We are ALL guests (except Eric)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- With the recent furor over the possibility of mandatory key signing on this list, I think we all are forgetting something. We are all guests here. Eric is our host. I've seen proposals for voting on the issue, I've seen posts saying "I'm not going to do it, wah wah wah." This list is analogous to Eric's home. We are his guests. If a host asks his guests to do something he or she has two choices, do it or leave. If someone walked into my house and I asked them to do something and they said: "Lets vote on it," they would be out the door quicker than a 'toon on a banana peel. Eric has been a gentleman about this. He is not asking those who do not wish to comply to leave. This is Eric's house and I think we need to play by his rules while we are here. One caveat for Eric though, hosts with stringent rules are usually very lonely. ============================================================================== A government is the only know vessel that leaks from the top. --James Reston-- ============================================================================== skaplin@skypoint.com | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard | outside a Roman brothel. PGP encrypted mail is accepted and | preferred. | Change is the only constant in the | Universe..."Four quarters, please." E-mail key@four11.com for PGP Key or | Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com | Smile!! Big brother is watching. ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLtwymApnimeWAf3FAQGOkQQAgK6OrqyifMk3aICiLdtjHWILxUyAyTWx HyEXgfNdo3VXKALOCpON3sbtgiYlopFU9PyqQY4JGhievAfElEFOgUzfcOcNutKR vLeT73zsvYl0zJPk6TkKhBwLymykHcBq5VtM8qLFustkEOynlVNHanBZlCQEj1sC HKYfjJbX65E= =5hb+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Samuel Kaplin wrote:
With the recent furor over the possibility of mandatory key signing on this list, I think we all are forgetting something. We are all guests here. Eric is our host. I've seen proposals for voting on the issue, I've seen posts saying "I'm not going to do it, wah wah wah." This list is analogous to Eric's home. We are his guests. If a host asks his guests to do
I think this analysis is misleading. I leave it to readers to analyze the history of the list, the role of the early members, and the contributing contributions of the hundred or so active posters to decide if this analysis is correct. As to characterizing the posts here as "I'm not going to do it, wah wah wah," this is too insulting to comment on.
comply to leave. This is Eric's house and I think we need to play by his rules while we are here.
Funny, I don't recall Eric ever claiming it was "his house" to do with as he wishes. Seems to me that the list is an emergent entity, presently being centrally distributed off a machine owned by John Gilmore (is the list then his house?), being maintained by Hugh Daniel (his house?), and generally managed to the extent management is needed by Eric Hughes (his house?). But a lot of others have contributed. No, we are not making "demands," nor are we calling for "a democratic vote." I happen to think Eric is quite wrong in thinking that "behavior modification" is needed, or practical. The list has done very well for the past 26 months without rigid rules, and has never even had a person kicked off the list (who didn't ask to be removed, back in the pre-Majordomo manual processing days)). To begin behavior modification now, with many of us unwilling to convert to systems which would make conformance practical, seems unwise. In any case, that's a separate issue. Suddenly declaring the list to be the personal property of Eric to do with as he pleases--a claim I have not heard from Eric--is another category of issue. I frankly don't know if it makes sense to say anyone "owns" the list. (We went through this several times on the Extropians list; the Extropians mostly solved this situation by having the list the formal property of their Board of Directors. And yet debates naturally continued.) --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
Timothy C. May writes
Funny, I don't recall Eric ever claiming it was "his house" to do with as he wishes. Seems to me that the list is an emergent entity, presently being centrally distributed off a machine owned by John Gilmore [...]
Internet custom and precedent, as I understand it, seems to be that Usenet newsgroups are the collective property of the regular inhabitants, but that mailing lists are the private and individual property of the guy whose account they run out of. Even the commies on alt.politics.radical-left seem to be reluctantly and painfully accepting this doctrine. I am amazed that an ex-extropian does not. We can advise Eric that we think it might have an undesirable effect if he manages the list in certain ways. We cannot tell him that it is unfair or unjust to manage the list in certain ways. The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the principles of justice. Eric makes no such grandiose claim. The debates concerning ownership on extropians occurred because of that claim and, in my judgment, because the claim was obviously bogus.
I happen to think Eric is quite wrong in thinking that "behavior modification" is needed, or practical. The list has done very well for the past 26 months without rigid rules, and has never even had a person kicked off the list (who didn't ask to be removed, back in the pre-Majordomo manual processing days)).
agreed. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@acm.org
James A. Donald wrote:
Timothy C. May writes
Funny, I don't recall Eric ever claiming it was "his house" to do with as he wishes. Seems to me that the list is an emergent entity, presently being centrally distributed off a machine owned by John Gilmore [...]
Internet custom and precedent, as I understand it, seems to be that Usenet newsgroups are the collective property of the regular inhabitants, but that mailing lists are the private and individual property of the guy whose account they run out of.
Even the commies on alt.politics.radical-left seem to be reluctantly and painfully accepting this doctrine. I am amazed that an ex-extropian does not. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An issue of subtlety. I made no "commie" claims.
We can advise Eric that we think it might have an undesirable effect if he manages the list in certain ways. We cannot tell him that it is unfair or unjust to manage the list in certain ways.
I made no mention of "unfair" or "unjust." As I recall, I used the term "unwise" once or twice. Others have made similar points about compulsion and behavior control. (And we should avoid any nit-picking about how Eric cannot possibly use "compulsion" because it is his list, blah blah.)
