December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bekenstein Bound
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > I know this is off topic, but as an astrophysicist I can't let it lie. > >First off, Black holes are singularities or points and have no volumes. > > Black Hole refers to the event horizon, the geometry is not nice inside that. > > > >Second, the 'surface' of the event horizon is a fractal and is therefore > >better represented by a volume. > > The 'surface' is not fractal. It is a simple bounded spheroid of finite area. > > > >Third, Black holes are not de-coupled from the rest of the universe, they > >emit 'Hawkings Radiation' which eventually leads to the evaporatio of every > >black hole, the bigger the faster. > > Blackholes evaporate through Hawking radiation the SMALLER the faster. > Stellar mass black holes will not evaporate in the age of the universe. > This radiation does not carry information about the interior. It is formed > from the quantum field just above the surface. > > > >Fifth, volume is not an issue because several accepted theories imply a > >'many worlds' type of reality. Some of these theories even allow a certain > > > >amount of information to leak between them. This occurs because when the > >Hamiltonian is constructed some states prevent or exclude other states and the > >state space turns out to be smaller than at first apparent. > > This is philosophy not physics. > > > >Sixth, everyone (incl. me initialy) was discussing QED in exclusion. This is > >completely incorrect. You must include QCD and it is a complete unknown at this > >point. When QED succeded because of Feynmann the tools were applied to the > >Quantuam Chromodynamics of Quarks and it has not solved any problems. > > I have no idea what you are trying to say here. > > -------------------------------------------------- > Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD > loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu > PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. > > "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly > it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice > weasels come." > --Nietzsche > > > I appreciate your feedback. From what I have read of Hawkings and others work I would have to disagree w/ your statements that a black hole is equated w/ the event horizon. In every text (incl. the Hawkings book from the 70's on the subject) to makes a clear distinction. Several years ago (around '90) there was a whole raft of work dealing w/ the event horizon and the consensus that I got was that the event horizon was a fractal. Perhaps you would site some references where this theory is not accepted and a argumetn as to why it fails? What I am saying as far as QED/QCD is that w/o discussing both then the actions of electrons and photons are not quantum mechanical in the sense that they require statistical terms to describe their behaviour. Nowhere in Maxwells Equations is there a statistical term. If you know of a hole in the equations please let me know of it. I am not aware of any behaviour of electrons/photons which are not covered by these equations until hadrons are introduced.

2 1

wrong place at wrong time...
by tmp＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hello, whoever this `detweiler' person is you really seem to hate him. i appear to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. would you like me to change my login name to something different so you don't confuse me with him? i think i heard it only costs $10 or so. yes, i do post from denver but i thought i heard detweiler was posting from somewhere else in colorado. (of course, geography is pretty meaningless in cyberspace.) yes, i am something of a newbie to this list. i heard about it out in talk.politics.crypto or something like that. i have also been reading up on your remailers from the public domain stuff out there (soda.berkeley.edu, etc.) the issues of `detweilering' do bring up some interesting questions. it seems to me that merely charging for access to remailers is not a sufficient deterrent (although it would have some effect). consider this argument: top-notch explosives can be very expensive, but that doesn't prevent terrorists from using them. in fact, it just has the effect of deterring the use of them by `casual' terrorists. wouldn't it be simpler to put limits on message propagation through a remailer? for example, limiting the volume of mail from a given source address? other interesting issues raised by `detweilering': hal finney forbids detweiler from using his remailer at any time. but (hello? is anyone home?) remailers operate on precisely the principle that names are irrelevant. how can you forbid anyone from doing something when you have no way of *identifying* them? how do you know what their mail aliases are? i wouldn't be surprised if hal finney censors *me* from his mailers just because he *suspects* that i am detweiler (ouch!). i think everyone here needs to be reminded why names were *invented*-- so that people can attribute actions to various individuals. it is `social ettiquete'. now, in some cases you may say that there is no need to attribute a name to an action (such as a posting) but then it seems you have no right to complain about `detweilers'. consider this-- suppose that i really hate t.c.may (this is just an example). i would like to screen my mailbox of everything he writes. but if he has dozens of imaginary aliases on netcom.com, each individually pretending to be a real person, how can i do this? it would be impossible. and don't say that the cost of multiple addresses would be a deterrent. what if he is a bored millionaire with nothing better to do? what if detweiler is a bored millionaire as well? apparently (from what i can determine) he seems to be endlessly entertained by harassing cypherpunks. and the criteria `that's an annoying post' is obviously not a very effective way of identifying him. so, `cypherpunks', you might consider the following problem. is it possible to have a system where there are multiple aliases allowed to a given person, and comparison between aliases (does alias1 == alias2) is permitted, but anonymity is generally preserved? one possibility is to remove screening one level from the users. that is, i tell a central server `stop sending me all posts generated by [alias1]'. if certain people suddenly disappear from my view that would be highly incriminating but not conclusive that they are all the same person. p.s. if detweiler is using the initials `tmp' (which he is judging by the FAQ piece that was reposted here) does anyone know what they stand for? p.p.s. can anyone tell me of recent press or media accounts of cypherpunk activity? thanks. p.p.p.s. try not to be so paranoid about `detweilers'. seems to me that if all he does is bang on a keyboard he is probably quite harmless. but then again, that's all that mitnick and morris did <g>

