Untraceable Payments, Extortion, and Other Bad Things
I've noticed a few references in the press, and maybe on this list, to the idea that because some bad things may be done with untraceable payments (true Chaumian digicash, not the watered down version offering only one-sided untraceability), that governments will "not allow" such untraceable payments. This won't work. So long as there is at least *one* such service, anywhere in the world.... I'll explain. A few definitions: "Bad things" are the uses to which strong crypto, anonymous systems, information markets, untraceable payments, etc., may be put to commit various crimes and dastardly acts. For example, untraceable payments for untraceable contract assassinations (thus removing the primary means by which such contractors are caught, the arrangements to begin with and the payments). Or, espionage in which the spy transfers information digitally via a "digital dead drop," eliminating the need for a physical contact point (an obvious vulnerability, as recent cases have shown) and also allowing efficient payment via untraceable funds transfers. And extortion. Extortion is an interesting example to focus on. "Pay $25,000 or the following action will occur." A bomb, a virus, release of secrets, etc. Blackmail is of course a form of extortion, as is kidnapping. The acts involving *physical* actions will of course be less affected by crypto advances than will purely information-domain acts, e.g., where secrets will be released unless a payment is made. Physical acts have a nexus of detection at the act itself, the kidnapping, the bomb-planting, etc. (Though often the original act is very hard to protect against, and traditionally it has been the payoff that has been the nexus for catching the perpetrator...with untraceable payments, kidnapping becomes less dangerous for the kidnapper, especially if he kills his victim...I surmise that new technology, such as cameras and wireless Net video calls will be used increasingly to provide the payer of a ransom increased assurance that the victim was still alive at the time the transfer was made...the video call could even go through remailers, if the frame rate was drastically reduced or if PipeNet comes into existence.) But I'll focus on simple extortion, with no complications of physical, meatspace actions. Pure cyberspace. "Untraceable payments" refer to payer- and payee-untraceable Chaum-style cash. Although for the discussions here of extortion, payee-untraceable (the person being paid would not be traceable is my sense of this term) digital cash would be sufficient; that the payment originated from XYZ Corporation or some account at the Bank of Albania would not stop the acts. Chaum has in recent years attempted (I have to presume) to take the "edge" of fully-intraceable digital cash by making it only partly untraceable. Many of us hypothesized that "mixes" (as in remailers) could be used to fully-untraceabalize (?) even partly-traceable systems. I recall Lucky Green, Hal Finney, and others in such discussions. "Banks" were proposed to do this. Recently, Ian Goldberg claims to have a system which formally accomplishes this. (Keep in mind my original claim, that all it takes is _one_ such system...) Now suppose that the U.S. Government formally and officially and with actual enforcement halts all such untraceable systems, at least in terms of U.S. banks, credit unions, local moneychangers, etc. Even halts all partly-untraceable systems, to head off the Goldberg Gambit. Does this stop extortion? Suppose there exists a supplier of fully-untraceable (or payee-untraceable at least) cash *somewhere* in the world. It could be a physical bank, a la the Bank of Albania, or it could be an underground payment system, a la the Mafia, the Tongs, the Triads, whatever. A reputation-reliant system which says "Present us with the proper set of numbers and we will provide money to the bearer, or follow instructions, and so on." (I'm informally describing the process of "redeeming" a digital bearer instrument, converting the set of numbers into some other form of specie, or item of value, whatever. Maybe gold, maybe dollars, maybe an entry into an account somewhere. The "untraceability," via the blinding operation, means that the bearer is not linked to the transaction made earlier, so there is not risk at the bank or Triad. I'm also not distinguishing between offline and online clearing here...my feeling for a long time has been that online clearing has many advantages, but I suspect it does not work too well in the extortion case described here, until something like PipeNet can be used as part of the process.) So, Ed the Extortionist tells Vic the Victim to please purchase $25,000 worth of Bank of Albania crypto-credits, by whatever means he has to (including, presumably, even flying to Albania, or using other funds transfer mechanisms, or perhaps even using crypto credits he had accumulated in other transactions.) Whatever, it is assumed that Vic _wants_ to make the transaction, just as with kidnap ransom demands. (Not "want" in the ultimate sense, but "want" in the sense of the local