The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the principles of justice. Eric makes no such grandiose claim.
This is a straw man, as I have made no mention of "justice."
I happen to think Eric is quite wrong in thinking that "behavior modification" is needed, or practical. The list has done very well for the past 26 months without rigid rules, and has never even had a person kicked off the list (who didn't ask to be removed, back in the pre-Majordomo manual processing days)).
agreed.
Good to end on agreeement. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
James A. Donald wrote:
The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the principles of justice. Eric makes no such grandiose claim.
Timothy C. May writes
This is a straw man, as I have made no mention of "justice."
But the extropian list, which you cite as precedent, did make that claim. You also make the claim that Eric does not own the list. The question of ownership is only relevant to questions of what is just and fair. If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it is unjust for him to change the rules without consent. If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether or not he has a good, or even sane, reason. (As it happens, I do not think he has a good reason.) My point was that the ownership debate on the extropians list was a result of the questionable and grandiose claim of extropian justice, and is therefore not a relevant precedent for the ownership of lists in general. You raised the issue of the extropian precedent. The extropian precedent is irrelevant because the *extropian* list management made the claim of "extropian justice". *Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely. Such actions are morally neutral, except in that wisdom itself is good. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@acm.org
James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the principles of justice. Eric makes no such grandiose claim.
Timothy C. May writes
This is a straw man, as I have made no mention of "justice."
But the extropian list, which you cite as precedent, did make that claim.
Strange logic. I indeed mentioned experiments and debate on that list, but hardly transferred any mention of "justice" or "fairness" on _that_ list to _this_ list.
You also make the claim that Eric does not own the list.
The question of ownership is only relevant to questions of what is just and fair.
First, I don't accept this last point: issues of "ownership" and "control" are more related to policy, access, and rule enforcement than to issues of "what is just and fair." I rarely argue in terms of justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so. Second, my discussion of the "ownership" and "whose house" issues was more nuanced than a simple "You also make the claim that Eric does not own the list." (To elaborate on this, I claim that the Cypherpunks list emerged in 1992 as a gathering/meeting/club/gang of folks with converging interests in the topics at hand. We began to meet, to converse. A mailing list was created by Hughes and Daniel, running on the machine owned by Gilmore, to meet various and diverse purposes. That among these were the pursuit of digital liberty and cyberspatial happiness. Common sense tells us that the operator(s) of the list--the "owners" of toad, the listadmin, etc.--have a kind of caretaker arrangement. The list could move, could become an unmoderated newsgroup, etc. I'm not advocating this, just rejecting the "Foobar owns the list--if Foobar tells us to wear funny hats when we post to the list, we'd damn well better do so." There are more nuances to the issues of "ownership" involved.)
If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it is unjust for him to change the rules without consent.
This chain of logic falls because the premise is false. Further, the term "own" is not well-defined, as just discussed.
If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether or not he has a good, or even sane, reason.
For the second time in pointing this out, I used the term "unwise." Face it, there are places where syllogistic reasoning like you are using is useless. Especially when no mention of "justice and fairness" was made. I think it's unwise for a listadmin, or a site owner, to impose rules about the wearing of funny hats, for example. The mandaory signing of posts is not quite in this category, but I still think it unwise. (Phil Zimmermann does not, as is well known, often use PGP. He rightly considers it a drag on his productivity. Not everyone has the same connectivity: some are on CompuServe, some on Prodigy, some on AOL, etc. It would seem "unwise" to, for example, exclude from this forum someone who cannot reasonably sign or encrypt all of their messages.)
My point was that the ownership debate on the extropians list was a result of the questionable and grandiose claim of extropian justice, and is therefore not a relevant precedent for the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ownership of lists in general.
You raised the issue of the extropian precedent. The extropian precedent is irrelevant because the *extropian* list management made the claim of "extropian justice".
I never cited it as "precedent," legal or otherwise. I mentioned the debate which had ensued on that list. Jeesh!
*Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.
Such actions are morally neutral, except in that wisdom itself is good.
What moral claims did I make? The "private property" argument is more murky than you claim. Last I checked, John Gilmore owns toad and the disk space used, and he pays for the Net connections. Does this make him the owner? Because of these nuances--which is why I mentioned the Extropian list experiences--it is not useful to make propertarian arguments when policy changes are being planned. --Tim May (I am not getting list traffic right now, presumably due to the Netcom overload problem, and so am only seeing messages I am directly copied on. And maybe not all of them, either. Why this is so has to do with how toad tries to connect with Netcom's mail machine--Hugh Daniel and John Gilmore have both tried to get this fixed, claiming Netcom is not properly handling mail. No resolution.)) -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
Timothy C. May writes
I rarely argue in terms of justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so.
Look at the title of this thread. If what you say is true, you would not have responded to this thread. The title would be meaningless or irrelevant to you. As Starr pointed out to you a long time ago, it is almost impossible to discuss human affairs without using moral categories either explicitly or implicitly. You use such categories implicitly as much as I use them explicitly.
The list could move, could become an unmoderated newsgroup, etc. I'm not advocating this, just rejecting the "Foobar owns the list--if Foobar tells us to wear funny hats when we post to the list, we'd damn well better do so." There are more nuances to the issues of "ownership" involved.)
