) > > >and follow the easy instructions. > > >Thank you for your participation. > > > >At 06:45 PM 5/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>Dear Molecule, >>> >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Cathay Pacific Airways Limited >>>Los Angeles Marketing Department >>> >>>P.S. remove yourself from the CyberTraveler program, (should you wish to). >>>Simply go to http://www.cathay-usa.com/remove.html. Thank you. >>> >>>>>Dear Cathay, >>> >>>>> Unsubscrive Molecule1(a)electriciti.com >>> >>>>> In peace & wish the purest of wishes. >> >>>>> sincerely, >>>>> M1. >> >> >>>>> Peace Cathay, >>>>> Please note molecul1(a)electriciti.com is now molecul1(a)molecule1.com. >>>>> It is also 1996 & the people love to dance the world over. Peace Cathay, M1.

1 0

Re: Past one terabit/second on fiber[PHONE GEEK TALK]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> "Wow", I said. Far faster than the 2.5 Gb/sec transmission that is >>> currently fairly standard for long-haul fiber trunks. >>The ads say they are selling it - that doesn't mean shipping it... yet >>at least. (Note that my employer is a direct competitor of Lucent >>so I have a vested interest in setting the facts straight) No comment :-) And I certainly don't presume to speak for Lucent.... Traditional fiber-optic technology is a hybrid between electrical and optical components - big hulking multiplexers feed a high-speed electrical signal to a laser, which sends optical pulses down the fiber. Every N km, a regenerator reads the photons, decides if it saw a 0 or 1, and feeds that as an electrical signal to an output laser. Repeat as needed. The means that if you want to upgrade the signal speed, you not only need to replace the muxes and lasers, you need to replace all the regens. That's more of a problem for long-distance companies than locals (the common FT Series G 1.7 Gb system uses them every 40 km.) The new optical amplifiers not only go farther (e.g. 120 km), but they do everything optically instead of dropping down to electrical so they support a wide range of data speeds. I don't know that they can support the 1Tb experimental stuff, but they work fine for the 8-color x 2.5Gb Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing stuff AT&T will be using. This means that the first time you do an upgrade, you need to rip out a bunch of regens, splice around 2/3 of them, replace 1/3 with opamps, and optionally replace the equipment at the ends with even bigger hulkinger multiplexers. Depending on capacity needs, you may not fire up all 8 colors at once. The next time you want to upgrade the same route, replace the muxes if you didn't, or fire up more colors, or upgrade to the new Year 2005 model. And since you've got to pick _some_ framing technology, it might as well be SONET, which lets you build self-healing rings if you want (the FDDI-like configuration, which not everyone uses, burns half the capacity on restoration circuits, more than some of the less-healable SONET configurations or mux-based restoration like AT&T's FASTAR.) AT&T has announced that they'll be pouring lots of capital into this over the next few years, partly to keep up with demand, and partly to deploy SONET rings for faster restoration. >I was figuring they'd cut out silences...as well as echo-suppression >cutouts. Do they still do this? Given modern fiber's capacity, I wonder >if they bother. Voice compression and silence suppression aren't done domestically (at least by most carriers.) Undersea cables still use this, though I don't know how much it's done on the newer fiber cables. Of course, people running private networks do whatever they want, and for overseas connections, people are often willing to trade lower-voice-quality compression for the cost savings, especially if the PTT on the far end is expensive. >>I don't know that any number fiber cable is "standard" but >>36-fiber cable is not unusual. To find the capacity of a cable, you >>have to cut the number of fibers in half (as you did) because >>generally each fiber is used only for a single direction of traffic. >>You then have to cut it in half again because phone companies have >>everything redundant. A fairly common configuration for FT Series G is 8 fiber pairs (one fiber for each direction), with 7 in service and 1 protection pair to recover from mux-card and regen failures and other single-fiber hits. To restore whole-bundle hits (e.g. backhoe fade), some of the 7 pairs are typically dedicated to restoration - though seldom half. The restoration pairs are often used for short-time reserved applications such as TV connections for sports events, videoconferencing, or other applications where someone needs a lot of bandwidth for a short time and is willing to be pre-empted or blocked if there's a failure. >There's also a lot of 'dark fiber' out there, right? Fiber laid as >part of a cable but not activated, because it's not yet needed. That's _highly_ location and company dependent. Long-haul connections are likely to be used efficiently, because you can get economies of scale and because growth will fill them up (e.g. across the Rockies). Short-haul connections (e.g. around town) are more likely to have dark fiber because the big costs are digging up streets and paying for government officials\\\\\\\\ licenses and permits rather than the costs of the fiber you're putting in a trench once you dig it. And the short-haul doesn't need regens, and often uses lower bandwidth than the fiber can handle (OC3 muxes are much cheaper than OC48, though per-Mbps they cost more.) And of course, _everybody_ seems to want a T3 to the Bay Area or other Internet-heavy locations. >> I would add that much of a >>phone companies cost is in billing and customer service, etc. >>Not the cost of installing and maintaining the fiber and equipement. > >This suggests that there would be a market for a LD phone company that >charged, say, a yearly payment of $200-300 for essentially unlimited use. (The main >impediment to this would be regulatory; as I understand it LD companies have >to pay local telco's for connections on a per-minute connect basis. Is that >right? This needs to get fixed.) Their billing costs would be very small. There's a lot of cost in switching equipment as well. A feature-rich voice telecom switch costs _far_ more per 64kbps voice circuit than the 1/(24*28*36=24192) fraction of a fiber that carries it. And big muxes, while cheaper than voice switches, are still expensive. >>Internet telephony should make the use of bandwidth even more >>efficient - thereby cutting costs. The big guys who own >>the fibers will still make money - the pipes that carry internet >>traffic are still needed. But the little guys will get squeezed out. >>(until they become ISPs ;-). Internet traffic could theoretically >>be carried over this large amount of protection fiber (mentioned above) >>that is out there for a much lower marginal cost than the current >>T3 or OC3 pipes that are being used. In addition to Internet telephony, ATM switch makers are doing voice compression, and some of the fiber vendors are starting to use their equipment to offer business voice services. And voice-over-frame-relay, which has more delay and therefore doesn't handle voice as well, also is getting some market, especially internationally. Pricing is a really difficult problem - if you price bandwidth proportional to the 64kbps voice circuits, it's either too expensive for most businesses to buy much or priced too low to make money on switched voice. But if you price high-speed circuit bandwidth much cheaper than proportional, it becomes cost-effective to buy customer-premises equipment and bulk bits and run your own phone services. Phone companies have been worrying about this for video services for years, but fortunately Moore's Law and research have let compression improve enough that you can run cheap video on 2*64kbps and good video on 6*64kbps, so they haven't been killed. But Internet and similar data needs are starting to demand high bandwidth at low costs, and the market will have to catch up somehow. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

