December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Attn: BlackNet.
by an49149＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.2 hIwCHO5QWqKhlGkBBACXLS6twtV8fsrSfa4HTrWwMCFAdhMzBR81G93ZbwG3yFV6 93WkQJMitzpT9fOxEZV8bHl3VvHAqvIv0MvQJIs+pbo2I0GskXeHWJLYOf1ritMM 8Wc6/U8FA8oe9O7RfN9fyRdipRtpAcWBsXTr2aA/lxWRThAS8dpqcfv5JN7t66YA AALtRPjG7ID8ZdrBVt8uDMUlNkEpaHyCIFG0ptdf2Q3wFOKVCrEKBDkPDW1GSYQl dAWyjCls/354X1RsP4Y+szG3B2PkT0QptXLIVBTS8SG6sn31PMNYBDyGWQvlI/mK 6VBX6/gioiDFCNGD0J/8Ig2Sbv60XxQ00DmxnNc+4uvYj7QGFBRxCYI2cX3xr9XL WxR1UvfBszM91xLNcpBE7n9onfJrmf6rsGkGlzD2gFIJDorsnY9hk6cEmj8831M0 jRUneOhMQH7Z19LGxfmv9E7Lg+pyGVJ2XWlSJVJhAwEjFuLpGM6p5vpLLEEULdsS k45wqpnIUoBEMFoTb4IyMt/Om/ZrnxH+I6zruMURCBqUTNyA32l56PRHXoHdu+0s k/4BY3y1obQMNy9PWEj5G3pSXcMeXlU3ZC4RhBApPU/VPAxMsQ5kxIspHmrLSihl EwIHoKbFCax7Maxa2LGSVkXawdS4Y68LXb8zpWM0XEoc4YzQUDo4TGVqVpexAVVQ TUklzPDjKxRyLvB8fVG+2ewTeorLG3tTlnzjcyvPtcx7/iPtggQ0uJMS5XLlOoM2 vzryYVf/D+davG0zmZI8ldlimFcpNGxKPZvWLGG0UQhDtNn27OBNfwfC4kaLwSIl 7PTDYzicDTrvtqLy/YlkJLsG/lAstrfAQ3znzc+bVHwoniZBUs3wAzbpuq2iuXyi qvcNAC7q7AqGWrU/M/XUrCr6UulxpNWFM8ta98AtoCwHQ3LtvyqPpoZJJ9syLDhq aWr2kbYM9AVZ01RdBDMuZ6Ly19rXcl8+OmXMUoEc9yYSyxBHtLS3+JkLIAwkU9lo ktdmj3QQvhaAgUBjzkad+uirk5I+x99Q+3xoG9izFfb8r6mglVgA4hOgt25bnSDb JarYlqYK0qTutg8NV+dwU4q98vdPHmlLs4EW+1zbaD6RZrXJKrODcpN1MzhbSrN0 lMxTho7XjOUHykvoab/JxSykogwZWcDWGER+/5Xo1tA= =FMfy -----END PGP MESSAGE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

UNSUBSCRIBE
by michael＠sdl.hitachi.co.jp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please remove me from your cypherpunks mailing list. Could you add me to the cypherpunks-announce mailing list instead? Thanks, M.B.

1 0

The Republic of Desire (anonymous organ
by kone＠courier1.sha.cornell.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

< A < / \ < B - C < / \ < D G < / \ / \ < E - F H - I < Another problem in this set up is: What if "B" is caught and put in jail/killed? How are "D" and company (including "J, K, L" and on) going to stay in touch? Some one posted that useing a "I am caught" key might help cover the trail. I think it would cut down on the uptree pateren but might not pass on info downtree. Would a side to side contact help? A / \ B - C / \ D G / \ / \ E - F - H - I How would one keep the cross over safe? An "in case of loss of contact, use PGP Key xxx?" Ideas? Will