In the highly unlikely event that Eric started acting like an asshole we would move, as individuals and in different directions, but the list would not move. Existing newsgroups would change flavor as cypherpunks moved onto them. Somebody might create alt.cypherpunks, but it would have a significantly different flavor with a significantly different membership. The list would only move as a whole if Eric dropped dead or abruptly lost interest or handed it over to someone else. The question of who owns the list is indeed irrelevant to the question of whether the proposed change would further crypto. It is however relevant to to the question of whether we should hold a vote or establish a consensus. You agree, I assume, that holding a vote is absurd. Perhaps you think that Eric should establish a consensus of "real" cypherpunks. Yet if a vote is absurd, then then surely a consensus is absurd. And if you agree that neither vote or consensus is relevant, except perhaps in the sense of a marketing survey for Eric, then you agree that Eric owns the list. This list has been a success largely because Eric has followed anarchist, rather than fascist policies. Now if some other cypherpunk owned the list, the policy would have been different, not necessarily worse, but not the same, and the list would not be the same. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@acm.org
James A. Donald wrote:
Timothy C. May writes
I rarely argue in terms of justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so.
Look at the title of this thread. If what you say is true, you would not have responded to this thread. The title would be meaningless or irrelevant to you.
Huh? -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
Timothy C. May writes
I rarely argue in terms of justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so.
James A. Donald wrote:
Look at the title of this thread. If what you say is true, you would not have responded to this thread. The title would be meaningless or irrelevant to you.
Timothy C. May writes
Huh?
The title of this thread makes an argument based on rights and obligation. It claims that Eric has the right to act without consensus. If you were merely making the argument that Eric is unwise to act, you would not have bothered to reply to this thread, since it does not address the issue of whether Eric is wise or unwise, but only the issue of who is entitled to decide. You were making the argument that Eric does not have the right, the authority to act without consensus, that he is improperly usurping the authority or rights of other founding cypherpunks. In other words you are responding to a moral argument with a moral argument. It is just that you use double talk and I speak plainly. Your argument is based on labor mingling theory, even though you seem to be unfamiliar with these concepts, (or perhaps you are familiar but simply refuse to the language of ethics.) While labor mingling theory has great moral authority, long usage on the internet has consistently gone the other way, and with the passage of time, this counts. The nature of the underlying protocols leads to collective ownership of newsgroups and private ownership of lists, and attempts to get away from this natural arrangement to something more useful and more just have not worked very well. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@acm.org
In article <199411301931.LAA02490@netcom8.netcom.com>, James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com> wrote:
*Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.
Not true. The more "social" a list is, the less it is considered any individual's property. Don't confuse ownership of the resources with authority over other people's actions. In a social list, it is presumed that the maintainer gets paid in enhancement to reputation and whatever personal good feelings she gets for serving peers. A purely technological list, such as bind or firewalls, is closer to what you suggest: the maintainer is providing a service and may do whatever he wishes. The former involves questions like peer respect and how one treats one's friends. In practice, trying to force social peers to do something against their will generates ill will. Trying to attribute ownership of a list of people and addresses is absurd -- let's talk about real actions and their consequences. Lists that come to mind are elbows, void, kabuki-west, any of -kin lists, etc. On at least 3 of those lists, a list maintainer tried to take some arbitrary unilateral action and had to later back down because nobody was willing to put up with such shit. Most recently it was where a maintainer decided to drop followups (messages with "Re: " in the subject or "References:" headers)... some people are still annoyed at the person who tried it. It's a little more difficult in the case of c'punks where traffic includes social, technological interest, and sociological discussions. It is certainly not a clear case in my mind: Eric might be able to pull it off without pissing too many people off, he might not. This discussion is part of what will determine that. I'll make a prediction: requiring digital signatures will annoy most those people who are independant and don't care to be told that they should at least ostensibly provide a strong identity/posting mapping. I thought that this was one of the common assumptions of this list: that anonymity as well as pseudonymity was a goal worth achieving. Requiring signatures seems several steps backwards. Of course, in the end people will vote with their feet. Since the list membership is available with a mere "who cypherpunks," it's trivial to set up a "cypherpunks@netcom.com" address, for example, that has the same membership and no signature policy. Similarly, as I suggested last night, such a list address could be set to automatically sign all posts and people could be encouraged to use that address since "otherwise their mail will be delayed." No mention of digital signatures need be made. -- Todd Masco | "Roam home to a dome, Where Georgian and Gothic once stood cactus@hks.net | Now chemical bonds alone guard our blond(e)s, cactus@bb.com | And even the plumbing looks good." - B Fuller
L. Todd Masco says:
In article <199411301931.LAA02490@netcom8.netcom.com>, James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com> wrote:
*Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.
Not true. The more "social" a list is, the less it is considered any individual's property.
Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his property. You may be correct that it would be foolish of him to annoy people, just as if you have houseguests it is foolish to suddenly say "if you want to stay in this house you have to pierce your genitals NOW!". It is none the less his right to annoy people if he wants to, however, just as it is your right to demand anything of your houseguests as a condition of their remaining in your home. They, of course, are under no obligation to decide to remain.... Perry
L. Todd Masco writes
On at least 3 of those lists, a list maintainer tried to take some arbitrary unilateral action and had to later back down because nobody was willing to put up with such shit.
Same thing happened when Coca Cola tried to change their formula: Should we therefore conclude that Coke does not own coke? I did not say "Eric owns the list, so there is no point in discussing the matter." In case you have not noticed I have been arguing against the change. What I implied is that voting on it is absurd, and that arguing that Eric is not entitled to do as he pleases is absurd. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@acm.org
Perry E. Metzger writes:
Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his property.
