May 2022 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Punk Rapelbaum lives in Germany
by Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many 11 May '22

11 May '22

On Wed, May 11, 2022, 5:00 PM <cypherpunks-owner(a)lists.cpunks.org> wrote: > Only subscribers may post to this list. Visit https://lists.cpunks.org > for subscription information. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many" <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> > To: > Cc: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:00:29 -0400 > Subject: Re: Punk Rapelbaum lives in Germany > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 4:56 PM punk <punks(a)tfwno.gf> wrote: > >> >> >> "Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many" <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Sorry this happened to you. >> > >> > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 3:58 PM <revevilgod(a)gmx.com> wrote: >> >> > > > We have received a request from 144.24.162.178 for the removal of >> your >> > > >> > >> > I guess it's normal to reverse lookup this ip. >> >> > I got Europe/London area using geoip2-database, >> >> >> > it's been proven, and it's still sending requests >> >> >> >> https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/144.24.162.178 >> >> is a tor exit node, you dumb fucktards. >> > > Thanks a bunch. I think I used to find that via checking a specific port > or something, but I imagine there's a central tor database that is more > reliable. > >>

1 0

Re: [spam][wrong] Being in Danger
by Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many 11 May '22

11 May '22

On Wed, May 11, 2022, 4:54 PM <cypherpunks-owner(a)lists.cpunks.org> wrote: > Only subscribers may post to this list. Visit https://lists.cpunks.org > for subscription information. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many" <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> > To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 16:54:01 -0400 > Subject: [spam][wrong] Being in Danger > I have kind of hyperparanoia a lot. I'm generally always scared. > > Right now somebody has me the ability to remove me and revevilgod from > this list. I use the list for coping mechanisms, and I feel pretty bad when > experiencing harm. I really want to get along with everybody. > > My first stop-gap is generally just to stop and pause. If I get > unsubscribed, I can always resubscribe later. > > This is maybe another reason people keep their addresses anonymous. > > I'm imagining having angered something out there, with my network probing > behavior. I'm not sure how to hold that. > > I'm a very slow person. It can sometimes take me hours to move across an > indoor room, due to my issues. >

1 1

Fw: confirm 273603a0ebe9ecc9238069493e5b4d3886e1842e
by revevilgod＠gmx.com 11 May '22

11 May '22

Punk's probably crying, trying to get me off this list.Try harder cunt > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:09 PM > From: cypherpunks-request(a)lists.cpunks.org > To: revevilgod(a)gmx.com > Subject: confirm 273603a0ebe9ecc9238069493e5b4d3886e1842e > > Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list cypherpunks > > We have received a request from 144.24.162.178 for the removal of your > email address, "revevilgod(a)gmx.com" from the > cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org mailing list. To confirm that you want > to be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this message, > keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page: > > https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/confirm/cypherpunks/273603a0ebe9ecc9238069… > > > Or include the following line -- and only the following line -- in a > message to cypherpunks-request(a)lists.cpunks.org: > > confirm 273603a0ebe9ecc9238069493e5b4d3886e1842e > > Note that simply sending a `reply' to this message should work from > most mail readers, since that usually leaves the Subject: line in the > right form (additional "Re:" text in the Subject: is okay). > > If you do not wish to be removed from this list, please simply > disregard this message. If you think you are being maliciously > removed from the list, or have any other questions, send them to > cypherpunks-owner(a)lists.cpunks.org.

4 5

Re: Fw: confirm 273603a0ebe9ecc9238069493e5b4d3886e1842e
by Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many 11 May '22

11 May '22

Now they're targeting me, I'll take a pause from this, or at least slow down to think about it. Attached is as far as my nmap scan for this IP address went, from my phone. I also did a whois for both the domain name and the ip block range, but I was confused doing so. I did not contact the abuse contacts for either, and that is irresponsible of me, a habit that can cause harm. Maybe I still will. On Wed, May 11, 2022, 4:34 PM Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think that info was for .de and I was confused. > >> > Do a whois lookup for tschwaak.de and you'll find contact information for > the owner of the host's domain. > > They should be informed their host is compromised, or such appropriate. >

1 0

Fwd: confirm bc5f4d0ab8fa87a8e6a7c69697206ad287fb5829
by Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many 11 May '22

11 May '22

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <cypherpunks-request(a)lists.cpunks.org> Date: Wed, May 11, 2022, 4:34 PM Subject: confirm bc5f4d0ab8fa87a8e6a7c69697206ad287fb5829 To: <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list cypherpunks We have received a request from 185.220.100.248 for the removal of your email address, "gmkarl(a)gmail.com" from the cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org mailing list. To confirm that you want to be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact. Or visit this web page: https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/confirm/cypherpunks/bc5f4d0ab8fa87a8e6a7c6… Or include the following line -- and only the following line -- in a message to cypherpunks-request(a)lists.cpunks.org: confirm [gently censored] Note that simply sending a `reply' to this message should work from most mail readers, since that usually leaves the Subject: line in the right form (additional "Re:" text in the Subject: is okay). If you do not wish to be removed from this list, please simply disregard this message. If you think you are being maliciously removed from the list, or have any other questions, send them to cypherpunks-owner(a)lists.cpunks.org.

