- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Warning about exposing anon id
by catalyst＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wonderer says: >[direct replies to an anon id reveal _your_ anon id] To avoid this, instead of replying to e.g., an41418(a)anon.penet.fi, reverse the first two letters (mnemonic 'not anonymous') and thus reply instead to na41418(a)anon.penet.fi. It will go to the same person, but your reply will not by anonymized, and thus your identity will not be revealed. Hope this helps, Scott Collins | "Few people realize what tremendous power there | is in one of these things." -- Willy Wonka ......................|................................................ BUSINESS. voice:408.862.0540 fax:974.6094 collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2B Cupertino, CA 95014 ....................................................................... PERSONAL. voice/fax:408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

3 2

DC-nets
by Douglas Sinclair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My thanks to Tim Newsham and Tim May for sending me information on DC-networks. It appears the modifications that I had been thinking about were not discussed by Chaum in his original paper, which gives me some hope I may have stumbled across something new. Chaum proposes the use of public key cryptography for secure communication between vertices in a DC-net. This leads to the problem of secure key exchange, and the possibility that the public key algorithm is not sound. Instead, the interference properties of a DC-net may be used to give unconditional security. Say Alice wishes to send a message M to Bob. 1. Alice computes the hash of M, and appends it to M to produce a packet P of p bits. 2. Alice transmits on the net "Message of p bits for Bob" 3. Bob receives this message, and prepares a packet R composed of p random bits. 4. Alice transmits packet P. Simultaniously, Bob transmits packet R. The output of the DCnet is now X, where X = P XOR R 5. Bob, computes P = X XOR R. He verifies that the last bits of P are a valid hash for the first portion. If so, he has succesfully recieved M and the transfer is over. If not, there must have been interference from another party. He would then transmit "Alice, resend message", and the procedure would be repeated. All that Carol, another vertex in the net, can see is X. She cannot derive P from X as it has been encrypted with the equivalent of a one-time pad. Thus, P is unconditionally secure. Alice and Bob need no nothing about each other for this transfer to work. Indeed, Alice and Bob may well be pseudonyms. The worst that can happen is that two sites respond to the pseudonym of Bob, and the transfer suffers from interference. Hence the built in hash. Note that only Bob can see the valid hash, and only then if the transfer has worked perfectly. Thus, the hash need not be secure. I have not looked at the efffects of collusion on this protocol. My gut feeling is that sufficient collusion would bring it down in flames. However, this is also true of the basic operation of a DC-net. I cannot claim that I came up with this protocol alone. It was concieved this summer at a seminar I taught on cryptography. After sitting around a table and flipping coins to prove that it actually did work, we started looking at the problems of un-intentional interference. This is the result of half an hour of me trying to remember what little I had read of DC-nets and the students making me look like a fool for not having studied as much as I should have. So, my first question to you is, does it work? The next question is has it been thought of before? And finally, is it useful? -- PGP 2.3a Key by finger