transaction. In extortion and kidnap cases, the victim of the extortion or the family of the kidnap victim may choose not to make the payment...I'm dealing with the more interesting case of where the payment is being made.) How Ed receives the funds without the bits being followed through cyberspace is of course an easy exercise for readers here. Anonymous remailers with reply-block capabilities, a la Mixmaster, or, my preference, posting in a public place, a la the Usenet or other widely-disseminated message pools. Ed takes the crypto credits and redeems them as he sees fit (after some unblinding stuff, of course). The redemption order is unlinkable to the extortion. (Modulo the usual issues: if Ed and Vic happened to be the _only_ users of such a system, then of course simple input-output mapping would finger Ed, as with such uses of remailer networks. Correlations are always a danger. Correlations in timing, in deposit size, etc. The usual fixes apply: more users, more bits sloshing around the network, time delays, etc. Offline clearing facillitates some of these measures. Ditto for breaking up the payment into N separate smaller-denomination transfers.) What could the U.S. do? If Vic the Victim is careful, and either flies to Europe or the Caribbean to make the arrangements, or uses various Cypherpunks-type communication methods, he should be able to wire money from a conventional account, or use real cash, and purchase the crypto credits from the Bank of Albania. Likewise, if Ed the Extortionist has freedom of travel or freedom to use various channels, he can cash in his crypto credits. This no matter what the U.S. does. So, even if "Mark Twain Bank" and "Bank of America," and, indeed, the rest of the U.S. banking establishment eschews untraceability, the presence of such services anywhere in the world is enough to make the act described workable. And that "anywhere in the world" can, as I mentioned earlier, encompass the various underground banking systems already widely in use (Tongs, Triads, chop marks, etc. in Asia, and presumably similar systems elsewhere). Or it could encompass fairly conventional banks which offer such untraceable routes for a premium. A $5,000 commission on top of the $25,000 transfer would make a lot of the world's banks sit up and take notice. And so long as they were not told what the fund transfer was all about--Vic is unlikely to gain anything by telling them--they have plausible deniability and moral comfort. Yes, this has all been obvious for a while. (The mapping of the scenario I describe to a specific digital cash system depends of course on the nature of the system, on cryptographic protocols, and so forth.) And I surmise that the U.S. Government must have realized this. And realized that only by _completely quashing_ all such untraceable payments systems can the goals of stopping such "bad uses" be met. Unfortunately for them, and unfortunately for the victims of such crimes, no such worldwide stoppage of all such systems seems possible, even with draconian police state measures. There are just too many interstices for the bits to hide. And too much economic incentive for some persons or banks to offer such funds transfer methods. Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire, is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted in other interferences in private behavior, etc. This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable communications and fully untraceable economic transactions. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
By the way, I was gone last week, and missed some of the follow-ups to this thread. I did notice in Omegaman's replies that he was replying to Detwweiler's wailings about "Timmy." (What's with Detweiler and Vulis both being so hung up on such a nickname? If it makes them feel they're winning converts, let them call me "Timmy." Jeesh.) At 6:21 PM -0600 12/29/96, Omegaman wrote:
But criminals are often a stupid and foolish lot. Many will be caught at the "nexus" of physical action due to their own ineptitude. I can envision several such instances occurring where it is publicized that these were contract (killings,extortions,kidnappings) in which the individual was to be paid in Bank of Albani digital cash.
Sure, but my interest is in the possible, not the dumb mistakes of dumb people. That some criminals will screw up and reveal their identities is no different from the similar possibility that some people will mess up in using remailers; doesn't alter the interesting properties of remailer networks.
This publicity and subsequent public outrage result in many corporations and institutions seizing the moral high ground (and a little good publicity which could result in more revenue, of course) and advocating/enforcing a ban on usage of bank of Albania digital bux.
Perhaps. But I note that various "outrages" associated with use of Swiss banks--Jewish gold deposits, banana republic deposits, tax avoidance, etc.--have not exactly driven Swiss and similar banks out of existence. Greed is a powerful lubricant. And there are of course various ways to make the traffic less obvious.