I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will. All of us can do this with varying degrees of difficultly. Who owns the list? (Substitute any denial of service attack for "turning off the list" if you're not convinced of the strength of the forged unsubscribes.) The list is not the software it runs on: nobody cares very much whether it runs on toad.com or c2.org except in avoiding the inconvenience of updating pointers. This is not a specious argument: in practice, people do take lists of subscribers to other machines. See recent traffic on list-maintainers for examples from exclusively professional scientific lists. As I went on to say, arguing the "ownership" of the list is absurd... it's more reasonable (and productive) to discuss actions and their expected consequences. I think the only thing that will keep people from immediately stomping away is that Eric has a strong reputation totally separate from his "bureaucratic" role of list maintainer. It remains to be seen how much that affects peoples' behaviors and how much respect he will lose for coercing, however mildly, people into using signatures. -- Todd
"L. Todd Masco" says:
Perry E. Metzger writes:
Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his property.
I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.
I can steal your car or buy one of my own. Does that make your car not your property? Perry
Perry E. Metzger writes:
"L. Todd Masco" says:
Perry E. Metzger writes:
Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his property.
I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.
I can steal your car or buy one of my own. Does that make your car not your property?
I don't think so -- but by the argument you gave (above), it does. Ergo, your argument strikes me as insufficient. -- Todd
Perry E. Metzger writes:
Pardon.
Eric has more or less total control over the mailing list. The control is imperfect -- I could, for instance, blow up the machine.
You claim this imperfection is reason to consider it to be "community property" or some such.
Not at all. I'm making no positive claim: I just do not see any particular reason to consider the list Eric's. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "the list": do you mean the set of bits that describe the mailing addresses of every person on the list or do you simply mean the instance of majordomo running on toad.com with the previous bit stream loaded? I'm thinking of the former as being "the list" and thus squarely in the realm of intellectual property and all the snags that entails. If it's the latter you're referring to, sure, we can call it "Eric's." But so what? That and a subway token will get you to Brooklyn. My main point, which you keep dropping off, is that the instantiation of the set of mailing addresses at a particular site is a relatively minor factor in the continuity of a mailing list. -- Todd
"L. Todd Masco" says:
Perry E. Metzger writes:
"L. Todd Masco" says:
Perry E. Metzger writes:
Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his property.
I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.
I can steal your car or buy one of my own. Does that make your car not your property?
I don't think so -- but by the argument you gave (above), it does. Ergo, your argument strikes me as insufficient.
Pardon. Eric has more or less total control over the mailing list. The control is imperfect -- I could, for instance, blow up the machine. You claim this imperfection is reason to consider it to be "community property" or some such. You also noted that you could create another list and somehow claimed that this reduced Eric's proprietary interest in the list. As I noted, were your argument correct, then your car would not be your property because it, too, is not perfectly within your control and others may duplicate it. In any case, given that Eric can simply kick anyone off the list or add anyone on that he likes at will, you are free to refer to the list as a commune, an empire, or a supreme overlordship with yourself as supreme overlord. The fact remains that Eric can implement any change he has unilaterally. If you don't like the term "property" call it "gazorknoplant" instead. The word is not what matters. The point is that your opinion can influence him but that ultimately the decisions are all his, just as with your car, which is also your gazorknoplant just as the list is Eric's gazorknoplant. Perry
From: cactus@bb.hks.net (L. Todd Masco) Todd's good discussion of social lists addresses well some of the social aspects of a decision to modify the server to do something. It is certainly not a clear case in my mind: Eric might be able to pull it off without pissing too many people off, he might not. This discussion is part of what will determine that. What is certainly clear enough to me is that the list is certainly social enough that without discussion the endeavor would certainly fail. I'll make a prediction: requiring digital signatures will annoy most those people who are independant and don't care to be told that they should at least ostensibly provide a strong identity/posting mapping. 1. Independence. Higher levels of richness (and I mean much more than wealth) require higher levels of interaction. There is a qualitative difference between, on one hand, violence and coercion and, on the other, inducements and interactions. Both can reduce independence. Then again I don't feel that liberty and independence are what I desire most. 2. Strong mappings. Two solutions already presented here allow a workaround. Pseudonymous and one-time keys both work, as does an autosigning alternate entry point. I say great, build them. Apropos of one-time use keys, will PGP function properly on a 20 bit modulus? Another non-key would be to generate a short key and post both public and private halves. thought that this was one of the common assumptions of this list: that anonymity as well as pseudonymity was a goal worth achieving. Requiring signatures seems several steps backwards. The first time a signature appears, it's anonymous. The second time it appears it's pseudonymous, and references the preceding message. Requiring signatures does not prevent anonymity. as I suggested last night, such a list address could be set to automatically sign all posts Why do I suspect that such a service will be available at cypherpunks@hks.net? I don't mind; I think it would be useful service and entirely compatible with what I want to accomplish. Eric
In article <199412010010.QAA11906@largo.remailer.net>, Eric Hughes <eric@remailer.net> wrote:
Todd's good discussion of social lists addresses well some of the social aspects of a decision to modify the server to do something.
Thank you! At least I've gotten _something_ out of too many years of flamewars... What makes this a difficult issue to call (for me) is that you have partial authority as an "original founder," a much more persuasive position than the bureaucratical "list maintainer" status. So, I retreat to a (much more comfortable) pragmatist stance that you might be able to pull it off, you might not. I'm not (usually) an absolutist: if you decide to do something, I'll deal.