1 0

Use VPN Russian spy Punk
by Revevilgod God 11 May '22

11 May '22

Russian time from me to Russian agent who uses Russian service. How can we trust you when you are acting like a Russian spy?

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Digital Dystopia 90% of World Plans CBDC's and Digital Fiat, War On Cash
by grarpamp 11 May '22

11 May '22

Digital Dystopia Looms: 90% Of Nations Are Planning CBDCs https://off-guardian.org/2022/05/06/report-90-of-nations-planning-central-b… https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap125.pdf https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fintech-notes/Issues/2022/02/07/Behind-… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-04-14/crypto-in-europe-china-n… https://news.bitcoin.com/central-bank-of-brazil-confirms-it-will-run-pilot-… https://news.bitcoin.com/namibian-central-bank-announces-plan-to-launch-cbd… https://www.bis.org/statistics/payment_stats/commentary2112.htm https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankvangansbeke/2021/06/27/why-central-bank-d… https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/ukraine-crisis-may-reshape-role-cb… https://off-guardian.org/2022/01/02/this-year-in-the-new-normal/ https://off-guardian.org/2021/10/01/programmable-digital-currency-the-next-… https://off-guardian.org/2022/03/19/ukraine-crisis-accelerating-rise-of-cen… https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/15/canada-invokes-emergencies-act-to-seize… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/21/bank-england-tells-minister… A new report from the Bank of International Settlements estimates that up to 90% of national central banks are at least in the planning stages for launching a central bank digital currency (CBDC): Nine out of 10 central banks are exploring central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and more than half are now developing them or running concrete experiments. In particular, work on retail CBDCs has moved to more advanced stages This echoes a March report from the IMF, which claimed over one hundred nations are at least in the planning stages of releasing their own CBDC. You can read the entire IMF report here, or a summary published by Bloomberg here. It seems programs of government-issued digital money have been gaining momentum all around the world since at least 2020, and apparently, now they exist in over half the countries on the planet. The newest of these – Brazil and Namibia – announced their plans only last month. As with all globalist agendas, the push for CBDCs is always part of “the current thing”. First, it was a response to Covid. Then they could help us halt climate change. Then they’re a response to the war in Ukraine. Using that method they have moved from a barely-discussed fringe idea to regular mainstream coverage and 90% of the world trying them out, all within the space of a couple of years (as we predicted they would in our New Years post) Interestingly, while CBDCs are being talked about more and more, there is one specific feature of them which is being talked about less and less: Programmability. Regular readers will be more than familiar with this concept – we discussed it in detail in our previous articles on CBDCS (here and here). For those new readers: programmability is a hypothetical feature of digital currency which would allow the issuer to set limits and controls over its use. Essentially, any CBDC would give either the state, the central bank or the corporation issuing the money as wages the power to control how and where the money is spent. Any CBDC amounts to potential third-party control of your money. It’s that simple. This has massive implications for the very idea of individual liberty. Given how the last two years have gone, it’s not at all hard to imagine how such a system could be abused. Halting payments to “protect the NHS”, garnishing wages to “fight climate change” or individual financial sanctions because you aren’t vaccinated. One need look no further back than the Canadian truckers’ protest to see a state financially unpersoning those who express dissent. A CBDC would make that process both easier for the state to enforce and harder for an individual to avoid. It is, quite obviously, the biggest ethical and societal issue in any potential system of digital currency. And yet, neither the BIS report nor the IMF report nor Bloomberg’s summary discusses the idea of “programmability” in any detail at all. The word is used precisely once across all three documents, and they never explain what it actually means OffG has covered CBDCs in detail before, and the press has never been shy in talking up the “benefits” of such strictly controlled money in the past. On the contrary, it has always been treated as a major selling point. Agustin Carstens, the head of the Bank of International Settlements discussed the idea in detail in a video in the summer of 2021: The key difference [with a CBDC] is that the central bank would have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and then have the technology to enforce that.” A Telegraph article from June 2021 again raved about the possible benefits of programmable currency: Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible […] There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way. They were never reluctant to talk up programmability before, so it’s noteworthy they should suddenly shut down that avenue of discussion. Perhaps a sign they over-estimated what people would accept, and are already experiencing more pushback on the idea than they expected. That’s a comforting thought. But don’t be fooled: Just because they stop mentioning it, doesn’t mean they’re letting it go. They just want you to forget about it. Oh, and just in case you were wondering, the list of countries trialling digital currencies includes Ukraine and Russia, the United States and China, Britain and the EU. Every team in the league. Picking a side won’t save you.