GEK_cod
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-17-96. WaPo: "The Code Of the Geeks." A longish lifestyles profile of Robert Hayden and his Geek Code -- "a series of letters usually found on the bottom of e-mail messages that, when deciphered, offer a snapshot of the user's geekiness." It's a way for geeks to scope out one another. But Hayden says it's a part of his effort to take the eek out of geek -- to turn what's largely thought of as a negative stereotype into something positive. "Gates had an opportunity to be one and he gave it up. That happened when he decided that making money is more important than making good computer code. One geek trait is that you take pride in your work and it's my opinion that Microsoft hasn't produced a lot that's to be proud of." "In a nutshell, a nerd is somebody who lets technology run their life and a geek is a person who runs their life with technology." GEK_cod

1 0

Re: Securing CDROM from piracy
by sawyer＠nextek.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> >> >Is there any way of making >> >sure that the guy doesnt pull a fast on on us? Can we ensure that he cannot >> >duplicate the thing and start selling it without sharing the profit. >> >> Well, I suppose you could get it copyrighted before you hand it over for >> distribution. I'd also put my logo and other info somewhere in the code, >> such as an "About" box. They would have a hard time saying it wasn't >> yours. >> >You are missing the point. Lets say a firm X is marketing my product. Now if >they sell 500,000 copies and tell me that they have sold only 100,000, I have >no way of figuring out. > > '88888888:::888888%' Vipul Ved Prakash Fax : +91-11-3328849 > '8888888::88888%' Positive Ideas. Internet : vipul(a)pobox.com Ok, I see what your looking for now. How about tracking the number of product registrations, either via a mail-in card or fax? I'm assuming that since this is a product to be sold, not given away, that persons purchasing the program would most likely take the time to fill out a product registration card and send it in. Since not everyone fills these cards out, it is not a 100% accurate method, but if there were any major discrepancies, then you would be aware of it. Thomas J. Sawyer sawyer(a)nextek.com