1 0

[NOISE] [philosophypunks] Re: Dr. Vulis
by Bryce 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dr. Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > > And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in > terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. > Rights are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society > finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were > affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional > liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them. to which I, Bryce <bryce(a)c2.net> replied: > > Dear Sir: I humbly put it to you that the above reflects a > misunderstanding about the libertarian conception of "absolute > rights". I personally do _not_ subscribe to said theory, but > I try to understand a thing correctly before criticizing it in > public. to which he, <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > > Given that the only recognised philosopher to take the libertarian > position is Nozdic and he has semi-recanted I think it perfectly > reasonable to base the libertarian position on the views of > people calling themselves libertarians. Okay. Normally I would rather argue about viewpoints expressed in written opinions by writers like pre-communitarian Nozick, Ayn Rand, David Friedman and so forth than about difficult-to- pinpoint "views of people calling themselves libertarians", but in this case it will make little difference to my argument, which is that your article quoted at the beginning of this message reflects a misunderstanding of those views. > If you don't ascribe to "absolute rights" based in natural law > then it sounds as if you accept that rights are derived > from prior principles. If you accept that then you are a > simply taking the traditional liberal position. Hm. This is as may be, but it is tangential to my purpose in publically calling you on your (presumably innocent) misrepresentation. <snip on Hallam-Baker on Mills on "'absolute' rights"> Sure, I agree with you that Mills doesn't start with rights as an assumption, but rather argues for them from prior assumptions. When I said that Mills argues for "absolute ('unbalanced')" rights, I meant that he argues for individual rights with (almost) no exceptions, in constrast to your your assertion that "the main theory it advances is of the *balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals.". I doubt very much that Mills _ever_ used the phrase or the concept of "rights of communities" and I know that the main theory that _On_Liberty_ advances is the (almost) total sovereignty of individual rights. (I see now that I shouldn't have called Mills' conception of rights "absolute", because of the existence of that "almost" there...) But this, too, is tangential to my point... > Mill was not an anarchist, he was a classic liberal utilitarian. > Its rather ironic that nobody on the list has recognised that I > advance a classical utilitarian position and that if I quote Mill > I'm quoting a principle authority. Hm. I was taught that Mills recanted Benthamism and became a vigorous philosophical adversary of it before writing _On_ _Liberty_. Are you counting _On_Liberty_-era Mills as some kind of "neo-Benthamite utilitarian" or is one of us mistaken on his self-identification? But this, too, is tangential to my point, which I will get around to now. You wrote, in the article that spawned this thread: > And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in > terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about. Now I must strongly assert that this _is_ an action that can be strictly justified in terms of absolute rights as understood by people who call themselves libertarians. I don't believe that Dr. Vulis _should_ have been banned from cypherpunks, and I don't believe in absolute rights as understood by people who call themselves libertarians, but I must state that your assertion quoted above reflects a profound misunderstanding of that viewpoint. The idea of absolute rights as understood by libertarians states that no-one is justified in exercising "the use of force" against another person unless in self-defense against similar "use of force" from that person. [Note: "the use of force" is in quotes because it has a particular meaning in this context which is essential to appreciating the theory. The meaning of "the use of force" in this theory is: "One of: a. performing physical violence upon the subject, b. threatening to perform physical violence upon the subject, c. stealing the subject's property.".] Now if you are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph then you must find it obvious that this theory does not forbid John Gilmore from banning Dr. Vulis from cypherpunks. If you are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph and _also_ understand its deficiencies and begged questions, then more power to you, but you must still admit that the theory, as understood by people who call themselves libertarians, fully permits John Gilmore to ban Dr. V. I look forward to your reply. Regards, Bryce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMn97m0jbHy8sKZitAQGiPgL9GJqxboWmhOoMheYpPZTgPyRB6eMbf4J6 q2EmtQPoQB8HwhFLR4AV9C9TgZ4wb2lH2gCCDjqaUi0I+0Kc5AMUBfXvmh3tU/Q6 BkztyVtRQsM/IJ0ruLItYqJmrRTAmDou =QQJG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

pirate radio
by nobody＠alumni.cco.caltech.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There's an article on this morning's front page of the New York Times (10/24/93) about a guy in Berkeley who runs a pirate station and gives seminars on how to do likewise on the cheap. Better get judgement proof first, though - FCC is trying to fine him $20,000. Eternal!Optimist(a)anon.penet.fi (copyright 1993, Eternal Optimist [Ha Ha Ha]) 0) 0) =:()]-< <na26522(a)anon.penet.fi> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLMpc04jvfLxJbYYtAQEtuAP9FRirBlZXmVzHXXqgFyQklDkqPfJtxSl7 Kz4Qn5aL/sghgM68w7OLTw6AYpeNMc2Te0aABRorEATlJISnAOHiUJnP/7+IH9oS XmwY1xJ5NfKWAHu2BzKoTd6eDKrZsPZ60ECLZ5ODEVDb8kmCuUPZo7rOFEzABmFK YBGOpH0I1Pg= =peuY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

'What A Long Strange Trip It's Been' by Lewis Sanders
by ajteel＠andronix.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

