July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [ZS] Bitcoin + Open Transactions + Web Of Trust
by Bryce Lynch 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Lodewijk andri de la porte <l(a)odewijk.nl> wrote: > Seeing as how he's performed a lot and done so perfectly thus far his > present rating is exactly accurate. To be fair, some of the biggest and most hard hitting scams on the Silk Road so far were perpetrated by people who spent stupid amounts of time (well over a year) and effort (rep scores in the double, if not triple digits) building reputations before they blew it all to scrap with a single massive rip-off. > In finance it is more important to have explained what someone's plan is and > to have reason to assume one will not cheat his/her way out of that plan > (like greater loss/discomfort, jail for example. Death is popular too, in > some circles). These two things are quite much what pirateat40 lacks. Assassination markets, while an interesting idea, haven't yet really taken off. There are a few out there but nobody seems to be taking them seriously. -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS] https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ "I am everywhere." -- -- Zero State mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/DoctrineZero ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Tor 0.1.1.8-alpha is out
by Roger Dingledine 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

This is the eighth development snapshot for the 0.1.1.x series. The main changes are that clients now use the new directory protocol, that servers that are tight on resources stop advertising their DirPort, and that we use OpenSSL's AES if it's available. http://tor.eff.org/download.html Changes in version 0.1.1.8-alpha - 2005-10-07 o New features (major): - Clients don't download or use the directory anymore. Now they download and use network-statuses from the trusted dirservers, and fetch individual server descriptors as needed from mirrors. See dir-spec.txt for all the gory details. - Be more conservative about whether to advertise our DirPort. The main change is to not advertise if we're running at capacity and either a) we could hibernate or b) our capacity is low and we're using a default DirPort. - Use OpenSSL's AES when OpenSSL has version 0.9.7 or later. o New features (minor): - Try to be smart about when to retry network-status and server-descriptor fetches. Still needs some tuning. - Stop parsing, storing, or using running-routers output (but mirrors still cache and serve it). - Consider a threshold of versioning dirservers (dirservers who have an opinion about which Tor versions are still recommended) before deciding whether to warn the user that he's obsolete. - Dirservers can now reject/invalidate by key and IP, with the config options "AuthDirInvalid" and "AuthDirReject". This is useful since currently we automatically list servers as running and usable even if we know they're jerks. - Provide dire warnings to any users who set DirServer; move it out of torrc.sample and into torrc.complete. - Add MyFamily to torrc.sample in the server section. - Add nicknames to the DirServer line, so we can refer to them without requiring all our users to memorize their IP addresses. - When we get an EOF or a timeout on a directory connection, note how many bytes of serverdesc we are dropping. This will help us determine whether it is smart to parse incomplete serverdesc responses. - Add a new function to "change pseudonyms" -- that is, to stop using any currently-dirty circuits for new streams, so we don't link new actions to old actions. Currently it's only called on HUP (or SIGNAL RELOAD). - On sighup, if UseHelperNodes changed to 1, use new circuits. - Start using RAND_bytes rather than RAND_pseudo_bytes from OpenSSL. Also, reseed our entropy every hour, not just at startup. And entropy in 512-bit chunks, not 160-bit chunks. o Fixes on 0.1.1.7-alpha: - Nobody ever implemented EVENT_ADDRMAP for control protocol version 0, so don't let version 0 controllers ask for it. - If you requested something with too many newlines via the v1 controller protocol, you could crash tor. - Fix a number of memory leaks, including some pretty serious ones. - Re-enable DirPort testing again, so Tor servers will be willing to advertise their DirPort if it's reachable. - On TLS handshake, only check the other router's nickname against its expected nickname if is_named is set. o Fixes forward-ported from 0.1.0.15: - Don't crash when we don't have any spare file descriptors and we try to spawn a dns or cpu worker. - Make the numbers in read-history and write-history into uint64s, so they don't overflow and publish negatives in the descriptor. o Fixes on 0.1.0.x: - For the OS X package's modified privoxy config file, comment out the "logfile" line so we don't log everything passed through privoxy. - We were whining about using socks4 or socks5-with-local-lookup even when it's an IP in the "virtual" range we designed exactly for this case. - We were leaking some memory every time the client changes IPs. - Never call free() on tor_malloc()d memory. This will help us use dmalloc to detect memory leaks. - Check for named servers when looking them up by nickname; warn when we'recalling a non-named server by its nickname; don't warn twice about the same name. - Try to list MyFamily elements by key, not by nickname, and warn if we've not heard of the server. - Make windows platform detection (uname equivalent) smarter. - It turns out sparc64 doesn't like unaligned access either. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

Tor 0.1.1.8-alpha is out
by Roger Dingledine 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

This is the eighth development snapshot for the 0.1.1.x series. The main changes are that clients now use the new directory protocol, that servers that are tight on resources stop advertising their DirPort, and that we use OpenSSL's AES if it's available. http://tor.eff.org/download.html Changes in version 0.1.1.8-alpha - 2005-10-07 o New features (major): - Clients don't download or use the directory anymore. Now they download and use network-statuses from the trusted dirservers, and fetch individual server descriptors as needed from mirrors. See dir-spec.txt for all the gory details. - Be more conservative about whether to advertise our DirPort. The main change is to not advertise if we're running at capacity and either a) we could hibernate or b) our capacity is low and we're using a default DirPort. - Use OpenSSL's AES when OpenSSL has version 0.9.7 or later. o New features (minor): - Try to be smart about when to retry network-status and server-descriptor fetches. Still needs some tuning. - Stop parsing, storing, or using running-routers output (but mirrors still cache and serve it). - Consider a threshold of versioning dirservers (dirservers who have an opinion about which Tor versions are still recommended) before deciding whether to warn the user that he's obsolete. - Dirservers can now reject/invalidate by key and IP, with the config options "AuthDirInvalid" and "AuthDirReject". This is useful since currently we automatically list servers as running and usable even if