July 2017 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Satoshi's Trump Card
by grarpamp 02 Jul '17

02 Jul '17

Satoshi is estimated to have at least 1M BTC to leverage at will, anon, with zfg. Any disagreeable fork can be tranflooded back to self and even whaled around for years to come. With agreeable things endorsed and supported similarly. Satoshi has been moved to arise from silence before. Do not tempt the phoenix guarding the message in the genesis block. https://coingeek.com/risks-segregated-witness-opening-door-mining-cartels-u… https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6k5ptu/more_from_jonald_fyookball_con… https://coingeek.com/temp-title-matt/ https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-segwit/ https://coingeek.com/author/eliafram/ https://twitter.com/justicemate https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-n… https://medium.com/@johnblocke/bring-on-the-chain-split-8a295a62cee6 https://i.redd.it/hmlxsqj6xd5z.png http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/25/booming-stock-markets-dist…

5 8

Re: [Cryptography] Satoshi's Trump Card
by grarpamp 01 Jul '17

01 Jul '17

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Erik Granger <erikgranger(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That seems like a losing battle, if he decides to transflood the chain, > can't the fork simply ignore that chain? No idea what that means. Anyway... Keys (UTXO / addrs) from parent inherit spendably into both forks (cross referencing to forks to determine their spent status before spending is ridiculous overhead and won't be done, other dynamics take over, and no one cares). > Also, the more he does this, the > more money he loses to trx fees, so wouldn't he just be throwing money in > the garbage No. Only a moron would waste their entire nut, so $2.5B - $5M for lifelong living expenses = ... > and exacerbating the blockspace shortage, by doing so? ... = $2.495B = a lot. Which can flood everyone else that can't pay rising tx out, killing the coin and lofting their chosen survivor. = $10/tx * 100tps = 30day fragfest Ironic that blocksize >>> current, is easy way to absorb. > It seems > that if he did that, it would congest blocks massively, and as a result > encourage adoption of any disagreeable fork that provides larger block > sizes. As before, rich activsts will have two chains to play in... one to support, one to kill. Multiple competing actors could cancel each other out yielding a net chaos depression for a while. Decentralized DC blockchain is new money paradigm, users lilypads will change, and are responsible to choose own path to success. Adopters should know this going in. Otherwise stay in their comfy fiat, while it lasts (as some predict). Govt's may own bulk coin too, in addition to cheaper ways. Wasn't there recent a post on how blockchain = NSA = Satoshi = BTC? Lol.

2 3

segwit2x and the end of the known BTC universe
by Troy Benjegerdes 01 Jul '17

01 Jul '17

The way some people are talking about segwit/segwit2x/big blocks is as if there is some sort of existential crisis like the polar ice caps were going to fall off from the excess heat from miners. For example, while this has a couple of good technical points: https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/the-segwit-2x-beta-review-and-thoughts-ca480… There is this little confused bit of reasoning: "Next up is "testnet5". It's a new testnet, for reasons never made clear to me. It would seem if you wanted to test a change to Bitcoin, you'd test it as a change to testnet rather than make a new one. It's not clear to me why a new testnet was created instead." I think, if you want to **test** activation of segwit with some different parameters, you might actually want to test it on a network that doesn't already have it activated. That means either: a) 51% attacking the existing testnet and rolling back to before the activation point b) start a new test network Did I make this clear, or am I just being sold some evil propaganda from $EVIL_EMPIRE Personally, the worst part about this whole disaster is we now have something that looks like assembly code looking for magic numbers in the coinbase field for segregated witness, instead of something straightforward, like, you know, incrememeting the transaction version in a way that clearly tells clients they need to upgrade. At least so far there has been no nation-state with guns telling people which code they need to run. (yet) Can some government just get it over with and issue Fedcoin already?

1 0

Re: [Cryptography] Satoshi's Trump Card
by grarpamp 01 Jul '17

01 Jul '17

> Please don't spam this mailing list with word salad proclamations. On the contary... In "trusted" / distributed cryptographic systems, especially digital currencies, the issues of things like witheld keys, founders BDFL influence, premining, early miners, ICO raison, DAO / voting rulesets, possibility of [theft / rubberhose access, change of philosophy] subversion of or by bulk stakeholders, and more... illustrate a very real risk, or benefit, as may be one's point of view or choice of words... and very much should be considered both in design stages, and regarding any currently deployed implementations. "[DC's] must be robust against even armed aggressors." As / And such agressors or benefactors may come from least expected locations, including from the ashpile. And be they collated into one, or discreetly spread, there are many [ash]piles of potentially activist coin... https://btc.com/stats/rich-list Consideration of links out to places and papers that at least in part are proposing new assemblages of crypto primitives to solve things like scaling and other issues... those tech codes / algos / protocols would benefit from examination as well. With even the social commentary present being indicative of their underlying importance. People might like devoting analysing / proofing those new crypto tech, even their clearly present social and political issues, instead of boring quarterly rehashing oft baked and done RNG topics. ""On topic" discussion includes technical aspects of cryptosystems, social repercussions of cryptosystems, and the politics of cryptography" Enjoy.