Ed takes the crypto credits and redeems them as he sees fit (after some unblinding stuff, of course). The redemption order is unlinkable to the extortion.
True, but if Bank of Albania digital cash is not accepted as a method of payment, what good does this do Ed? No one will change them because they are largely worthless.
Ed can of course redeem his Bank of Albania digibux at the Bank of Albania, if worst came to worst and somehow the Bank of Albania was "frozen out" of the banking community (see below for why this is effectively impossible). Go to Tiraz, present the digibux numbers, take payment in paper dollars, gold coins, whatever. And, more importantly, the "doubly untraceable" nature of true Chaumian e-cash means that the Bank of Albania _cannot_ be frozen out of the banking system (assuming other banks are also issuing Chaumian cash). Any mechanism that would allow the Bank of Botswana, for example, to "know" that the Bank of Albania was buying untraceable Botswanabux would of course mean the Botswanabux were not untraceable! Once Bank of Albania can buy such untraceable currency, they can pay Ed off in them. Or variants of this. (The similarity of a network of Chaumian digicash banks to a network of remailers is obvious...indeed, Chaum's work on "digital mixes" preceeded his work on digital cash, 1981 vs. 1985.) ...
Of course not. But unless untraceable digital cash becomes a ubiquitous and widely used form, it will not be useful for these "bad things" (or any other purpose
As always, the key is deployment of an untraceable, anonymouse form of digital cash now. Wide usage is part of the key to legitimization. Right now the government is frantically attempting to marginalize the idea of fully untraceable digicash with all sorts of four-horsemen publicity.
If everybody's already using it, they'll be far less likely to switch to a new digicash-escrow alternative.
Well, I agree with all of these points. They want deployment halted, or at least slowed. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Timmy May <tcmay@got.net> farts:
By the way, I was gone last week, and missed some of the follow-ups to this thread. I did notice in Omegaman's replies that he was replying to Detwweiler's wailings about "Timmy." (What's with Detweiler and Vulis both being so hung up on such a nickname? If it makes them feel they're winning converts, let them call me "Timmy." Jeesh.)
Tiny Timmy's use of the word "hung" indicates that he has a very small penis. Does the pedophile cocksucker John Gilmore perfer small penises in his mouth? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Sure, but my interest is in the possible, not the dumb mistakes of dumb people. That some criminals will screw up and reveal their identities is no different from the similar possibility that some people will mess up in using remailers; doesn't alter the interesting properties of remailer networks.
Of course it doesn't. But remailer networks are at a formative stage where bad publicity (& disinformation) carries a lot more weight. Think in terms of remailer networks and digicash having "reputation capital" and you'll see where I'm coming from. Both the sensational nature of "THE NET" and the efficiency of the net to spread information far & wide rapidly compound the power of a carefully crafted publicity campaign
Perhaps. But I note that various "outrages" associated with use of Swiss banks--Jewish gold deposits, banana republic deposits, tax avoidance, etc.--have not exactly driven Swiss and similar banks out of existence. Greed is a powerful lubricant. And there are of course various ways to make the traffic less obvious.
All of the above are well established in corporate circles. Furthermore, they're not widely used (relatively speaking, of course) or widely accessible.
And, more importantly, the "doubly untraceable" nature of true Chaumian e-cash means that the Bank of Albania _cannot_ be frozen out of the banking system (assuming other banks are also issuing Chaumian cash). Any mechanism that would allow the Bank of Botswana, for example, to "know" that the Bank of Albania was buying untraceable Botswanabux would of course mean the Botswanabux were not untraceable! Once Bank of Albania can buy such untraceable currency, they can pay Ed off in them. Or variants of this. (The similarity of a network of Chaumian digicash banks to a network of remailers is obvious...indeed, Chaum's work on "digital mixes" preceeded his work on digital cash, 1981 vs. 1985.)