we know they're jerks. - Provide dire warnings to any users who set DirServer; move it out of torrc.sample and into torrc.complete. - Add MyFamily to torrc.sample in the server section. - Add nicknames to the DirServer line, so we can refer to them without requiring all our users to memorize their IP addresses. - When we get an EOF or a timeout on a directory connection, note how many bytes of serverdesc we are dropping. This will help us determine whether it is smart to parse incomplete serverdesc responses. - Add a new function to "change pseudonyms" -- that is, to stop using any currently-dirty circuits for new streams, so we don't link new actions to old actions. Currently it's only called on HUP (or SIGNAL RELOAD). - On sighup, if UseHelperNodes changed to 1, use new circuits. - Start using RAND_bytes rather than RAND_pseudo_bytes from OpenSSL. Also, reseed our entropy every hour, not just at startup. And entropy in 512-bit chunks, not 160-bit chunks. o Fixes on 0.1.1.7-alpha: - Nobody ever implemented EVENT_ADDRMAP for control protocol version 0, so don't let version 0 controllers ask for it. - If you requested something with too many newlines via the v1 controller protocol, you could crash tor. - Fix a number of memory leaks, including some pretty serious ones. - Re-enable DirPort testing again, so Tor servers will be willing to advertise their DirPort if it's reachable. - On TLS handshake, only check the other router's nickname against its expected nickname if is_named is set. o Fixes forward-ported from 0.1.0.15: - Don't crash when we don't have any spare file descriptors and we try to spawn a dns or cpu worker. - Make the numbers in read-history and write-history into uint64s, so they don't overflow and publish negatives in the descriptor. o Fixes on 0.1.0.x: - For the OS X package's modified privoxy config file, comment out the "logfile" line so we don't log everything passed through privoxy. - We were whining about using socks4 or socks5-with-local-lookup even when it's an IP in the "virtual" range we designed exactly for this case. - We were leaking some memory every time the client changes IPs. - Never call free() on tor_malloc()d memory. This will help us use dmalloc to detect memory leaks. - Check for named servers when looking them up by nickname; warn when we'recalling a non-named server by its nickname; don't warn twice about the same name. - Try to list MyFamily elements by key, not by nickname, and warn if we've not heard of the server. - Make windows platform detection (uname equivalent) smarter. - It turns out sparc64 doesn't like unaligned access either. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

Re: [HacDC:Byzantium] The Untapped Potential of Wi-Fi in Emergencies
by Ben Mendis 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To repeat the critique I posted to the Freedombox list: The paper they refer to acknowledges the recent research into using ad-hoc mesh networks as a backup communication system for emergency responders. They assert that mesh node density may be insufficient in certain geographic areas to maintain the necessary coverage of the mesh. Based on this assertion, they are proposing that "at some point in the future" an emergency switch would be implemented into all (or most?) home routers such that the could be flipped from normal mode into an emergency mesh network mode granting access to emergency responders. They then proceed to use an Android wardriving app to collect data on existing residential WiFi-enabled routers one neighborhood and make the case that these routers would be capable of running the necessary software to form a mesh network with consistent coverage of that neighborhood. Although the paper appears to be well-researched and well-written, I think they focus too much on the wardriving aspect and trying to establish the proliferation of privately owned WiFi equipment in a particular urban neighborhood in a well-developed country. There is a lot of important discussion which they seem to leave out of this paper. They may have already addressed it in their previous paper, which they reference several times, however I have not read that one. Some of the issues I see, which I would have liked to see addressed further: 1. Who has the authority to activate the emergency switch, and what mechanisms prevent its abuse? 2. What mechanism is used to activate this emergency switch? 3. Who has access to make use of the mesh network after it has been activated? The paper seems to imply that it would only be used by emergency responders, but their methodology is to open it up such that anyone would be able to connect and access the network. 4. How would the network be utilized in the absence of Internet access? In the use case the authors describe, the mesh network is being activiated because of a failure of traditional infrastructure, so it's reasonable to assume that Internet access would be scare to impossible in the region. 5. If traditional infrastructure is disrupted, that could include power lines, how many of the residential routers they identified would still be online if power was lost? They seemed to focus at lot on wardriving using and Android app, but wardriving is sooo last decade. Still, it's good to see validation of our premise. This story seems to be really picking up, despite the lack of implementation specifics, which implies that there is interest and need for what we are building. That's my two cents. Best regards, Ben the Pyrate On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, buzz wrote: > When mobile networks collapse in natural disasters relief workers can be stranded. But German researchers say it's possible to tap > domestic WiFi to create emergency mesh networks. > > http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16183453,00.html > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Byzantium (Emergency Mesh Networking)" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/hacdc.org/d/msg/Byzantium/-/ES5swIhqzVkJ. > To post to this group, send email to Byzantium(a)hacdc.org. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Byzantium+unsubscribe(a)hacdc.org. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/hacdc.org/group/Byzantium/?hl=en. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQNQW5AAoJEMco5sYyM+0wou0IAIzZTM7dfQh+D7zaCai4GIdy 2FHARFfZWK1zC3JGvJ8uAPtFEljdnR6VdhIGJzcoddLDQUTZqexk+4eaH6fNnFQe 7JMxFh5MmTTV0VBNkORCdACYmQlBvAVwfHyG5peOPybTVIVtHaLhDfTmCxqEOzvV wA/vePoZwfd5y13BayBidCehuEhNf8BFt78tLV5rgJM3M4/xbTqOUlY/dy6kcncI bdtRSgNP/hzFmQ4vSCwmnSohkyhmqR5sZUXQA6pXbk0vnQfGgMM6hgJ+svNFxeT1 vJU8pRGMhhARIKVTYW1kBU1xr7iQhpzsgWA33Ou9wBxsJg7ibqUE15uBfVuQbxE= =F7tp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Byzantium (Emergency Mesh Networking)" group. To post to this group, send email to Byzantium(a)hacdc.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Byzantium+unsubscribe(a)hacdc.org. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/hacdc.org/group/Byzantium/?hl=en. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html > > > > Utah town requires all households to own gun > > November 5, 2000 > Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT) > > VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town >has enacted an ordinance > requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for >residents' self-defense. > > Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own >firearms, so the initiative has lots of > support, Mayor Jay Lee said. > > Residents had expressed fear that their Second >Amendment right to bear arms > was under fire, so the town council modeled a >similar measure passed by a > Georgia city about 12 years ago. > > The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious >objectors and people who > cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or Illinois, as I recall. t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns. The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious objections to having a gun in my house. Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush. Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a gun is just as foolish as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns need killing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html > > > > Utah town requires all households to own gun > > November 5, 2000 > Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT) > > VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town >has enacted an ordinance > requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for >residents' self-defense. > > Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own >firearms, so the initiative has lots of > support, Mayor Jay Lee said. > > Residents had expressed fear that their Second >Amendment right to bear arms > was under fire, so the town council modeled a >similar measure passed by a > Georgia city about 12 years ago. > > The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious >objectors and people who > cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or Illinois, as I recall. t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns. The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious objections to having a gun in my house. Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush. Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a gun is just as foolish as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns need killing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html > > > > Utah town requires all households to own gun > > November 5, 2000 > Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT) > > VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town >has enacted an ordinance > requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for >residents' self-defense. > > Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own >firearms, so the initiative has lots of > support, Mayor Jay Lee said. > > Residents had expressed fear that their Second >Amendment right to bear arms > was under fire, so the town council modeled a >similar measure passed by a > Georgia city about 12 years ago. > > The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious >objectors and people who > cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or Illinois, as I recall. t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns. The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious objections to having a gun in my house. Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush. Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a gun is just as foolish as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns need killing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html > > > > Utah town requires all households to own gun > > November 5, 2000 > Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT) > > VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town >has enacted an ordinance > requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for >residents' self-defense. > > Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own >firearms, so the initiative has lots of > support, Mayor Jay Lee said. > > Residents had expressed fear that their Second >Amendment right to bear arms > was under fire, so the town council modeled a >similar measure passed by a > Georgia city about 12 years ago. > > The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious >objectors and people who > cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or Illinois, as I recall. t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns. The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious objections to having a gun in my house. Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush. Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a gun is just as foolish as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns need killing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html > > > > Utah town requires all households to own gun > > November 5, 2000 > Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT) > > VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town >has enacted an ordinance > requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for >residents' self-defense. > > Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own >firearms, so the initiative has lots of > support, Mayor Jay Lee said. > > Residents had expressed fear that their Second >Amendment right to bear arms > was under fire, so the town council modeled a >similar measure passed by a > Georgia city about 12 years ago. > > The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious >objectors and people who > cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or Illinois, as I recall. t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns. The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious objections to having a gun in my house. Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush. Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a gun is just as foolish as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns need killing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote: >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html > > > > Utah town requires all households to own gun > > November 5, 2000 > Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT) > > VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town >has enacted an ordinance > requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for >residents' self-defense. > > Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own >firearms, so the initiative has lots of > support, Mayor Jay Lee said. > > Residents had expressed fear that their Second >Amendment right to bear arms > was under fire, so the town council modeled a >similar measure passed by a > Georgia city about 12 years ago. > > The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious >objectors and people who > cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or Illinois, as I recall. t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns. The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious objections to having a gun in my house. Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush. Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a gun is just as foolish as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns need killing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0