- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Why the world needs privay protecting Ecash
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:05 PM 7/27/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >If Alice uses her U.S. VISA card to make many cash withdrawals at ATMs in >Zurich, Lichtenstein, Geneva, London, etc., are there any U.S. requirements >that she obtain and fill out reports (in triplicate) on these transactions? >Suppose the cumulative ATM transactions hit the magic $10,000 level? It might be hard to get an ATM card that lets you take out $10,000/day. I suppose a VISA card or a Debit card might allow that amount. Form 4790 Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments available at: ftp://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4790.pdf Says: A TRANSFER OF FUNDS THROUGH NORMAL BANKING PROCEDURES WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE THE PHYSICAL TRANSPORTATION OF CURRENCY OR MONETARY INSTRUMENTS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED. Form 4789 The Currency Transaction Report available at: ftp://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4789.pdf Says: "Currency.The physical transfer of currency from one person to another. This does not include a transfer of funds by means of bank check, bank draft, wire transfer or other written order that does not involve the physical transfer of currency." I guess an ATM is a machine and not a person. But these are the instructions not the regs. The form doesn't have to be filed by individuals only by financial institutions. An ATM doesn't involve the bank giving you cash unless you are using the ATM machine at your own bank. I remember seeing some regs that did mention ATM transfers but can't recall specifics. Usually, they figure that they have the "paper trail" anyway through your normal bank records. DCF

1 0

Re: Why the world needs privay protecting Ecash
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:18 AM 7/27/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >At 12:05 PM 7/27/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>If Alice uses her U.S. VISA card to make many cash withdrawals at ATMs in >>Zurich, Lichtenstein, Geneva, London, etc., are there any U.S. requirements >>that she obtain and fill out reports (in triplicate) on these transactions? >>Suppose the cumulative ATM transactions hit the magic $10,000 level? > >It might be hard to get an ATM card that lets you take out $10,000/day. I >suppose a VISA card or a Debit card might allow that amount. Who said it had to be in one day? I didn't. Most vacations to Europe last a couple of weeks, e.g., "If this is Tuesday, I need to make a withdrawal in Milano." I think a lot of ATMs will now dispense big chunks of cash--I've never checked on limits, but I notice that some CRT screens now have chunks up to $600 or so listed. >The form doesn't have to be filed by individuals only by financial >institutions. An ATM doesn't involve the bank giving you cash unless you are >using the ATM machine at your own bank. I remember seeing some regs that >did mention ATM transfers but can't recall specifics. Usually, they figure >that they have the "paper trail" anyway through your normal bank records. Thanks. Still not sure if it applies, but I'd forgotten that it's up to the banks to do the reports; good to know it's not up to me. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Pie cutting algorithm
by rollo＠artvark.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May said: << ObCrypto Sidebar: The "fair" method for dividing a pie between two people is well-known: "You cut, I choose." This *game theory* result is central to many cryptographic protocols (though it may not always be apparent at first). And the protocol can be extended to 3 parties, and proabably to N. Research is ongoing on this, including Cypherpunk Robin Hanson's work at Caltech. >> I (RS) believe Claude Shannon proposed the following N-person pie-cutting algorithm more than 25 years ago: Persons 1...N are seated around a circular table. A Thing To Be Shared (Call it a "pie") sits in front of P1 (Alice, if you prefer). P1 cuts a slice (a portion satisfactory to her) out of the pie -- the "current slice" -- and offers the whole pie with the current slice to the person P2 (Barbara, if you like) to her left for her consideration. It is possible that P1 is so greedy that she makes the whole pie the current slice. P2 does one of 2 things: A. P2 cuts a smaller slice (a portion satisfactory to her, which becomes the new current slice) out of the old current slice and offers the whole pie with the new current slice to P3. B. P2 passes (being unwilling to settle for a smaller slice of the pie than the current slice), offering the person P3 to her left the whole pie with the current slice for her consideration; P3 does one of 2 things: A. P3 cuts a smaller slice (a portion satisfactory to her, which becomes the new current slice) out of the old current slice and offers the whole pie with the new current slice to P4. B. P3 passes (being unwilling to settle for a smaller slice of the pie than the current slice), offering the person P4 to her left the whole pie with the current slice for her consideration; ... Eventually, someone (Pm, or Morticia) has cut a current slice, and everybody else has passed. At that point Pm gets the piece she cut, leaves the table with it, and (if N > 2) the game proceeds ab initio with N-1 people and the remaining pie. If N = 2 (two people were playing), there's now one person left (Winnie), and she gets the remaining pie. The whole procedure terminates, with everyone satisified, after a finite number of steps. Tim May: as a Licensed Ontologist, do you know who made the wiseassed (but deep) remark "Ontology recapitulates Philology"? or for that matter, "Oncology recapitulates Proctology". Rollo Silver / Amygdala | e-mail: rollo(a)artvark.com 216M N. Pueblo Rd, #107 | Website: http://www.artvark.com/artvark/ Taos, NM 87571 USA | Voice: 505-751-9601; FAX: 505-751-7507

6 6

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:) [Classic Answer]
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:09 -0500 7/25/96, Igor Chudov wrote: >Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. > >Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's >how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy >suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If >50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. > >Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 >to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. > >The question is, what will be the outcome? How will they split the >money, how many robbers will be dead, and so on? > >igor This is a variant on the normal distribution problem/game where you have a number of homogeneous/identical items that are either too numerous to distribute by the "one for you and one for me" method or are not equivalent to each other. The "goal" is to have a method of distributing so that each person feels that they got "their fair share". The classic solution is to have #1 divide the items into 20 piles (any of which he is willing to take as his share). Then number #2 is offered the choice of accepting #1's distribution or rearranging the distribution until he is happy to accept any of them. This accept/rearrange process goes on until #19 has made his decision. Then #20 is allowed to select any one pile as his share. The "choose a pile" option then goes back up the line (to #19, #18, etc) with each taking one of the remaining piles until it gets to whoever was before the person who did the last rearrangement. This person then has the option of doing a new rearrangement or approving the current distribution. After he does a rearrangement or approves the distribution, the option keeps going up the line until it gets to #1 (who selects a pile). You then keep going down [and up] the line until there are only two piles and the last approver/rearranger gets the last pile after the choice of piles is made by the other person. This is "fair" since at all times the person who is making a pile selection has already approved the distribution (or at the end is offered his choice of the two remaining piles).