Yes. But we were talking about one only "doubly untraceable" Chaumian digicash system. I feel that if such systems don't see wide and common usage, they will fade away in favor off "singly untraceable" and like systems. (or be pushed out, such as in the example we played with above). One rogue bank, therefore, can be frozen out if others are not using Chaumian cash. One possibly and likely scenario is that partially untraceable Chaumian style cash will begin to be widely used. Once others using fully untraceable systems come into play, the pot is muddied a bit. (I guess I need to re-read some of the recent releases about partially untracable Chaumian cash to explore the possibilities represented.) Happy New Year, all. _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Omegaman wrote:
Yes. But we were talking about one only "doubly untraceable" Chaumian digicash system. I feel that if such systems don't see wide and common usage, they will fade away in favor off "singly untraceable" and like systems. (or be pushed out, such as in the example we played with above).
One rogue bank, therefore, can be frozen out if others are not using Chaumian cash.
I don't see how one bank offering fully anonymous digital cash could be "frozen out." Partially untracable cash systems may be much more popular, but as long as the fully anonymous system receives enough money to stay in business, there would be little risk of fading away. A bank offering fully anonymous digital cash could be used for tax evasion, extortion, and money laundering. These crimes usually involve large sums of money, so this would keep the bank in business. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMsgtDyzIPc7jvyFpAQGZKAf8DvR1uWWCV5iTcj23YdxNC/Bg5e6+AFYw buzMoNsHNdpu/LKBMIdr03vLbuOGIDDo+FobHtzVoqss2CExm2mHqlWJWChNO19M 8/M+JGj3RlXVbzKLaXyeTNQtVf9MqUdrxGaT00caggKglzO8w0ghoazbuGZ6nHhy k2sKB1ghKF+9kJc7yCVMRtimZeCOl+veZjwK/SO3FgrhZD/hnJ0ArLBBF5gfPvOH 451mqcP+1Uy790+Y/+JzHPPAMhX7G7E8QotlHQm21b1nlSRN/eBnbtZwWXdCwf/C MVYcs1q3nYoQF844RPo0L61hlsxhveYUTSyDtyF2I/KErobyunsz+g== =2Ueo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 3:59 PM -0500 12/30/96, Mark M. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Omegaman wrote:
One rogue bank, therefore, can be frozen out if others are not using Chaumian cash.
I don't see how one bank offering fully anonymous digital cash could be "frozen out." Partially untracable cash systems may be much more popular, but as long as the fully anonymous system receives enough money to stay in business, there would be little risk of fading away. A bank offering fully anonymous digital cash could be used for tax evasion, extortion, and money laundering. These crimes usually involve large sums of money, so this would keep the bank in business.
Precisely my sentiment. And as I said in my main response to Omegaman's points, all Ed the Extortionist has to do is cash in his digibux at the bank; at worst this involves a trip to the physical site of the bank. (Yes, he may be photographed by the bank, etc., but the payments are untraceable, meaning, unlinkable. All the bank knows is that Ed is redeeming $100,000 worth of digibux, and taking his payment in dollars, or gold, or whatever. I grant you that having only fully untraceable digital cash issuer is far from ideal, for various reasons. But I was addressing the point Omegaman made that having only one such bank would mean it would or could be driven out of business by other banks...I disagree.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
See what jerk tcmay(fart) is: he sends crypto discussions to the "cypher punks" mailing list, where crypto is off-topic now. "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
I've noticed a few references in the press, and maybe on this list, to the idea that because some bad things may be done with untraceable payments (true Chaumian digicash, not the watered down version offering only one-sided untraceability), that governments will "not allow" such untraceable payments.
Fuck the gubmint. Fuck the patent law. Patent law, copyright law, libel law - none of that shit has any relevance in the cyberspace. Do I understand right that David Chaum no longer runs ecash? Then I see no ethical reason not to implement his original ideas with full anonymity *NOW*. ...
"Untraceable payments" refer to payer- and payee-untraceable Chaum-style cash. Although for the discussions here of extortion, payee-untraceable (the person being paid would not be traceable is my sense of this term) digital cash would be sufficient; that the payment originated from XYZ Corporation or some account at the Bank of Albania would not stop the acts.
Chaum has in recent years attempted (I have to presume) to take the "edge" of fully-intraceable digital cash by making it only partly untraceable. Many of us hypothesized that "mixes" (as in remailers) could be used to fully-untraceabalize (?) even partly-traceable systems. I recall Lucky Green, Hal Finney, and others in such discussions. "Banks" were proposed to do this. Recently, Ian Goldberg claims to have a system which formally accomplishes this.