3 2

REMAIL: Ray's improved anonymous remailer
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I meant to reply to this several weeks ago, but was too busy then, so here are some comments now. From: rjc(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) > Seeing as how everyone else is announcing their anonymous remailers, > I may as well announce mine which is nearing completion. The remailer > is written in Knuth's WEB using Perl so there is nice documentation. This sounds like an interesting approach. WEB is Knuth's methodology for creating self-documenting programming projects. You run them through a filter to create the executable code, Perl in this case. This should help portability and ease of support. > The remailer includes among other things, virtual addresses (handles), > padding/packetizing messages (splitting them up and sending pieces through > multiple remailer chains), chaining, mixing, a key-server, a list of > remailers server, a socket-server to bypass the sendmail queue and > get immediate error return, a stealth mode (delivery via direct SMTP or > socket instead of through the local sendmail), secure remailer network > (remailers sign and encrypt chained messages between each other), > fake remailer traffic, and other small features. The virtual handles are > fairly secure. They can be stored in the database as either plaintext real > email addresses, virtual addresses located elsewhere on the remailer network, > or SAEE cypherpunk remailer blocks (self-addressed encrypted envelope) These mostly sound like great features. The virtual addresses are something we have needed for a long time. The idea of keeping records of which remailers are responding should help with the use of the network, too. The one problem with this is that it might be tempting for the users to just trust the remailers to choose their chain paths. It would be much better for the user's own software to hook up, find out which remailers are operating, then choose a chain. Ray's software will allow this, but this function could be split off from the remailers to a specialized server, perhaps. I'm not sure about the advantages of remailers signing and encrypting messages between themselves. It seems to me that the network should work even without this. Ideally we don't want the remailer network to be too centralized and close-knit. It's better for them to be strangers to each other since if they coordinate their efforts they can defeat anonymity. > p.p.s. e-mail commands are of the same form as the extropian's mailing > list, backwards compatibility with the cypherpunks pasting token is not > supported. Why? All headers in the message are ignored (and in socket-mode, > there is no header anyway) and the prefered mode of operation is to encrypt > the body and the commands so no outside eyes can see the remail request > destination nor the message subject. This was one reason I suggested supporting both old-style CP and the extropians-style syntax ("::Anon-To"). As Ray suggests, in some cases we might not have message headers in the RFC822 sense. I think it is simpler to think about a message which has remailer commands at the top. > Socket mode provides a more secure form of operation by bypassing the > standard sendmail delivery mechanism allowing a message to be > piped directly to the remailer. In addition, the socket mode remailer > functions as an information server allowing clients to request > a publically networked list of public keys and up-to-date list of > \rem servers. The port number can be anything but I'm suggesting we all > agree to use port 2258. The number of sites which allow users to run socket servers is far smaller than the number which allow mail filters, so not many people will be able to use this feature. OTOH the mail-only sites are generally of low security and an owned-and-operated system should be able to use this feature. So it is definately a plus for those who can use it. > Upon connection to the remailer port, a greeting message will be sent to you > of the following form. On the first line is a general greeting message > which can be any string. On the next line is status information separated > by ``/''. The status information in order is: \verb|remailer_name|, > version, administrator e-mail address, and finally a list of flags. > The flags are single character upper case letters specifying > the following options. {\bf P} to specify that the machine is > privately owned and single-user, {\bf M} for mixing enabled, {\bf C} for > chaining, {\bf K} if the keyserver is turned on, {\bf E} if this remailer > only accepts encrypted messages, and {\bf S} if stealth mode is on. This is a good feature, but it should also be available from non-socket remailers. There should probably also be a "Help" command to tell how to use the remailer. (A lot of people already have these features.) > Virtual Addresses consist of a {\bf user handle} and an optional > {\bf remailer name} separated by `{\bf \#}' I used `\#' because I wanted > to differentiate virtual addresses from internet style addresses. > An example of a virtual address is ``darkmodem\#deepanon'' which > means that the message should be sent to the user connected with the > handle ``darkmodem'' through the remailer named ``deepanon'' You can > chain your own remailers by simply adding multiple remailer names to the > virtual address. For example, ``user\#remailer1\#remailer2\#remailer3'' > which will send the message first through remailer1, then remailer2, > then remailer 3, and finally to whoever happens to be connected with > ``user''. A special remailer name ``*'' is provided. Each instance of > ``*'' in a remailer chain will be replaced by a random remailer. > For example, ``darkmodem\#*#*#deepanon'' will first chain the message > through two random remailers and then finally to deepanon. The random > remailers chosen are not guaranteed to be unique. Ray had mentioned above that these user handles can also map to encrypted remailer strings. This way users don't have to trust any one remailer op- erator to keep their identity secret. This need for trust is one reason I am not enthusiastic about user#remailer1#remailer2#remailer3 as an address, although it is admirably concise and easy to use. The problem is that it exposes the path to the first remailer in the chain. I really feel that paths must use nested encryption to be of much value. Similarly, the darkmodem#*#*#deepanon requires the user to really trust the first remailer in the chain. Perhaps it deserves such trust, but I feel that a system which does not require such trust would be superior. (Again, Ray's proposal is broad enough that it will allow non-trust modes of operation, as I understand it; my main concern is that these other options are so easy that they will tempt people to be lazy and slip into modes where they are vulnerable to unscrupulous remailer operators.) I am really looking forward to seeing Ray's software. It sounds like a good package of functions. Hal