1 0

Problems with Privacy Shield records and NSA mass surveillance
by Rachael 01 Jul '17

01 Jul '17

Hi, Privacy and FOI Activists, The Privacy Shield agreement allows data transfers from the EU and Switzerland to the US. There are currently two court cases at the EU Court of Justice challenging the agreement. Privacy Shield may be illegal under EU law, because the agreement still allows NSA mass surveillance. Back in mid-April 2017, I sent a formal request to the US government to declassify PPD-28 (Presidential Policy Directive-28), which was signed by former US President, Obama. The US government has refused to confirm the receipt of the declassification request and has refused to say whether the request is being processed. The full PPD-28 (including its classified annex) is part of the Privacy Shield agreement by reference. The US government is claiming (...lying...) that the PPD-28 limits NSA mass surveillance, even though part of this PPD-28 document is still classified. The US government is refusing to accept declassification requests for Obama's records (including PPD-28) until January 20, 2022. This action by the US government may be illegal, but it would be difficult to fight the US government in court on this issue. I may have run out of options to appeal the US government's actions in the US. I would like to know if there are any government agencies, political parties, private organizations, or individuals in the EU and Switzerland who I can contact and complain about the US government's behavior. If you have any suggestions or recommendations, please email me at ractack(a)mail.com I am also looking for volunteers to file public records requests in the EU and Switzerland for Privacy Shield documents. If you are interested, also email ractack(a)mail.com Regards, Rachael Tackett Attached below is a discussion from another listserv about the legal difficulties of trying to get PPD-28 declassified. On 06/29/2017 04:34 PM, Kel McClanahan, Esq. wrote: > Related to Patrice's observation that the OPL doesn't actually exist > yet, that's actually the reason they apply the delay to MDR requests, > saying that they need the 6 years to get everything sorted and > catalogued and figure out what they're going to do with the info. So > it's not just them saying "not gonna do it" and sitting around; they > have a legitimate logistics argument to support it. NARA IG isn't > going to do anything because they're not actually breaking any rules, > and Congress, well, Congress is a bit of a wild card when it comes to > transparency, especially lately. Ask for reform and you might get it, > and it might be worse than it already is. > > Honestly, if you want to make a case about this to Congress/IG/etc., > you're best off waiting a little while to remove their ability to say > "we're still building it and hiring people and couldn't possibly do > anything." Put another way, while you might find a sympathetic ear in > a couple years, you're definitely not going to find one now, and > drawing attention to this now when their argument is strongest may > hurt your ability to make it later when circumstances are more > favorable to you. That's just my personal opinion, though, and others > may disagree. > > On 6/29/2017 4:24 PM, Rachael wrote: >> >> Yes, I see necessity to prevent creating bad case law. What are the >> options to put pressure on NARA besides the courts? >> >> Complaint to NARA OIG and then OIG council? Complaining to members of >> Congress and get a GAO investigation? Any other options? >> >> >> On 06/29/2017 04:21 PM, Kel McClanahan, Esq. wrote: >>> Presidential records are exempt from disclosure until 6 years after >>> the end of the President's term, which would be 1/20/23. It's in >>> the PRA, as interpreted by ISOO. I had this argument with the Bush >>> Library a while back. Now, could you sue them under the APA for >>> applying the statutory embargo for FOIA and PRA to MDR requests? >>> Maybe, but it'd be a hell of a fight and would probably create some >>> horrible case law, so unless you desperately need some Presidential >>> record urgently and damn the consequences for the rest of the >>> requester community, I'd advise against it. >>> >>> On 6/29/2017 4:13 PM, Rachael wrote: >>>> RE Ken McClanahan, Esq. - is there a link where OPL (Obama >>>> Presidential Library) states that it doesn't have to accept MDR >>>> requests until 1/20/23 and what their legal reasoning may be? >>>> >>>> EO 13526 (the executive order governing the MDR process) states, >>>> "...However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, >>>> downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former President and >>>> Vice Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to 44 >>>> U.S.C 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203..." Section 2203 actually >>>> obligates the Archivist to process and publicly release >>>> presidential records as rapidly as is legally possible. >>>> >>>> Under the PRA (Presidential Records Act), the former president can >>>> restrict access to certain records for up to 12 years (44 USC 2204 >>>> a). If the restricted access category no longer applies (for >>>> example if a record is declassified), then there may be no excuse >>>> to withhold the record (44 US 2204 (b)(1)(A)(ii)). >>>> >>>> I just don't understand how the OPL believes it doesn't have to >>>> accept MDR requests nor comply with the PRA. >>>> >>>> Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this. >>>> >>>> On 06/29/2017 03:21 PM, Kel McClanahan, Esq. wrote: >>>>> The OPL does not have to accept MDR requests until 1/20/23, and I >>>>> am not surprised they did not acknowledge yours. >>>>> >>>>> On 6/29/2017 2:47 PM, Patrice McDermott wrote: >>>>>> The OPL, as such, does not yet exist. You should check with Presidential Records at NARA. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrice >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues [mailto:FOI-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Rachael >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:42 PM >>>>>> To:FOI-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>>>> Subject: Help, What if agency doesn't confirm receipt of MDR request? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear FOI Listserve, >>>>>> >>>>>> Firstly, the Obama Presidential Library refused to provide me with an email address to send an MDR request to (which violates US regulations). >>>>>> I sent an MDR request to the Obama Presidential Library's general email address back in April 2017. I sent a follow up email about a week later asking for confirmation of receipt. So far, I have not gotten any response. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the Obama Presidential Library refuses to acknowledge receipt of my MDR request, can I interpret this as a denial to process my MDR request and start the appeals process? Or do I have to wait the full year before I can start the appeals process? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any citation of the US statutes or CFR would be very helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rachael Tackett, currently frustrated MDR requester :( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This electronic mail (email) transmission is meant solely for the >>>>> person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential >>>>> information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, >>>>> dissemination or distribution of the contents of this email by >>>>> anyone other than the addressee or his or her agent for such >>>>> purposes is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email >>>>> in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or email and >>>>> purge the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Kel McClanahan, Esq. >>>>> Executive Director >>>>> National Security Counselors >>>>> >>>>> "As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who >>>>> has the best information." >>>>> Benjamin Disraeli, 1880 >>>>> >>>>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who will watch the watchers?") >>>>> Juvenal, Satire VI >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This electronic mail (email) transmission is meant solely for the >>> person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential >>> information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, >>> dissemination or distribution of the contents of this email by >>> anyone other than the addressee or his or her agent for such >>> purposes is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in >>> error, please notify me immediately by telephone or email and purge >>> the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. >>> >>> Kel McClanahan, Esq. >>> Executive Director >>> National Security Counselors >>> >>> "As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who >>> has the best information." >>> Benjamin Disraeli, 1880 >>> >>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who will watch the watchers?") >>> Juvenal, Satire VI >>> >> > > > --- > This electronic mail (email) transmission is meant solely for the > person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential > information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, > dissemination or distribution of the contents of this email by anyone > other than the addressee or his or her agent for such purposes is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please > notify me immediately by telephone or email and purge the original and > all copies thereof. Thank you. > > Kel McClanahan, Esq. > Executive Director > National Security Counselors > > "As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has > the best information." > Benjamin Disraeli, 1880 > > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who will watch the watchers?") > Juvenal, Satire VI >