So instead of shooting your stupid mouth, issue some ecash and promise to exchange it for real US$ upon bearer's demand. Do you have the balls for it?
Suppose there exists a supplier of fully-untraceable (or payee-untraceable at least) cash *somewhere* in the world. It could be a physical bank, a la the Bank of Albania, or it could be an underground payment system, a la the Mafia, the Tongs, the Triads, whatever. A reputation-reliant system which says "Present us with the proper set of numbers and we will provide money to the bearer, or follow instructions, and so on." (I'm informally describing the process of "redeeming" a digital bearer instrument, converting the set of numbers into some other form of specie, or item of value, whatever. Maybe gold, maybe dollars, maybe an entry into an account somewhere. The "untraceability," via the blinding operation, means that the bearer is not linked to the transaction made earlier, so there is not risk at the bank or Triad. I'm also not distinguishing between offline and online clearing here...my feeling for a long time has been that online clearing has many advantages, but I suspect it does not work too well in the extortion case described here, until something like PipeNet can be used as part of the process.)
Translation: you don't have the balls to do this yourself. See, "cypher punks" can only while and flame, and they don't have the guts to issue ecash and to say: this token will be exchanged for $1 by Lucky Green; and that token will be exchanged for $10 by Hall Filly.
This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.
But you don't have the balls to bring it any closer, you airbag parasite. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
poor timmy laments that no one responded to his latest gedanken masterpiece. I am very pleased to be the one to relieve him of his loneliness. Timmy writes:
Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire, is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted in other interferences in private behavior, etc.
imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is no big deal because greater evils exist in the world. it's an argument I see often among the libertarians around here. "what's the big deal about murder? govt's do it all the time. everyone should be able to murder anyone if govt's do it. why, the right to murder people is an inalienable right!!". of course the arguments are never made in this language-- the fun is spotting it in the rhetoric.
This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.
ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but "looks forward to it" careful, timmy, your slime is showing!! (it would be fun to debate you publicly some day on your true beliefs, but alas, you never bite. oh well, I stay amused well enough..)
"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:
poor timmy laments that no one responded to his latest gedanken masterpiece. I am very pleased to be the one to relieve him of his loneliness.
I think Timmy mentioned something about a tryst with Gilmore (spit). Is that why the coward has quiesced posting his tripe to this list? Would it be more appropriate to put (swallow) rather than (spit) after Gilmore's name? How much proeteins, fats, carbohydrates, and vitamines are contained in an average human ejaculation? What about farm animals'? Timmy (fart) and John (swallow) can tell us a lot about this subject.
Timmy writes:
Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire, is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted in other interferences in private behavior, etc.
imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is no big deal because greater evils exist in the world.
Yes, Timmy May is one sick motherfucker.
it's an argument I see often among the libertarians around here. "what's the big deal about murder? govt's do it all the time. everyone should be able to murder anyone if govt's do it. why, the right to murder people is an inalienable right!!". of course the arguments are never made in this language-- the fun is spotting it in the rhetoric.
Of course Timmy May is a coward. Despite his boasting about his assault weapons collection, he probably doesn't have the balls to ice a mouse caught in a mousetrap. Timmy is probably so femme, he wails like a banshee and asks whoever he sleeps with that day to take the mouse out.
This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.
ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but "looks forward to it"
careful, timmy, your slime is showing!!
It's been showing for a while. Timmy May has been exposed on this list as a coward, a liar, a racist, and an all-around scumbag.
(it would be fun to debate you publicly some day on your true beliefs, but alas, you never bite. oh well, I stay amused well enough..)
Like I said, Timmy May is a coward. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is no big deal because greater evils exist in the world.
It's a matter of perspective and a weighing of consequences. Are you trying to so that all evils are inherently equal?
it's an argument I see often among the libertarians around here. "what's the big deal about murder? govt's do it all the time. everyone should be able to murder anyone if govt's do it. why, the right to murder people is an inalienable right!!". of course the arguments are never made in this language-- the fun is spotting it in the rhetoric.