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Doesn't the U.N. have some kind of list of basic human rights? (Un- > enforceable, of course.) I thought I saw it in a story about Elanor > Roosevelt. I don't have the UN rights stuff handy, but most of it's non-useful, and is a good example of what happens when you let a committee of governments "define" your "rights" for you. I've spent more time looking at the UN treaty on the Rights of the Child (my church was lobbying our senator about getting the US to sign it, which I had problems with.) Typical "rights" included the right to free speech, subject to the needs of a society to preserve public order, the right to freedom of religion, subject to the needs of a society to preserve public order, the right to free compulsory education through 5th grade, without any particular identification of who would be forced to pay for "free", or acknowledgement of the more important right not to be compelled to be indoctrinated in whatever the government wants to force you to believe (e.g. South Africa forbidding public school students to use their native languages leading to Soweto massacre or France forbidding female public-school students to wear traditional Arab head-coverings), the right to national identity cards, etc. It's a mixture of "rights" that apply unless the government doesn't want them to, "rights" to have other people do things for you, rights that are too watered down to be worth the name, and rights that don't really include enforcement when governments don't honor them. It did have some meaningful parts - forbidding execution of children, forbidding drafting children under some age (I think it was 15 or 16) - and for many governments it would mean positive changes in spite of all the concessions to letting governments do whatever they want in the name of "social order". We can do better than that. Bill Stewart

1 0

Re: Cyberspace, Crypto Anarchy, and Pushing Limits
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sameer writes, in response to Tim: > > - a general move away from "commons"-oriented systems, which breed the > > notions of "fair access" and such. If the "problem" is that poor > > people cannot--it is alleged--afford a $17 a month Net connection > > (what Netcom charges, in about 25 cities and growing), then my > > solution would be to simply _subsidize_ their bill. (I'm not > > advocating this, nor do I think it wise to subsidize anyone's phone, > > Net, or dinner bills, but better this than "nationalizing" networks > > and thus creating more confusion and less efficiency for all.) > > We don't need subsidized bills for cheaper access. > Just cheaper access. It'll happen. Market pressure + all that. Tim's point, though was that we don't "need" cheaper access, and government-regulation solutions to achieve this pressing social need are not only bad, but unnecessary - if the government really wants to provide people with cheaper net access, it can hand them money, with less distortion of the market than regulation. One of the problems with the EFF open access proposals is that they tend to favor, or at least tolerate, regulation of the networks, which is an invitation to disaster, however well-intentioned it may be. Bill Stewart

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com T >Yes, the U.N. has quite a fascist declaration of rights. It includes T >such chestnuts as a right to a job, a right to shelter, a right to T >medical care, and the right of a country to control its press (cf. T >the UNESCO fiasco). No thanks. Also, the right to two weeks paid vacation a year. As a self-employed individual, I want all you UN advocates out there to pay for my two-week vacations since I've never had one. <g> DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0