I'll make a prediction: requiring digital signatures will annoy most those people who are independant and don't care to be told that they should at least ostensibly provide a strong identity/posting mapping.
1. Independence. Higher levels of richness (and I mean much more than wealth) require higher levels of interaction. There is a qualitative difference between, on one hand, violence and coercion and, on the other, inducements and interactions. Both can reduce independence. Then again I don't feel that liberty and independence are what I desire most.
I think the question is not whether you desire liberty and independence but whether you desire the company of those who value liberty and independence strongly enough to abandon this forum at the slightest perceived breach of their autonomy. This is an altogether different question that has to do with communicated respect for where other people draw their own ideological lines. Tim's come out strongly against the proposal, as has James. As far as I can see, Tim's the only one that's raised the stakes to the ultimatum, "Do it and I leave" (although it's not clear whether he means the rejection or the slowdown of unsigned posts, and whether he'd instead decide to use an auto-signing service. Tim?) I think that you'll probably be able to pull off some compromise: the one that I like most is that of an independent agent or two, automatically checking all signatures and occasionally admonishing those who don't use them. The former would even be a valuable tool with far wider application than cypherpunks, esp. if written such that it could be used on newsgroups or even over NNTP. The thing that's particularly alluring about the independent agent idea is that you don't have to (ab?)use your position as list maintainer to implement it, thus sidestepping questions from others about whether you have any sort of responsibility to subscribers and/or authority to decide or to avoid enforcing how the people known as "cypherpunks" will interact.
Apropos of one-time use keys, will PGP function properly on a 20 bit modulus? Another non-key would be to generate a short key and post both public and private halves.
It's not clear to me; I'll have to hack some PGP code to generate one, as PGP forces a minimum of a 384 bit modulus at key generation time. I'll probably see how well it works with a 4 or 5 bit modulus: it'd be nice to be able to feasably break the key by hand as an exercise, to underscore the unreliability of the signing agent's signatures.
as I suggested last night, such a list address could be set to automatically sign all posts
Why do I suspect that such a service will be available at cypherpunks@hks.net? I don't mind; I think it would be useful service and entirely compatible with what I want to accomplish.
I actually hadn't been strongly advocating or offering such a service: this discussion has just tapped into several issues that I've been interested in for years, especially having to do with the interactions of technologically powerful peers. At this point, I don't have much of a strong feeling about signing stuff, since I've been thinking of setting up some automatic stuff on my private Amiga UNIX box. Signing c'punks posts is a pain, though, since I read news (incl. cypherpunks) on a non-private machine (IE, other people have accounts on it). OTOH, it sounds like a fun hack to do and I've been working on automatic mail agents, so it should be simple at this point. OTGH, pgp is a bigger cycle-sucker than I necessary want to have running all the time on our poor little microVAXen. If I can get it to deal with smaller keys, then I'll probably do it soon (what the hell). Otherwise, I'll have to wait until my own crypto package (which I described to a deafening silence months ago) is ready. -- Todd Masco | "Roam home to a dome, Where Georgian and Gothic once stood cactus@hks.net | Now chemical bonds alone guard our blond(e)s, cactus@bb.com | And even the plumbing looks good." - B Fuller
L. Todd Masco wrote:
Tim's come out strongly against the proposal, as has James. As far as I can see, Tim's the only one that's raised the stakes to the ultimatum, "Do it and I leave" (although it's not clear whether he means the rejection or the slowdown of unsigned posts, and whether he'd instead decide to use an auto-signing service. Tim?) ^^^^
I have no idea about these "auto-signing services." My inclination would be not to use them, as I rarely engage in "workarounds" to deal with situations where speed bumps have been placed in my way. If it's just a few minutes delay, who cares? If it's a few hours, I'll likely bombard the list with "Has anybody seen the message I posted?" messages. (There is no rule against this, so I expect to do this.) If my messages are delayed by many hours or days, then it is the same as if they been rejected...participation in threads is ended. (I think Jamie Lawrence made similar points, when he/she (I forget which)) made the point about minutes-hours-days being a tough issue.) I haven't said I plan to leave the list. I've said that if my posts are blocked/bounced/rejected, I would likely choose not to remain. (Reference to "I am still considering the "sign-or-delay" proposal for the toad.com server, that is, sign your articles to the list or they'll be delayed and eventually rejected." [Eric Hughes, 1994-11-28]) I will register a note of purely personal frustration that many have framed the current debate in terms of "Eric's list" and "If Eric wants to do it this way, then this is how it should be done," etc. I have no animosity toward Eric, but think this is a misguided rewriting of history. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) I haven't said I plan to leave the list. I've said that if my posts are blocked/bounced/rejected, I would likely choose not to remain. Let me ask something more proximate. Tim, if the server puts a header on mail that identifies it as unsigned, how will you feel about seeing your mail marked as such? What might you do about such a situation? I will register a note of purely personal frustration that many have framed the current debate in terms of "Eric's list" and "If Eric wants to do it this way, then this is how it should be done," etc. I have no animosity toward Eric, but think this is a misguided rewriting of history. Ah, assigning credit. Let the world know that there would be no cypherpunks without both Tim May and me. Tim and I met at a party at Hugh Daniel's place; we were the first two to arrive. We became pretty much instant friends when I said that I was going to work with Chaum in Amsterdam. A year later Tim was gracious enough to put me up at his place for a few days when I was there, ostensibly as it turned out, to look for housing. I was much more interested in conversation