I often see arguments on this list where people happily build irrelevant straw men and pound them into a pulp. What's more amazing is that they're not doing it deliberately; they simply miss the point. You see whatever you expect to see.
This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.
ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but "looks forward to it"
careful, timmy, your slime is showing!!
Careful vladdy, your detweiler is showing. I thought the message was a pretty clear statement of opinion. ie. the deconstruction of democracy is a good thing and cryptoanarchy will a enable a more just society. (Some would argue more brutal as well, but I think that the level of brutatlity in society would change little from it's current levels.) So cut the crap and go ahead and argue for or against that thesis. (by the way. Conveniently enough Tim May has put his ideas on the web in quite a bit of detail. Just put "cyphernomicon" in your favorite web search engine) -------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key. --------------------------------------------------------------
"Omegaman" <omega@bigeasy.com> writes:
ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but "looks forward to it"
careful, timmy, your slime is showing!!
Careful vladdy, your detweiler is showing.
LD not only knows more about crypto than any "cypher punk", he also has way more balls than you, anonymous coward.
(by the way. Conveniently enough Tim May has put his ideas on the web in quite a bit of detail. Just put "cyphernomicon" in your favorite web search engine)
Waste of disk space. Don't bother. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
[timmy paraphrase]
I thought the message was a pretty clear statement of opinion. ie. the deconstruction of democracy is a good thing and cryptoanarchy will a enable a more just society. (Some would argue more brutal as well, but I think that the level of brutatlity in society would change little from it's current levels.)
wow, what a ringing endorsement for cryptoanarchy, and quite Mayesque in its style. CRYPTOANARCHY!!! GO FOR IT!! IT PROBABLY WON'T BE ANY MORE BRUTAL THAN THE WORLD IS ALREADY!!!
So cut the crap and go ahead and argue for or against that thesis.
the cryptoanarchy thesis IS crap. everyone with a few brain cells to rub together is capable of seeing through this machiavellian dystopian trash masquerading as a rational political philosophy. anyone heard of "memes"? cryptoanarchy is a virus of weak minds without any defense mechanisms. the cpunk list is the principal vector..
(by the way. Conveniently enough Tim May has put his ideas on the web in quite a bit of detail. Just put "cyphernomicon" in your favorite web search engine)
gosh, thanks for the tip, Omegaman, hadn't heard anything about that-- I'll be sure to check that out. I certainly wouldn't want to prejudge Mr. May's complex thesis, my profuse apologies if I misunderstood any of the parts about extortion, kidnapping, tax evasion, anonymous assassinations, etc.
On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
I thought the message was a pretty clear statement of opinion. ie. the deconstruction of democracy is a good thing and cryptoanarchy will a enable a more just society. (Some would argue more brutal as well, but I think that the level of brutatlity in society would change little from it's current levels.)
wow, what a ringing endorsement for cryptoanarchy, and quite Mayesque in its style.
You're not very good with context, I see. The above statement neither endorses nor condemns the notion of cryptoanarchy. You claim that you want to debate Tim on the issue but that he won't put the issues on the table. It's all right there for you to attack or support. Here: THESIS:The deconstruction of democracy enabled by the inevitable genesis of cryptoanarchy will result in a more just (fair?) society. Go for it. Please start a relevant and interesting debate. But quit whining that Tim May won't challenge your brilliant mind. Pick a point and dissect whether it's accurate or flawed.
CRYPTOANARCHY!!! GO FOR IT!! IT PROBABLY WON'T BE ANY MORE BRUTAL THAN THE WORLD IS ALREADY!!!
Brutality amongst human beings has little to do with what type of government (or lack thereof) we have established. Nor is brutality inevitable amongst human beings; governments have little or no affect on how individuals think and behave.
the cryptoanarchy thesis IS crap. everyone with a few brain cells to rub together is capable of seeing through this machiavellian dystopian trash masquerading as a rational political philosophy.
anyone heard of "memes"? cryptoanarchy is a virus of weak minds without any defense mechanisms. the cpunk list is the principal vector..
Great. But you said you wanted to debate the fundamental points raised by May.