3 2

ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE EXISTENCE OF A MEDIUM FOR CRIMINAL HACKERS AND MUNITIONS SMUGGLERS. I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE FBI IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY CAN TRACK YOU DOWN AND CLOSE THIS LIST.

4 3

RE: Overwelmed with Stupidity...
by Gregory Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Shaun Clark <jacquard(a)teleport.com> writes: > > > Ok, ok... Let me say something, but I don't want anyone to > > take this wrong. I'm not trying to be stupid, but I don't > > have half the knowledge you all seem to posses. > and Mike Duvos <mpd(a)netcom.com> replies: >That's ok. Welcome to the list. > then proceeds to pull Mike's leg by telling him TRS-80 is a technical paper by David Sternlight, DES is a synthetic estrogen that shrinks your dick, and GAK is green slime on a kiddie show. In my mind, this is just schoolyard bully-ism at the expense of the "new kid." Really mature, really nurturing of the serious values and issues this list exists to disseminate. Go back to second grade, Mike. I, too, am a relative newcomer to this list, and have not participated very actively because I'm having a hard time gauging the balance between the genuinely useful technical and philosophical issues being discussed (of which there are many) and the childish, irrational ranting and insulting pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship being bantered about (of which there is far too much). If people like Mike Duvos can't bring themselves to offer any useful information to newcomers who earnestly ask, they could at least refrain from insulting them for the "crime" of not knowing. Shaun, TRS-80 is an early line of microcomputers produced by Radio Shack, DES is a (not very secure) encryption algorithm supported by the Bureau of Standards, and GAK stand for "govenment access to keys," the position that the government should have access to all private keys (in escrow, of course) just in case there is a "legitimate" need to listen in on anybody's private communications. I believe in the values this list was founded to promulgate, and I value it for the open political, technical and philosopical discussions of issues crucial to our time. And, yes, it's great to have fun, too, but does it always have to be mean-spirited fun at someone else's expense? -- Gregory <gregorye(a)microsoft.com> "Opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and not the opinions of my employer." PGP key for <gregorye(a)microsoft.com> is on the keyservers >

3 3

HACKER REPORT
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Just saw part I of a two-part series on "hackers" being broadcast by a local San Francisco TV station. Nothing horrible, in my opinion. The adroitly sidestepped the hacker/cracker distinction by saying the "hacker" has come to mean..." and then gave the negative, intrusive definition. The interviewed a spokesman for "InsWeb" an on-line insurance company that has been the target of "hackers." During the filmed segment, they did a trace-route on the intrusion which lead back to Germany. The explained "social engineering" and showed how a hacker could get someone to reveal their password. They also interviewed a San Jose computer crime cop named Keith Lowery. He didn't add much to the discussion. At the end, Pete Wilson (the TV guy, not the governor) said something like, "Hackers tells us that the problem may be overblown. Most people--and this includes most hackers--know the difference between right and wrong." Tomorrow's show should be more interesting (and possibly much more sensationalistic). Part II is "The Hacker Underground." Oooh, scary! S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 2

ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: > ALL OF YOU ARE CRIMINAL HACKERS, I AM GOING TO CALL FBI > I AM NOT GOING TO TOLERATE EXISTENCE OF A MEDIUM FOR CRIMINAL > HACKERS AND MUNITIONS SMUGGLERS. I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE FBI > IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY CAN TRACK YOU DOWN AND CLOSE THIS LIST. Damn! What were we thinking? We left that "who cypherpunks" back door open on majordomo(a)toad.com. Now "they" are going to come and get us all. Curses! Foiled again! And they say there is no legitimate use for 'ludes. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

The Four Horsemen Go to the Olympics!
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, there was an explosion at the Olympics... It may have been a bomb or it may have been a transformer. Expect this to be used as fuel as to why every one in America must be under constant survelance by the Government. The Four Horsemen are now an Olympic Event! --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Gambling Protocols
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk >>for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool. The obvious approach is for some kind person to send encrypted email to both Phill and Sandy and offer to hold their digicash in escrow. What kind of protocol would it take to implement this correctly? The escrow agent needs to verify that the e-money is good (though not necessarily where it came from), and perhaps put some kind of lock on it to prevent double-spending by the bettors. The bettors need to be able to verify that the escrow agent hasn't ripped them off. (The escrow agent may have a certain amount of reputation with the two players, but may not be in a regular escrow business so he may be willing to rip them off, unlike a bank which probably doesn't want to risk its reputation. In a typical betting-escrow situation today, the escrow agent doesn't need much reputation because he's right there while the two bettors are arm-wrestling, shooting pool, trying to out-drink each other, or whatever, so he can't really abscond.) Non-payer-anonymous double-spender-identifying e-money would be one approach - if the escrow agent rips them off, he's traceable, and if one of the bettors double-spends, he gets fingered. Perhaps the escrow agent should deposit the money (and a key) with the bank and get back an encrypted set of money and a certificate saying the encrypted money is worth $X (which lets you use basic Chaumian first-spender-wins e-money.) Any better approaches? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

1 0