that accommodations, and Tim and I had a three day conversation in which the germ of cypherpunks was developed (among many others). Tim and I spent a lot of time later working on the first meeting, which was held with people we both knew. Why is it then, that people refer to "Eric's list"? At our first meeting, John Gilmore offered both a computer for a mailing list and a site for a meeting. We are no longer meeting at Cygnus, but we are still using John's machine. I began maintaining the mailing list, and with this was a symmetry breaking. As many of you know, I spent hours and hours and hours doing mailing list maintenance (adding and deleting by hand) and dealing with all of the problems. I don't spend so much time on that anymore because of majordomo, but I still do deal with the bounces and the complaints and the exceptional requests. Cypherpunks is certainly _not_ "Eric's group", but the mailing list is not unreasonably called "Eric's list". Personally, I hate the term "Eric's list". I try to avoid saying "my list" in coversation as shorthand for "the list I'm the maintainer for" because of the potential confusion with "the list I own". I find the property argument, at root, specious. Information can't be owned in any sort of natural sense, even though one _can_ remain vigorously silent. The comments of Dave Mandl and Todd Masco about the social character of mailing lists address the actual issue, which is political and not legal. Yet there is still the realpolitik that I do maintain the list. While there are some internal checks (I need Hugh's cooperation for certain things), the fact remains that I can make changes basically unilaterally. Pragmatically speaking, the phrase "Eric's list" reflects this situation. In addition, the phrase is short. When one is not distinguishing between subtleties, short phrases win and long phrases lose. So there are three reasons why the phrase arose: history, position, and brevity. When a deduction from the phrase relies upon some other possible subsumption, all may rightly point out an unintended meaning. Now we must shift subjects. What good is assigning credit if no use can be made of it? Many substitutes are available for obtaining a good feeling. Social position allows one to influence the world. One of the most valuable abilities in the world is the ability to get people to listen to you. This is not new, merely highlighted by the collapse-generating properties of computer networks. Tim and I and many others have spent much time devoted to writing clearly enough that we will be listened to preferentially, both for clarity itself and for the anticipation of clarity. The whole "cypherpunks write code" nexus assumes this communication process. It's comfortable to write manifestos, express your position, be indignant at the government, and teach privacy. We generally live in free societies where there is little recourse taken against speech. It is must less comfortable to use tortious cryptography, run a remailer, finesse export controls, and deploy code. Far and away the most extreme reactions have come from what people did and not from what they said. Speech affects the world, but action affects it more, because every word that affects the world only through a sequence of body motions. Cypherpunks get listened to not because we talk a lot; that's insufficient. Cypherpunks get listened to because we do things. "Actions speak louder than words" is true for local politics as well as global. Both Tim and I yammer a lot, but I do the list work. The assymetry is not incidental. In discussing potential server actions, I do not feel constrained come to agreement with any single voice, including Tim. I have a lot of respect for Tim and with respect to cypherpunks generally I try not to put myself above him, but with respect to the technical underpinnings of the list I feel no such constraint. This difference is a long consequence of actions chosen by both parties. Now, Tim, I don't know exactly that you feel slighted in this debate with respect to origins and their values, but I suspect that you do. If so, I regret that, but ask you to, well, deal with it. Symmetry is broken, cypherpunks is no longer new, and we who appeared interchangeable to the world two years ago now seem different. Eric
Eric Hughes wrote:
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
I haven't said I plan to leave the list. I've said that if my posts are blocked/bounced/rejected, I would likely choose not to remain.
Let me ask something more proximate.
Tim, if the server puts a header on mail that identifies it as unsigned, how will you feel about seeing your mail marked as such? What might you do about such a situation?
I won't do anything. I might not even notice it. I've never felt that this was important, though I also think it's pretty much useless (as it's so obvious who's at least making the appearance of signing). Delays of hours or more would affect my participation on the list. Bounces of course would. Those have been my concerns. On the rest of Eric's message, I'm in agreement with his assesment. I'll elide liberally and only comment on a few points:
Let the world know that there would be no cypherpunks without both Tim May and me. Tim and I met at a party at Hugh Daniel's place; we were ...
All of this is as I remember it. ...
the mailing list, and with this was a symmetry breaking. As many of you know, I spent hours and hours and hours doing mailing list maintenance (adding and deleting by hand) and dealing with all of the problems. I don't spend so much time on that anymore because of majordomo, but I still do deal with the bounces and the complaints and the exceptional requests.
Agreed. It was a symmetry breaking and Eric is justly rembembered as being the driving force behind the mailing list. My issue is with the views that are long the lines of "It's Eric's list, and if he says we can only write about Croatian youth hostels, well, hey, it's _his_ list!" "The map is not the territory," as a famous reverse Polish logician said, and "the list is not the group." Nor is the Cause, the Movement, etc. The mailing list is the preferred forum in cyberspace for discussing things amongst ourselves.
Now we must shift subjects. What good is assigning credit if no use can be made of it? Many substitutes are available for obtaining a good feeling. Social position allows one to influence the world. One of the most valuable abilities in the world is the ability to get people to listen to you. This is not new, merely highlighted by the collapse-generating properties of computer networks. Tim and I and many others have spent much time devoted to writing clearly enough that we will be listened to preferentially, both for clarity itself and for the anticipation of clarity.