Mr. May's complex thesis, my profuse apologies if I misunderstood any of the parts about extortion, kidnapping, tax evasion, anonymous assassinations, etc.
O.K. The point in the original message was that these things are inevitable if only one anonymous payment system is established. 1) Do you agree that these things are an inevitable consequence of anonymous untraceable payment systems? 2) Do you agree then that all it would take is just one? Or could one alone be stopped or controlled? how? 3) How can these bad things be prevented with an anonymous untraceable payment system? Pick any or all points and make your case. _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________
Brutality amongst human beings has little to do with what type of government (or lack thereof) we have established.
bzzzzzzt, history readily denies this.
Nor is brutality
inevitable amongst human beings; governments have little or no affect on how individuals think and behave.
bzzzzzt, history readily denies this. but again it is amusing to see the patently incorrect assertions that cryptoanarchists embrace and flout.
1) Do you agree that these things are an inevitable consequence of anonymous untraceable payment systems?
murder, assassination, kidnapping, they all already exist.
Exactly my point. I believe interactions between individuals have far more to do with our (dis)inclinations towards brutal behavior that governments do. Governments have little influence over human attitudes.
I am dubious that the existence of anonymous payments will change much in this area. I don't think it will become any more prevalent. what TCM
I agree, actually. I don't see an increase in these types of crimes because of the existence of anonymous payment methods. What TCM and others have argued is that getting away with these crimes will be much easier due to anonymous payment schemes. I would argue that anonymous payment protocols are not necessarily any easier for the foolish criminal to fuck up than current methods of payment for, ahem, services rendered. Only if untraceable anonymous digital cash becomes a ubiquitous (and easy-to-utilize) standard will such crimes be more difficult to catch. (TCMay says only one such system is necessary. I disagree and will get back to this point in a later message)
seems to imply in much of his writing, but fails to outrightly assert because he's such a weasel, is that the world would be a *better*place* with all these things, which I vehemently reject.
I think you're reading a little more into it than is there, but that's your perogative.
I'm in favor of anonymous cash, but I am also in favor of social/legal mechanisms to minimize its subversive impact. note that "not dealing with kidnappers or terrorists" is one such approach that does not involve police.
I'm not in favor of legal mechanisms. I think social mechanisms are all but inevitable. (more on this later) I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to build in orwellian schemes. The government's desire to limit untracability has far more to do with taxation than the four horsemen scenario. Yes, I've heard of memes. me -------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key. --------------------------------------------------------------
omegaman taunts me to rant about cryptoanarchy. frankly I find it tiresome given its originator repeatedly refuses to answer point-blank questions about key aspects of it. lacking this, I fail to take it seriously, given nobody else has a similar idea.
THESIS:The deconstruction of democracy enabled by the inevitable genesis of cryptoanarchy will result in a more just (fair?) society.
actually TCM tends to avoid talking about the demise of democracy to avoid spilling his real opinions on it, namely that it is a pile of crap that has corrupted civilization. this from someone who likes to wrap himself in the constitution when the issue is free speech or something else like that.
Brutality amongst human beings has little to do with what type of government (or lack thereof) we have established.
bzzzzzzt, history readily denies this. Nor is brutality
inevitable amongst human beings; governments have little or no affect on how individuals think and behave.
bzzzzzt, history readily denies this. but again it is amusing to see the patently incorrect assertions that cryptoanarchists embrace and flout.
1) Do you agree that these things are an inevitable consequence of anonymous untraceable payment systems?
murder, assassination, kidnapping, they all already exist. I am dubious that the existence of anonymous payments will change much in this area. I don't think it will become any more prevalent. what TCM seems to imply in much of his writing, but fails to outrightly assert because he's such a weasel, is that the world would be a *better*place* with all these things, which I vehemently reject.
2) Do you agree then that all it would take is just one? Or could one alone be stopped or controlled? how?
it is not so much the point that these things can happen, that I am debating, but that they are inevitable and even something to look forward to that I think mark TCM as a wacko.