Re: How many games of chess?
by GRABOW_GEOFFREY＠tandem.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When "different games" are mentioned, are we talking about any difference a significant difference. Are two 1000 move games different just because they have one move difference, or does the outcome need to be different? And, bye the outcome being different, does that just mean that the King i captured in a different square or does it require more? G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | "What we demand are rigidly defined | | Oyster Bay, New York | areas of doubt and uncertainty!" | | | -------------------- | | grabow_geoffrey(a)tandem.com | Clipper, SkipJack & Digital Telephony | | | JUST SAY NO!!! | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | PGP fingerprint = C9 95 0F C4 E9 DD 8E 73 DD 99 4E F5 EB 7A B6 1D | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Economic assumptions
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just read (after a reference by Duncan Frissell on this list) an essay by Nobel-prize economist R. H. Coase. The essay is called "The Nature of the Firm". I have it in a collection called _The Firm, the Market, and the Law_, published by University of Chicago Press. This is a sure-fire antidote to the idea that "the market is the best solution for everything". This is the essay, evidently, that introduced the idea of transaction costs. Some of his basic points are the following: -- There is a cost to using the price mechanism. -- Not all economic allocations use the price mechanism. -- Firms exist because they have lower transaction costs than the market. I can imagine that bandwidth in the fibersphere for text transmission will be too cheap to meter, which means that the cost of metering would more than the marginal revenue. In this case, and this is not the near future, there aren't any delivery charges per message. Suppose 5 billion people are all typing continuously at 300 bps. That's 1.5 Tbps, certainly within the conceivable for a single transmission line. So that's everything everyone in the world types, delivered at flat rate to your computer. The assumption of scarcity for bandwidth, while true now, may not generalize to the future. We should also not assume that every commons is subject to the tragedy of overuse. Eric

4 5

Important Financial Information...
by 68864320＠canma.dyn.ml.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> PAY OFF ALL YOUR BILLS! <<< Including your mortgage in 3-7 years... Using your current income! People have become slaves to their debts. It's a never ending circle of go to work - pay the bills - go to work... >>> NOW THERE IS A WAY OUT! <<< A proven system used by more than 150,000 people in the USA and Canada. Find Out How - With Our FREE Information You have nothing to lose (except your debts) by requesting the FREE information! For immediate FREE information, send any message to freeinfo6(a)answerme.com, and our automatic response E-mail address will send you a FREE report within minutes. Get started on your debt-free journey today. Also, you'll learn how you can... JOIN OUR TEAM & EARN A FANTASTIC RESIDUAL INCOME! ********************************************************************** If you would like to learn about advertising your own product or service on the internet then please visit this Web site: http://www.amv-inc.com ********************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please write us at: remove(a)alderney.dyn.ml.org Thank you. **************************************************************************

1 0

This List--Public, Private, or Other?
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have a few more things to say on the question Hal raised: is this list privately owned, publically owned, or is it something else? * It's effectively under the control of the folks mentioned (Huhges, Gilmore, Daniel, etc.), but.... * anyone with access to the mailing list names (cf. majordomo) could "invite" subscribers to try another list. Detweiler tried something like this with his "cypherwonks" group. The point: the "list" could move around. * sufficiently bizarre management practices on the List, such as if Eric decided to really crown himself King, would cause folks to leave. The point: the "list" is not permanent. * anyone trying to create their own Cypherpunks-type list would have to deal with inertia, head starts (by us), and so on. The point: sometimes inertia wins. In different words, the list exists as an "emergent phenomenon," like a popular trend or a fad. It's "official" existence is not crucial, as that could evaporated, change, etc. The hundreds of subscribers (can it really be 700?) find this list presumably more convenient than forming their own list, recruiting members, and achieving some critical mass. Call it a "Schelling point" in cyberspace, a meeting place. (A Schelling point is named after the game theorist, and can best be quickly described by an example: if Hal Finney and I agree to meet in Washington, D.C., without making further plans as to place, where might we meet? The Air and Space Museum? The base of the Washington Monument, the EFF offices? A limited number of points are likely to be independently picked by us--these are Schelling points for us. Prices are often Schelling points.) If enough of us "moved" to another list, or another machine, then that's "where" the Cypherpunks list would move to (it didn't happen with "Cypherwonks," for various and obvious reasons). The concept of "ownership" is thus tenuous. I would liken it to the "ownership" by a store of its customer base. Fry's Electronics "owns" the hacker-technophile customers it attracts in such throngs throughout the Bay Area, and no one (except the State, of course) can come in and command them to change their policies. But Fry's must be careful to not lose its customer base, which could easily happen (and will eventually, in all likelihood). To wrap it up: Cyberspace ownership has more similarities to the voluntary asssociations desscribed here--customer bases, clubs, subscriptions to magazines, etc.--than to conventional ideas of "public" and "private" property ownership. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0