December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> > > > > Nonsense - the net doesn't "belong" to "Singapore or China" - > > The part of it that comes out of their pocketbook does. Just like the part of > 'the net' that I pay for belongs to me. > I have the right to do whatever I want to anything that comes through my part > of the net, including censoring or editing any mail that comes through it, so > that it reflects a point of view consistent with mine, since I am the one > paying for it. > The net is a bunch of computers, > running software, hooked together over cables and other links. Each and > EVERY ONE of these require installation, upkeep, repair, and utility > support. This costs money. He who pays the money owns the net, everybody > else is along for the ride. > Those who pay the money, like myself and others who have bought the right > to control the net, are justified in acting without outside interference > on anything that passes through our part of the net. > If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then once a box goes on > the net it belongs to nobody/everybody. Clearly utter nonsense. > The net belongs to those with the money to control it, and people who do > not have money have no rights on the net. > If you really and truly believe that the net belongs to everyone and nobody > has a right to limit or otherwise control the hardware and software along > with the associated comm links they own and pay for then you obviously don't > understand what is going on. > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > anything that passes through his part of the net. > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com Jim, Thank you for your support in my efforts to exert supreme control over the part of the net that I have paid for. I am sure that you will continue to fight for the right of myself and the government of Singapore to use that control for whatever purpose they choose. As you can see above, I have enhanced your posting so that it more closely conforms to the beliefs that my paid-for part of the net was set up to espouse. Toto

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > "I have a solution to that problem." > > Seriously! > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > any recognition of this fact. > Jim, why don't you stop bullshitting and write a real assassination bot. [as a beta, it can be a mailbombing bot] This bot would: 1) Accept bets as combinations of a) Some amount of cybercash b) A string that identifies an event that should happen such as "domain X is mailbombed" c) [optional] date of that event (no date means that you always lose) d) Return address (possibly a nym address) to send all cash from UNSUCCESSSFUL bets for the event in question. e) [optional] time limit after which the cash will be refunded. Note that for simplicity, the bot should identify the event as a unique string, without any understanding of any semantics of that string. 2) Store these bets in a database. 3) Have a trusted party (someone really honest, like myself) report to the bot the signed strings that, in the opinion of the trusted party, are "true". 4) Upon receipt of such event notifications, the bot will find all bets and forward them to the better whose date prediction was the closest. If several betters predicted the same date, the money is split between them in proportion to the amount of moneys submitted. Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III, cjames(a)cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year). I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot. Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be a nym. The fact of mailbombing would become apparent when CEC-SERVICES's MX DNS record is pulled off. The trusted party will send a phrase (standardized) "domain cec-services.com disabled" to the bot. The bot sends my money to the mailbomber through his nym address. I estimate that this bot would take about 2000 lines of perl. You may need to use some real database, like postgres or sybase. Use a nym for it. It will take a while for this bot to develop a reputation (remember, there is real money involved!). - Igor.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The only `culture' Timothy `C' May possesses is that cultivated from his foreskin scrapings. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Timothy `C' May o...(\ |||||| ||

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > California is know for very beautiful girls ... wrong. - Igor.

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > BTW, if y'all can't stay away, I have a list of So. Cal. nude beaches, > approx. 3 years old. > would appreciate - Igor.

1 0

RE: overview.htm (fwd)
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 26 Jan 97 at 2:19, blanc wrote: > >Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>>Jim Choate wrote: > >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: > > It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: > Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only > cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings". THE PRICE OF FREE SPEECH IS TOLERANCE OF IDEAS THAT WE MAY OBJECT TO. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nurdane Oksas wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > > i think it's good also to exercise outdoors as well as your > > > indoor nordictrack machines..sun and air is esp. necessary; > > but remember, tanning will kill ya. > Yes it will; Not a fan of tanning myself...it also causes lots > of skin problems, have seen women age too soon tanning; > we don't go outside naked here in NorthEast...do remember; The real babes in So. Cal. go to tanning salons. That way the evenly- distributed tan looks best with, say, a pure white bikini. You can go to the beach, of course, and hang out with the hoi polloi, but it's mostly kids with pimples and stuff. BTW, if y'all can't stay away, I have a list of So. Cal. nude beaches, approx. 3 years old.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: [...] > Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III, > cjames(a)cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to > mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if > CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year). > > I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com > disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the > loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants > to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot. > > Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will > be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce > mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be > a nym. That's my birthday... have a great week ahead everyone!