3) How can these bad things be prevented with an anonymous untraceable payment system?
terrorism has existed for centuries, and will continue to exist. it cannot be prevented, in a sense, and in another way, it can be minimized. it's not a black or white issue as feebleminded people would like to portray it as. I'm in favor of anonymous cash, but I am also in favor of social/legal mechanisms to minimize its subversive impact. note that "not dealing with kidnappers or terrorists" is one such approach that does not involve police. consider this: the cash is normally anonymous, but the govt would have the ability to "tag" it in special circumstances, such as the way stolen money from banks may explode red ink over the culprit. the fact that cpunks would totally reject any such reasonable compromise I find highly repellent.
On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: I can conceive of some ways in which only one untraceable anonymous payment system could be controlled or halted if the aforementioned "bad things" occurred.
be released unless a payment is made. Physical acts have a nexus of detection at the act itself, the kidnapping, the bomb-planting, etc. (...) "Untraceable payments" refer to payer- and payee-untraceable Chaum-style cash. Although for the discussions here of extortion, payee-untraceable (the person being paid would not be traceable is my sense of this term) digital cash would be sufficient; that the payment originated from XYZ Corporation or some account at the Bank of Albania would not stop the acts.
Indeed. But criminals are often a stupid and foolish lot. Many will be caught at the "nexus" of physical action due to their own ineptitude. I can envision several such instances occurring where it is publicized that these were contract (killings,extortions,kidnappings) in which the individual was to be paid in Bank of Albani digital cash. This publicity and subsequent public outrage result in many corporations and institutions seizing the moral high ground (and a little good publicity which could result in more revenue, of course) and advocating/enforcing a ban on usage of bank of Albania digital bux. The motivation of some of the corporations and banks is their investment in their own competing forms of digital cash. The Government is motivated to support these anti-albanian actions for all the obvious reasons. The motivations of the exposing journalists are left as an exercise to the reader.
How Ed receives the funds without the bits being followed through cyberspace is of course an easy exercise for readers here. Anonymous remailers with reply-block capabilities, a la Mixmaster, or, my preference, posting in a public place, a la the Usenet or other widely-disseminated message pools.
All protocols which have to be carefully followed by the Ed. (He might use a cutout or two to further muddy the link between him and vic.)
Ed takes the crypto credits and redeems them as he sees fit (after some unblinding stuff, of course). The redemption order is unlinkable to the extortion.
True, but if Bank of Albania digital cash is not accepted as a method of payment, what good does this do Ed? No one will change them because they are largely worthless.
So, even if "Mark Twain Bank" and "Bank of America," and, indeed, the rest of the U.S. banking establishment eschews untraceability, the presence of such services anywhere in the world is enough to make the act described
workable. And that "anywhere in the world" can, as I mentioned earlier, encompass the various underground banking systems already widely in use (Tongs, Triads, chop marks, etc. in Asia, and presumably similar systems elsewhere). Or it could encompass fairly conventional banks which offer
Not familiar with these systems...
such untraceable routes for a premium. A $5,000 commission on top of the $25,000 transfer would make a lot of the world's banks sit up and take notice. And so long as they were not told what the fund transfer was all about--Vic is unlikely to gain anything by telling them--they have plausible deniability and moral comfort.
And I surmise that the U.S. Government must have realized this. And realized that only by _completely quashing_ all such untraceable payments systems can the goals of stopping such "bad uses" be met.
Not to mention the loss of tax revenue....
Unfortunately for them, and unfortunately for the victims of such crimes, no such worldwide stoppage of all such systems seems possible, even with draconian police state measures. There are just too many interstices for the bits to hide. And too much economic incentive for some persons or banks to offer such funds transfer methods.
Of course not. But unless untraceable digital cash becomes a ubiquitous and widely used form, it will not be useful for these "bad things" (or any other purpose As always, the key is deployment of an untraceable, anonymouse form of digital cash now. Wide usage is part of the key to legitimization. Right now the government is frantically attempting to marginalize the idea of fully untraceable digicash with all sorts of four-horsemen publicity. If everybody's already using it, they'll be far less likely to switch to a new digicash-escrow alternative. _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________
participants (5)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Mark M. -
Omegaman -
Timothy C. May -
Vladimir Z. Nuri