================================================= === "What A Long Strange Trip Its Been: === === A Hippy's History Of The 60's & Beyond" === === By Lewis Sanders, 2nd. Edition, 1994 === ================================================= Dear Friend I am sending this special announcement to all of the addresses of net.friends that I found in my mailbox. I have come across a book that I am sure that many of you may be interested in. This is a one-time, special announcement and is _not_ the start of new mailing list. The book is, in my opinion, important enough to tell all of you about. "What A Long Strange Trip It's Been" is now available in an autographed, limited edition printing. This new and updated version of Sanders' 1989 underground classic has the reviewers raving. Readers can't put it down. Colleges are using it with great success in American History and Sociology classes. With unique first-hand knowledge of the subject, Sanders writes a detailed account of the people and events of the era. Users of my InfoBot might be especially interested in the appendix regarding 'world domination'. To obtain a brief flyer containing excerpts, a synopsis, and reviews about this riveting account of major trends of the last three decades, simply send a message to walstib-info(a)andronix.org. The author may also be reached at walstib(a)andronix.org <Lewis Sanders>. If you are not interested, _please_ _disregard_this_message_. Regards, -A. J.- =*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-= Without Prejudice UCC 1-207, A. J. Teel, Sui Juris, SLE <ajteel(a)andronix.org> USPS: A.C.T., A. Freeman, c/o 637 So. Broadway #B-212, Boulder, NON-DOMESTIC Colorado Republic, (u).S.A., P.Z.: 80303/TDC (303) 687-4935 24 Hours NIC: AJT =*=-=*=-=*=-= Random Liberty/Freedom Quote for this message =-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*= TREATY. "... Treaties usually provide for their own termination, but independently of that it has been held that when a treaty becomes dangerous to the life or incompatible with the independence of a state or a permanent obstacle to the development of its constitution or the rights of its people, it can be abdicated, and also when the condition of affairs which formed the basis of the treaty has become so modified by time that its execution has become contrary to the nature of things and the original intent of the parties: 22 Ct. Cls. 408." --Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1897 edition. (Is NAFTA a "treaty" or an "agreement"?!) =*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-= No posts from .andronix.org may be commercially quoted without permission. Email frink-info(a)andronix.org for important 'Freedom, Ink.' Archives Data. Email walstib-info(a)andronix.org for What_A_Long_Strange_Trip_It's_Been Info.

1 0

RE: Dr. Vulis
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > the main theory [Mill's book _On_Liberty_] advances is of the *balance* > between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals. Two words: Schelling Point. James