1 0

Re: All our eggs in one basket?
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry Metzger writes > What needed is a) the bank has to be able to show a third party a > signed request for every transaction they've performed, and b) you > have to be able to show a third party a signed (by the bank) receipt > for every transaction you've performed. In other words, you are > protected because the bank can't simply claim to the arbitrator "oh, > he withdrew all his money yesterday" because they can't show an order. > The bank is protected because you can't claim "oh, I deposited ten > million dollars yesterday" if you can't show a receipt. > I'm still confused, only in a different way. Let's let I want to withdraw $10,000... 1) I send the bank a signed request to withdraw 10,000 dollars 2) The bank withdraws the money but doesn't sends it to me. I go to the arbitrator and say: "The bank cheated me!!" The bank says: "We sent you the money. Here is your withdraw request, signed by you. You are lying." ------ How can I prove that the bank did not send me the money? The withdraw protocol must somehow produce a receipt, signed by *me*, saying I receiving the money. If the bank cannot present such a receipt, then the arbitrator shouldn't believe that the bank really sent the money. Yet why would I sign a receipt before verifying that the bits the bank sent me was a valid chunk of digital money? Does this mean the bank sends me valid digital money first and I reply with a signed receipt? If so, what if I claim that the transmition failed and I didn't receive the money, but I really *did* get the money? I could then tell the bank that I changed my mind and I want them to rollback the withdraw transaction? I would walk off with a valid chuck of digital money, yet my account was not decremented. Obviously I'm still missing something. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

2 1

Remailer cdodhner@indirect.com DOWN (temp)
by Christian D. Odhner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My sysadmin, due to some sort of security concern, has decreed that .forward files shall not be able to call any execution of code other than certain designated filters. Thus my remailer rolled over and died and lost three days of my mail. My sysadmin is helping me devise a workaround now so my remailer can be the exception to the rule, or bypass the rule entirely without compromiseing security of the site. I'll post to the list when it's back up. (btw, I'm off the cypherpunks list now, on cp-request) Happy Hunting, -Chris Christian Douglas Odhner | "The NSA can have my secret key when they pry cdodhner(a)indirect.com | it from my cold, dead, hands... But they shall pgp 2.3 public key by finger | NEVER have the password it's encrypted with!" My opinions are shareware. To register your copy, send me 15$ in DigiCash. Key fingerprint = 58 62 A2 84 FD 4F 56 38 82 69 6F 08 E4 F1 79 11

2 1

axe me
by Timothy Finin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please remove me from cypherpunks. I can't handle the volume, it seems. Tim

1 0

unsubscribe
by Robert Harder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please unsubscribe me from (to?) your mailing list Thank you. Rob

1 0

Re: privacy and rights (short reply)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Having worked in Liechtenstein banks, I can assure you numbered accounts exist.

1 0

Useless anonymity
by jrk＠sys.uea.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are accustomed to seeing useless messages of various sorts on this and other electronic forums. Messages that quote a long article only in order to add "Me too" at the end, messages of no interest to anyone but the individual they are directed to, content-free banter, ego-driven flame wars, and so on. They still happen -- inexperienced people are always joining the net -- but most people eventually learn to avoid making these faux pas. Anonymity brings a new class of useless message, of which the following from Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)net.digex.access> is a recent example. I quote it in its entirety: >Having worked in Liechtenstein banks, I can assure you numbered >accounts exist. "Black Unicorn" is an obvious pseudonym, and I'm assuming that it is not one with an established reputation. (For all I know, "Black Unicorn" might be as famous as the Legion of Doom, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that it isn't.) What is the use of an unsubstantiated assertion, from an unreputed[*] source, with no means of verification? Having read Black Unicorn's bald asertion, I am as ignorant as before of whether numbered accounts exist, in Liechtenstein or elsewhere. New ideas or arguments can be useful regardless of their source. Likewise pointers to places where evidence may be obtained. Assertions by reputable sources may be taken on trust (I place far more weight on Perry Metzger's comments about numbered accounts than the Black Unicorn's). The quoted message does none of these. It is wholly useless, a waste of its author's time, and of ours. [*] "unreputed": a word I just coined as an opposite to "reputable", meaning not "disreputable", i.e. having a bad reputation, but having no reputation at all. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk(a)sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

1 0

Re: Forwarded mail from S.Boxx
by peter honeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lance has another epiphany. (grep for epiphany in the archives if you want more confirmation of the s. boxx identity.) and if you don't deny it, he will treat that as confirmation. i pointed out in private mail to him that this is mccarthyism. peter

1 0