Well said.
"Actions speak louder than words" is true for local politics as well as global. Both Tim and I yammer a lot, but I do the list work. The assymetry is not incidental. In discussing potential server actions, I do not feel constrained come to agreement with any single voice, including Tim. I have a lot of respect for Tim and with respect to cypherpunks generally I try not to put myself above him, but with respect to the technical underpinnings of the list I feel no such constraint. This difference is a long consequence of actions chosen by both parties.
I've never proposed a majority vote, or even an "advisory vote" of some body. I've just said, in various forms, that compulsory signing (or compulsory-anything), with delays or bounces, will have certain negative effects, on me, on others, and perhaps on the list as a whole. I've made no "propertarian" or "labor-mingling" arguments, contrary to the views of some, just these opinions of wisdom.
Now, Tim, I don't know exactly that you feel slighted in this debate with respect to origins and their values, but I suspect that you do. If so, I regret that, but ask you to, well, deal with it. Symmetry is broken, cypherpunks is no longer new, and we who appeared interchangeable to the world two years ago now seem different.
I don't feel slighted, not that that would matter. It just sticks in my craw that some folks here are apparently so eager to adopt a position of blind obedience, of alpha male subservience. I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look, Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on his list, leave." Clearer? --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim said:
It just sticks in my craw that some folks here are apparently so eager to adopt a position of blind obedience, of alpha male subservience. I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look, Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on his list, leave."
No, not the Big Kahuna-- the Big Mac. (ducking), - -Paul - -- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | Good software engineering doesn't reduce the perobich@ingr.com | amount of work you put into a product; it just Not speaking for Intergraph. | redistributes it differently. ### http://www.intergraph.com ### -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCUAwUBLt40rqfb4pLe9tolAQHgbAP4r4tfCArfLisSSY2BUGbzYOVyesiKM3ML 7xXt6eIirk2OnCjdbFs+ZOJxszvWW7eLxqk0lbDWprJQfeSKBgJc4uz3Yfow8sbs pxrO3adKOj1cgZnotr/8whA0BXK1QhycyEnjV+t+rEZ7qdUTuFvdpSaZ7Oy224uI NwrU6sVMBQ== =ni+J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) [re: reaction to marking] I won't do anything. I might not even notice it. I've never felt that this was important, though I also think it's pretty much useless (as it's so obvious who's at least making the appearance of signing). I'm thinking of using something real obvious as a marker, similar in spirit to what I posted the other day: X-Advocacy: Eric Hughes wants YOU to sign your message. I may actually use something very close to this, perhaps with the name instead of the personal pronoun. This header would be attached only to message without recognized signature. [re: reaction to delay] Delays of hours or more would affect my participation on the list. Bounces of course would. Those have been my concerns. I have realized all along that bouncing messages would be extremely disruptive; I apologize to the list if I made that less than clear. As far as specific times, I think the cutover happens somewhere between two and four hours. If delays get used, you can be sure they'll start small and rise slowly. My issue is with the views that are long the lines of "It's Eric's list, and if he says we can only write about Croatian youth hostels, well, hey, it's _his_ list!" I am also far less than persuaded by such arguments. I don't feel slighted, not that that would matter. Well, it would matter to me. But then again, I'd first try to acknowledge any such feelings, and then I'd tell you fuck off if you couldn't deal with reality. But Hey! that just me, I suppose. I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look, Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on his list, leave." "This is one _tasty_ burger" Clearer? Yes, clearer. Fortunately for me, I was locally famous in high school in (drum roll) competitive classics. I experienced some of exactly the kind of subservience accorded to famous people. I developed a distaste for it then, which has not left. I have some understanding of the loneliness of celebrity. When a sycophant doesn't treat you like a peer, there's little point in trying to even out the relationship. It's almost always doomed. Here are Eric's two sentence advice on celebrity. If you want to know famous people, don't treat them differently than others. If they therefore ignore you, leave. Eric
Eric Hughes wrote:
I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look, Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on his list, leave."
"This is one _tasty_ burger"
Something to do with the metric system? -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
From: cactus@bb.hks.net (L. Todd Masco) What makes this a difficult issue to call (for me) is that you have partial authority as an "original founder," a much more persuasive position than the bureaucratical "list maintainer" status. Thank god you didn't capitalize those. I think the question is not whether you desire liberty and independence but whether you desire the company of those who value liberty and independence strongly enough to abandon this forum at the slightest perceived breach of their autonomy. I don't. I apply Tim's Calvinist Stoicism stance to this situation. Put crudely, if people bolt at the first sign of encroachment, fuck 'em. There is a matter of degree here which is quite important. A small notification in the header of the message is hardly much at all. Preventing a message from going through, however, is a qualitatively different thing. If there are people who can't tell the difference, or worse yet, who won't acknowledge it, I'm not going to feel too unhappy. I think that you'll probably be able to pull off some compromise: the one that I like most is that of an independent agent or two, automatically checking all signatures and occasionally admonishing those who don't use them. That and simple notification in the header. I am as yet undecided which one I think might come first. The former would even be a valuable tool with far wider application than cypherpunks, esp. if written such that it could be used on newsgroups or even over NNTP. Well, I did say today that I'll get the thing working on my own personal mailbox first. The thing that's particularly alluring about the independent agent idea is that you don't have to (ab?)use your position as list maintainer to implement it, This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. On one hand, harmony is maintained. (I hear the guffaws too.) On the other, the message isn't nearly as strong. To reiterate, I am willing to use my position to send a stronger message. OTGH, pgp is a bigger cycle-sucker than I necessary want to have running all the time on our poor little microVAXen. Yet another reason to have an less-than-fully secure key for that location. Eric
In article <199412010314.TAA12186@largo.remailer.net>, Eric Hughes <eric@remailer.net> wrote:
That and simple notification in the header. I am as yet undecided which one I think might come first.