1 0

RE: Dr. Vulis please read this.
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Butler, Scott" <SButler(a)chemson.com> writes: > Dr. Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > > Do you think that it would be possible for you to leave this mailing > list quietly WITHOUT sending mail to it again unless you have anything > that may be found interesting / useful regarding cryptography. Thank you, Scott, for your advice, which reminds me of the following story: One day the Germans were about to shoot two Jews, named Abram and Moisha. The Germans offered the Jews blindfolds. Abram bravely declined, to which Moisha said: "Take it, Abram, don't make trouble!" --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Emergency Broadcast System
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Message-Id: <9310221941.AA16004(a)toad.com> >Subject: Emergency Broadcast System >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 13:36:33 -0600 (MDT) >From: "Philippe_D_Nave" <pdn(a)dwroll.dw.att.com> > 1) Mailing list data should be distributed to "N" sites where "N" is a > magic number that minimizes the chance of losing all the copies. > (Mathematicians, sharpen your pencils!) I found the equations I mentioned earlier. The following is a latex file giving some. The trend should be obvious. You don't need many nodes, if you can repair broken ones quickly enough. [This is why Stratus has such a large FedEx bill. When one of our machines gets a broken component, it phones home automatically, reports the failure and a new part is FedEx'ed immediately. If the report comes in by midnight, the new part is on the customer's desk for him/her to replace by 9am. (Our current machines have N=2, K=1). We prefer high speed mailaing of parts (from a warehouse at FedEx's central sorting airport) over normal mail in order to maximize $\mu$.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \documentstyle[12pt]{article} \begin{document} \title{MTTF of Various Systems} \author{Carl M. Ellison \thanks{Stratus Computer Inc., 55 Fairbanks Blvd., Marlborough MA 01752. Email address: {\tt cme(a)sw.stratus.com}.}} \date{June 18, 1993} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Equations are presented for the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) of various systems, as a function of the number of nodes in the system, N, and the minimum number of nodes in a working system, K. Failure of a system is defined as having fewer than K working nodes. \end{abstract} \section{Equations} Here are some equations for the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) of various systems, as a function of the number of nodes in the system, N, and the minimum number of nodes in a working system, K. Failure of a system is defined as having fewer than K working nodes. Typically, K=1 and each node has a complete copy of each database. However, sometimes the data can be kept on multple nodes (as in a RAID-5 disk array) which will tolerate some failures, down to a given threshold. It is assumed that as soon as a failure occurs, a repair cycle will be started. There is then a race to see if the repair can be completed before enough additional nodes fail to drop the working number below K. If that race is lost, it is assumed that information has been lost, in the worst case, but at least that the service represented by the N nodes is not available. These equations do not give system availability (probability that a service is available) but rather MTTF. Availability equations can be found in several good textbooks. See, for example, Trivedi's text on Statistics. MTTF is more difficult to compute. The equations below were each a symbolic solution to a custom Markov chain, built to model the choice of N and K. N: number of nodes in a full system K: number of nodes in a minimally functional system $\lambda$: rate of failures (e.g., number of node failures per year) $\mu$: rate of node repair (in the same units as $\lambda$) Each fraction below is the MTTF of the whole system: the mean time until a system drops to only (K-1) working nodes. N = 3 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 5\lambda + \mu }{ 6\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 4 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 26\lambda^2 + 6\lambda\mu + \mu^2 }{ 24\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 4 ; K = 3 \begin{equation} \frac{ 7\lambda + \mu }{ 12\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 5 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 154\lambda^3 + 36\lambda^2\mu + 7\lambda\mu^2 + \mu^3 }{ 120\lambda^4 } \end{equation} N = 5 ; K = 3 \begin{equation} \frac{ 47\lambda^2 + 8\lambda\mu + \mu^2 }{ 60\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 5 ; K = 4 \begin{equation} \frac{ 9\lambda + \mu }{ 20\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 6 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 1044\lambda^4 + 240\lambda^3\mu + 48\lambda^2\mu^2 + 8\lambda\mu^3 + \mu^4 }{ 720\lambda^5 } \end{equation} N = 6 ; K = 3 \begin{equation} \frac{ 342\lambda^3 + 60\lambda^2\mu + 9\lambda\mu^2 + \mu^3 }{ 360\lambda^4 } \end{equation} N = 6 ; K = 4 \begin{equation} \frac{ 74\lambda^2 + 10\lambda\mu + \mu^2 }{ 120\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 6 ; K = 5 \begin{equation} \frac{ 11\lambda + \mu }{ 30\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 7 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 8028\lambda^5 + 1800\lambda^4\mu + 360\lambda^3\mu^2 + 62\lambda^2\mu^3 + 9\lambda\mu^4 + \mu^5 }{ 5040\lambda^6 } \end{equation} N = 7 ; K = 3 \begin{equation} \frac{ 2754\lambda^4 + 480\lambda^3\mu + 75\lambda^2\mu^2 + 10\lambda\mu^3 + \mu^4 }{ 2520\lambda^5 } \end{equation} N = 7 ; K = 4 \begin{equation} \frac{ 638\lambda^3 + 90\lambda^2\mu + 11\lambda\mu^2 + \mu^3 }{ 840\lambda^4 } \end{equation} N = 7 ; K = 5 \begin{equation} \frac{ 107\lambda^2 + 12\lambda\mu + \mu^2 }{ 210\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 7 ; K = 6 \begin{equation} \frac{ 13\lambda + \mu }{ 42\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 8 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 69264\lambda^6 + 15120\lambda^5\mu + 3000\lambda^4\mu^2 + 520\lambda^3\mu^3 + 78\lambda^2\mu^4 + 10\lambda\mu^5 + \mu^6 }{ 40320\lambda^7 } \end{equation} N = 8 ; K = 3 \begin{equation} \frac{ 24552\lambda^5 + 4200\lambda^4\mu + 660\lambda^3\mu^2 + 92\lambda^2\mu^3 + 11\lambda\mu^4 + \mu^5 }{ 20160\lambda^6 } \end{equation} N = 8 ; K = 4 \begin{equation} \frac{ 5944\lambda^4 + 840\lambda^3\mu + 108\lambda^2\mu^2 + 12\lambda\mu^3 + \mu^4 }{ 6720\lambda^5 } \end{equation} N = 8 ; K = 5 \begin{equation} \frac{ 1066\lambda^3 + 126\lambda^2\mu + 13\lambda\mu^2 + \mu^3 }{ 1680\lambda^4 } \end{equation} N = 8 ; K = 6 \begin{equation} \frac{ 146\lambda^2 + 14\lambda\mu + \mu^2 }{ 336\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 8 ; K = 7 \begin{equation} \frac{ 15\lambda + \mu }{ 56\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 9 ; K = 3 \begin{equation} \frac{ 241128\lambda^6 + 40320\lambda^5\mu + 6300\lambda^4\mu^2 + 888\lambda^3\mu^3 + 111\lambda^2\mu^4 + 12\lambda\mu^5 + \mu^6 }{ 181440\lambda^7 } \end{equation} N = 9 ; K = 4 \begin{equation} \frac{ 60216\lambda^5 + 8400\lambda^4\mu + 1092\lambda^3\mu^2 + 128\lambda^2\mu^3 + 13\lambda\mu^4 + \mu^5 }{ 60480\lambda^6 } \end{equation} N = 9 ; K = 5 \begin{equation} \frac{ 11274\lambda^4 + 1344\lambda^3\mu + 147\lambda^2\mu^2 + 14\lambda\mu^3 + \mu^4 }{ 15120\lambda^5 } \end{equation} N = 9 ; K = 6 \begin{equation} \frac{ 1650\lambda^3 + 168\lambda^2\mu + 15\lambda\mu^2 + \mu^3 }{ 3024\lambda^4 } \end{equation} N = 9 ; K = 7 \begin{equation} \frac{ 191\lambda^2 + 16\lambda\mu + \mu^2 }{ 504\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 9 ; K = 8 \begin{equation} \frac{ 17\lambda + \mu }{ 72\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 10 ; K = 4 \begin{equation} \frac{ 662640\lambda^6 + 90720\lambda^5\mu + 11760\lambda^4\mu^2 + 1400\lambda^3\mu^3 + 150\lambda^2\mu^4 + 14\lambda\mu^5 + \mu^6 }{ 604800\lambda^7 } \end{equation} N = 10 ; K = 5 \begin{equation} \frac{ 127860\lambda^5 + 15120\lambda^4\mu + 1680\lambda^3\mu^2 + 170\lambda^2\mu^3 + 15\lambda\mu^4 + \mu^5 }{ 151200\lambda^6 } \end{equation} N = 10 ; K = 6 \begin{equation} \frac{ 19524\lambda^4 + 2016\lambda^3\mu + 192\lambda^2\mu^2 + 16\lambda\mu^3 + \mu^4 }{ 30240\lambda^5 } \end{equation} N = 10 ; K = 7 \begin{equation} \frac{ 2414\lambda^3 + 216\lambda^2\mu + 17\lambda\mu^2 + \mu^3 }{ 5040\lambda^4 } \end{equation} N = 10 ; K = 8 \begin{equation} \frac{ 242\lambda^2 + 18\lambda\mu + \mu^2 }{ 720\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 10 ; K = 9 \begin{equation} \frac{ 19\lambda + \mu }{ 90\lambda^2 } \end{equation} \end{document}

1 0

Re: Voluntary Governments?
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Here, someone will surely object that by this definition, the Mafia can > > be considered a government. > > Well, yes, of course. It has quasi-governmental functions in southern > Italy. ... and in Central New Jersey and parts of upstate New York as well :-)

1 0

MTTF expressions for K = 1
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry -- I left out the K=1 expressions from that paper. They're a little more mundane (for Stratus) but of obvious interest here. These are the most likely to be interesting to us. Consider, for example, \lambda = 0.5 failures/year and \mu = 52 repairs/year for the kind of machines we're talking about (as opposed to Stratus machines). The resulting MTTF would be in years. - Carl ==================================================================== N = 2 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 3\lambda + 1\mu }{ 2\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 3 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 11\lambda^2 + 4\lambda\mu + 1\mu^2 }{ 6\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 4 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 50\lambda^3 + 18\lambda^2\mu + 5\lambda\mu^2 + 1\mu^3 }{ 24\lambda^4 } \end{equation}

1 0