2 1

Quantifying systemic pressure towards injustice
by Zenaan Harkness 01 Jul '17

01 Jul '17

(Posted on behalf of an anonymous thoughtful person.) To paraphrase an associate from some years back: Many of today's "justice system" problems are the direct consequence of KPI based policing. KPI = Key Performance Indicator Similarly for courts as for police - when the KPIs for an individual human are used for monetary and career assessment and promotion, such as "number of parking tickets issued in the past year", then it is almost axiomatic that increasing KPI quantums shall result. It is also asserted that increasing KPI quantums for police, magistrates and judges, does not necessarily correspond to the common man's conception of "justice". It is only the supreme elevation of statute law above individual conscience, free will and common sense that even allows for the "community" to miss the obvious corruption of justice into the abhorrent proposition that "the more statute laws are enforced, the more justice we experience in our community". In the USA, the "gang of 12" trial by jury (or "grand jury"?) is enshrined as a (remote/frequent?) possibility of having unjust statute law declared illegal and or unenforceable. The situation is different here in Australia, where the State parliaments claim: - sovereignty, - the right to pass any law within their state constitutions, - the right to change their state constitutions with no involvement by the people (by voting or otherwise) - that every law they pass is valid before the courts, - and that all power not reserved to the Federal Commonwealth is the balance reserved to the states, thus leaving almost nothing to the lowly humans except for their right to vote once every 4 years. Excuses for this despotic corruption of common sense and the corruption of much of what the common man would call "moral behaviour" are readily prostrated in the public dialogue, from everyday conversations between friends to the mainstream media and more, with the most obvious fallacy being "more enforcement of statute law equals more justice"; Fallacies of enforcement of statute laws (there are plenty more): - More enforcement of all statute law equals more justice. - If we don't enforce all the statute law, we'll have chaos. - I'm not doing anything wrong, so enforcement of unjust statute law does not effect me. - Humans cannot be trusted to exercise conscience and common sense, so we must impose statute law universally and make no exception for individual conscientious objection. - When another human consumes a drug I don't know about, they must be punished for their exploration and their personal choices, even though their exploration and choices effect no one else. - There might be a few small areas for improvement, but in general society, justice enforcement, and government, are working really well, since we have so many shiny things. So: 1) Are there any studies which directly quantify or otherwise analyse (e.g. KPI- based) systemic pressure to injustice? 2) If not, it ought be obvious to the entitled class that there are enormous accolades currently on offer to any and all who nail this scientifically, e.g. directly correlating KPI based policing with quantifiable unjust actions/ outcomes. King makers? How about hero makers - heroes of human rights, justice and common sense.

7 7