FWIW, my vote would be "autonag" first.
The thing that's particularly alluring about the independent agent idea is that you don't have to (ab?)use your position as list maintainer to implement it,
This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. On one hand, harmony is maintained. (I hear the guffaws too.) On the other, the message isn't nearly as strong. To reiterate, I am willing to use my position to send a stronger message.
Sure. I'm not sure the message would get through as you're framing it, though. People don't react well to messages that are put too strongly... a gentle, gradual approach is more likely to get through. "Cypherpunks grok the importance of digital signatures" is the message you want to get through, not "Eric wants to punish people who don't use digital signatures," no? Somebody here suggests: "I think he should send everyone who uses digital signatures a cookie. A big chocolate chip cookie." It is understood that delivery might be a problem. I can offer habaneros. It's not clear whether that would be a stick or a carrot. -- Todd Masco | "Roam home to a dome, Where Georgian and Gothic once stood cactus@hks.net | Now chemical bonds alone guard our blond(e)s, cactus@bb.com | And even the plumbing looks good." - B Fuller
From: cactus@bb.hks.net (L. Todd Masco)
To reiterate, I am willing to use my position to send a stronger message.
Sure. I'm not sure the message would get through as you're framing it, though. People don't react well to messages that are put too strongly... a gentle, gradual approach is more likely to get through. Several approaches to gradualism have been usefully suggested in this debate, and I appreciate that. Just to be sure, I was expressing a willingness, not an imminent intent. Eric
Eric Hughes wrote:
I apply Tim's Calvinist Stoicism stance to this situation. Put crudely, if people bolt at the first sign of encroachment, fuck 'em.
Indeed. But if my messages are bounced or delayed excessively, I will of course have no reason to remain. My own Calvinist Stoicism. I won't jump through hoops to meet pointless syntactical purity checkes. Whether I sign all messages will depend on whether certain tools become available and easily installable...at the current rate, I doubt it (for me, Netcom, elm, etc.).
This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. On one hand, harmony is maintained. (I hear the guffaws too.) On the other, the message isn't nearly as strong. To reiterate, I am willing to use my ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ position to send a stronger message. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bluntly, Eric, this is what is so disturbing about your position. You are willing to "use your position" to essentially purge the list (through bounces, a la "sign your articles to the list or they'll be delayed and eventually rejected") of many of us who are unlikely to solve the various problems mentioned so many times here. You don't sign, others of note don't sign (some that I can think of right now: Gilmore, Finney, Zimmermann, and probably many others). You are _planning_ to now begin working on getting your won signing situation squared away, but many of us are on different schedules (Hint: It's even lower on the list of things to do for me).
OTGH, pgp is a bigger cycle-sucker than I necessary want to have running all the time on our poor little microVAXen.
Yet another reason to have an less-than-fully secure key for that location.
I don't buy this, and hence will have my messages delayed or bounced. I want my key to be useful for real uses, not just "Power Ranger" (a la James Donald) uses. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
I apply Tim's Calvinist Stoicism stance to this situation. Put crudely, if people bolt at the first sign of encroachment, fuck 'em.
Indeed. But if my messages are bounced or delayed excessively, I will of course have no reason to remain. My own Calvinist Stoicism. I would not say that bounces or long delays were a first sign of encroachment. But it does seem that we have not been addressing the same idea.
To reiterate, I am willing to use my position to send a stronger message.
Bluntly, Eric, this is what is so disturbing about your position. You are willing to "use your position" to essentially purge the list Again, I've not been speaking of this end result, except insofar of a desire to avoid it. [re: special small keys for low security applications] I don't buy this, and hence will have my messages delayed or bounced. I want my key to be useful for real uses, not just "Power Ranger" (a la James Donald) uses. It appears then, that we disagree about the value of a half solution. Eric
<lurk mode off> Although I can see the reasons why it would be good to increase the use of digsigs, I don't think it's worth the possibility that many active members of this list will disappear. Even one would be too many, as we need all the support we can get. Sounds like an ideal challenge for somebody to massage the available tools to come up with something that *is* easy and convenient to use for signing messages, without compromising on security. It could even use standard PGP keyrings. Cypherpunks write code ... Ed -- Ed Wilkinson emw@ima.com IMA Ltd Internet Email Gateways
From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald) We cannot tell him that it is unfair or unjust to manage the list in certain ways. Oh, you can, but I am Free To Ignore you. These discussions on the interest of power are fascinating to me. So many of them do not take into account my own desires to create a useful discussion forum, which desires bind me tighter than any law ever could. There are some very interesting implications of this _de facto_ solipsism to achievement of equilibria in games with iterated dominance. Eric
participants (9)
-
cactus＠bb.hks.net -
emw＠ima.com -
eric＠remailer.net -
jamesd＠netcom.com -
L. Todd Masco -
paul＠poboy.b17c.ingr.com -
Perry E. Metzger -
skaplin＠skypoint.com -
tcmay＠netcom.com