1 0

Re: found nym-differentiation! Still need perpetual motion, FTL travel, cold fusion
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bryce wrote: > > "Perry Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> is alleged to have written: > (> Bryce wrote:) > > > > Simple as pie, because of some of the properties of DC-Nets. > > > If someone sends out the wrong number of pubkeys, then > > > everyone will know, right? So when that happens everyone > > > just reveals their shared-secret data from the DC-Net > > > session. > > > > And if several people lie about their shared secrets? This is what secure bit-commitment is for. The refinements to the DC-net protocol since Chaum's original paper make this a non-issue if you are willing to spend the CPU cycles to do all of the necessary work. > If some of your N participants are going to collude to share > their nyms then it is manifestly impossible to stop them. > But that doesn't bother me. The purpose of this scheme is > to create N nyms for N people and be sure that each of then > N people who wanted a nym got one. If you are sure that > each of the N people wanted a nym, then you can be sure you > have a one-to-one mapping between people and nyms, but > unconditional untraceability from nyms to people. Or, to rephrase the question in a manner which my lead you to the solutions which already exists for this problem: You have an anonymous access channel in which you need to do frame reservation such that each member can reserve one and only one frame for the transmission phase which follows frame reservation. You are both talking about disrupter detection in an anonymous channel and it has already been solved... > But perhaps what you were talking about was a > denial-of-service attack on the DC-Net's network layer. > That has been addressed extensively in Chaum's original > "Dining Cryptographers" paper. Chaum's method for dealing > with denial-of-service attacks is typically brilliant, but > even so it is an unwieldly and expensive (in terms of > computation and bandwidth) proposition. I recommend "Dining > Cryptographers" to everyone, and I hope that someone who > reads it will come up with a better solution. They already have. Actually, the trap method in Chaum's original paper is both expensive and flawed. Get a copy of EuroCrypt 89 and read the DC nets papers in there by B. den Bos and by Michael Waidner. If you are in the Bay Area I have a copy of Pfitzmann and Waidner's "Dining Cryptographers in the Disco: Unconditional Sender and Recipient Anonymity with Computational Serviceability" which I would be happy to make copies of. This is probably the most comprehensively secure DC-net scheme I am aware of; although, like most Crypto papers, it is way more complicated and computationally expensive than necessary for real life. jim

1 0

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:29 PM 5/15/96 -0400, Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: >I would really like to see a remailer that is somehow blinded. >I don't know enough about how mail paths are generatered, but is it >impossible to conceal the origin of remailer postings? One reason for remailers is that concealing message origin is difficult and unreliable, and making smtp servers that include all the information they can find about the origin of a message into the message is easy, so it's tough to lie about where you are. Remailers solve that by removing the header information from messages they receive and shipping out the message body with new headers, so anyone who traces all the "Received:" headers gets pointed to the remailer. >Postings made to remailernym(a)alpha.c2.org would be spit out somewhere but >without accountability? alpha.c2.org keeps encrypted reply blocks that it can't decrypt; it sends messages to some other remailer that can decrypt them, and only sends messages encrypted. That means that anybody who does succeed in stealing or subpoenaing alpha's user information has to go to each of the other remailers it uses for delivery as well - and alpha doesn't have any keys to steal. >I'd consider running a remailer, but after listening to the response to >the anonymous poster a while back, it sounds like there are few if any >simple options which do not require major time and effort to setup and >run. Setting up a remailer is easy, if you've got a Unix machine, and I'd guess that the Winsock Remailer is probably easy for Windows. If you don't support mail-to-news yourself, and you block mail to other mail-to-news gateways, you cut out lots of flame potential, which keeps the work of running it fairly low. (My remailer is based on ghio2, which has traps to detect high-volume spam, which has shut it down a couple of times. Cleaning them up is annoying.) You do need to stay on remailer-operators(a)c2.org to get notices of individuals who are being spammed or harassed so you can block mail to them, but that's typically 5-10 minutes/week. If you've got a Unix machine, you can also do a web-based remailer easily (users fill out a form with their mail, which goes to a CGI script.) If you're willing to use somebody else's script, e.g. replay.com, you can just put up the web page anywhere and won't need Unix, and they can handle most of the spam-blocking. This isn't very secure unless you're using SSL or other secure HTTP protocol, which I don't think any of the current web-remailers do. Some folks have put advertising on their remailer pages, which starts to be one economic model that can encourage people to run them, if you can find advertisers who _want_ the image this gives them. (This is fine for c2.org and maybe Digicash banks or tax-haven consultants, some political ranters, and maybe phone-sex or other services that don't have to worry about lowered reputations if somebody uses the remailer to spam the alt.sex newsgroups with phone-sex ads :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Zimmermann v. ViaCrypt???
by Mark Voorhees 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Read http://infolawalert.com/stories/051796a.html for a story on how Phil Zimmermann is trying to retrieve all the rights to PGP from ViaCrypt in order to jump start his new venture, PGP, Inc. He's taking a sell out or get sued approach with ViaCrypt, which until recently has not had much success marketing PGP. Mark PS--Apologies in advance if this has been posted before.

1 0