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Jim, why don't you stop bullshitting and write a real assassination > bot. [as a beta, it can be a mailbombing bot] This bot would: I think this would be a very good demo project, but mailbombing may not be the best choice... > 1) Accept bets as combinations of > a) Some amount of cybercash Be careful about violating Chaumian patents... How about using funny money in the prototype? Or, look at some of the micropayment schemes. > b) A string that identifies an event that should happen > such as "domain X is mailbombed" Not a good idea (see below). > c) [optional] date of that event (no date means that you always > lose) I think the date must always be specified, and the event must occur (or not occur) on or before that date. > d) Return address (possibly a nym address) to send > all cash from UNSUCCESSSFUL bets for the event in > question. > e) [optional] time limit after which the cash will be refunded. > > Note that for simplicity, the bot should identify the event as > a unique string, without any understanding of any semantics of that > string. I think we should think about the kinds of events that a 'bot can verify. > 2) Store these bets in a database. > > 3) Have a trusted party (someone really honest, like myself) report to > the bot the signed strings that, in the opinion of the trusted party, > are "true". Why not start with a less destructive event... For example, "on or before <date> a Usenet article will appear in newsgroup X saying Y". That's something the 'bot can verify and anyone with access to dejanews and the like can confirm. Eliminating the need for a trusted human is always desirable. > 4) Upon receipt of such event notifications, the bot will find all bets > and forward them to the better whose date prediction was the closest. > If several betters predicted the same date, the money is split between > them in proportion to the amount of moneys submitted. Have you ever dealt with a bookie? I think there need to be two distinct operations: 1. A user can create a new kind of event. For a fixed fee F, one can enter a new event into the table of events that can be bet on. (In a more generalized system, the creator might also specify the third party that determines whether or not the event took place.) A human bookie decides which events can be bet on (based mostly on the tradition and supply/demand). Here we let users bet on anything they want as long as they're willing to may be bookiebot for keeping track of who bet how much $ that the event will or will not happen. In fact, when creating an event, the user must immediately bet an amount >$F and the house enters an opposing bet for $F (or slightly less). 2. A user can bet $B that an existing event will/will not happen. Bookiebot accepts the $B and promises to pay back an amount that's a function of $B and the current amounts bet so far on yes and no (or escrows the winning with a 3rd party). I'll let Jim et al figure out how to compute the odds when there are offsetting bets for the same event at two different times. E.g. E1:"Saddam Hussen will die before April 1" and E2:"ditto June 1"; if the first one occurs, then the second one occurs too. If a lot of money is bet on E1, it should somehow affect E2 odds too. Also the bookiebot should never lose money no matter what the outcome; all the winnings should come from the losers' bets. > Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III, > cjames(a)cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to > mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if > CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year). > > I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com > disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the > loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants > to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot. Here's an improved scenario. Say I pay the bot $10 to create the event "a homophobic article will appear in soc.motss by April 1". Then I bet $1000 that the event will NOT occur to skew the odds. > Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will > be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce > mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be > a nym. Someone looking to make a quick buck browses through the list of events and odds in the bookiebot and sees the very skewed odds for a homophobic article on soc.motss. He bets a small amount that the article will appear, so he gets really good odds. Then he posts an article that's recognized as the event, and collects a winning much larger than his bet. But if this doesn't happen, I get almost all of my $1000 investment back. In either event the bookiebot made a small profit for its owner. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> writes: > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see > > any recognition of this fact. > I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study. > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents? > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything? If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto, that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything* in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors).

1 0