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Banks Propaganda War On Bitcoin
by grarpamp 11 May '22

11 May '22

A Brief History Of Big Banks Propaganda War On Bitcoin https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/how-banks-try-to-discredit-bitcoin It’s no coincidence that as the greatest threat to banking, Bitcoin is constantly under fire from the industry and its beneficiaries... Each year, Bitcoin continues to grow in stature. Bitcoin is going mainstream by every metric — financial value, adoption rates, transaction volume, you name it. But not everyone’s happy Bitcoin adoption is growing. In particular, the banking industry feels threatened by bitcoin’s rise and continues to wage war on the cryptocurrency. That banks don’t like Bitcoin shouldn’t be a surprise. Satoshi Nakamoto’s invention is the greatest disruption to the age-old monetary system in decades. As a peer-to-peer network for creating and exchanging value, Bitcoin may render banks useless. To protect their position, banking institutions have resorted to the classic tool of warfare: propaganda. By spreading misinformation, banks hope to discredit Bitcoin — reducing public adoption and encouraging stricter regulation. A (BRIEF) HISTORY OF BIG FINANCE’S PROPAGANDA WAR ON BITCOIN >From the onset, Big Finance must have realized Bitcoin could potentially disrupt the banking system. But they chose to believe its use would remain restricted to drug dealers, computer geeks, cypherpunks, libertarians and other fringe elements. But as cryptocurrency adoption grew, especially among institutional investors, panic spread in the banking system. For the first time, the possibility that this “magic internet money” may displace banks was real. Thus, banks launched a coordinated effort to discredit cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin was and is a favorite target, given its status as the world’s first and most popular cryptocurrency. In 2014, Jamie Dimon, billionaire President and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, declared Bitcoin “a terrible store of value” at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. However, that didn’t stop the state of New York from issuing licenses to Bitcoin exchanges the following year. Dimon followed up with his criticism of bitcoin in 2015, saying the cryptocurrency would never receive approval from governments. In his words, “No government will ever support a virtual currency that goes around borders and doesn’t have the same controls.” Not satisfied, the JPMorgan Chase supremo launched his biggest attack on Bitcoin yet at the 2015 Barclays Global Financial Services Conference. Not only did he call Bitcoin a fraud similar to Tulipmania, but he also threatened to fire anyone who traded Bitcoin via his company. Dimon isn’t the only Big Finance stalwart who has tried to undermine Bitcoin. President of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde has also been critical of Bitcoin in the past. At a Reuters Next Conference, Lagarde branded bitcoin “a highly speculative asset,” adding that it has been used to conduct “some funny business and some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity.” This is even as the European Central Bank was considering launching its digital currency called the digital euro at the time. The ECB, too, has often lent itself to the anti-Bitcoin propaganda campaign. In its 2021 Financial Stability Review, the apex banker compared surges in bitcoin’s price to the infamous South Sea Bubble. “[Bitcoin’s] exorbitant carbon footprint and potential use for illicit purposes are grounds for concern,” it added in the report. Even the world’s largest financial institutions have also joined in on the anti-Bitcoin party. For example, the World Bank refused to support El Salvador’s plan to adopt bitcoin as legal tender, adducing “environmental and transparency shortcomings” of the cryptocurrency. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) also urged the Latin American nation to drop Bitcoin early this year. Of course, there are many, many more instances of old-money institutions sowing doubt and spreading misinformation about Bitcoin. Nevertheless, these statements all point to the same conclusion: banks hate Bitcoin and will stop at nothing to discredit it. “BITCOIN IS BAD, BLOCKCHAIN IS GOOD” Some financial players have taken another tack in their disinformation campaign. This involves criticizing Bitcoin but praising the underlying blockchain technology that powers the system. Banks see the potential of blockchain technology to revolutionize payments and want to co-opt the technology for their benefit. For example, JPMorgan Chase, the avowed Bitcoin critic, has created a cryptocurrency called “JPMCoin” running on its Quorum blockchain. Central banks have also touted blockchain’s capability to power central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) — cryptocurrencies issued and backed by governments. Such assets are pegged to a fiat currency, like the dollar or euro, much like a stablecoin. The Bank for International Settlement (BIS) ripped into cryptos in a June 2021 report, describing them as speculative assets used to facilitate money laundering, ransomware attacks and other financial crimes. “Bitcoin, in particular, has few redeeming public interest attributes when also considering its wasteful energy footprint,” the report declared. Ironically, the BIS advocated for CBDCs in the same report. Here’s an excerpt: “Central bank digital currencies represent a unique opportunity to design a technologically advanced representation of central bank money, one that offers the unique features of finality, liquidity, and integrity. Such currencies could form the backbone of a highly efficient new digital payment system by enabling broad access and providing strong data governance and privacy standards based on digital ID.” The “Bitcoin bad, blockchain good!” line has become the favorite refrain of banks and fintech operators in response to Bitcoin’s popularity. As always, this argument misses the point. Without Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture, blockchain-based payment monetary systems are useless. Permissioned blockchains like Quorum suffer from centralization and single points of failure — problems Nakamoto sought to correct by creating Bitcoin. The same issues plague CBDCs. As I explained in a recent article, centralized control of a digital dollar or pound causes the same problems witnessed with fiat currencies. With central banks controlling every inflow and outflow of money, it’d be all-too-easy to conduct financial surveillance, implement unpopular monetary policies and conduct financial discrimination. A bigger problem with this line of argument is that it fails to consider Bitcoin’s biggest strength: cryptoeconomics. Satoshi’s greatest contribution was a novel combination of economic incentives, game theory and applied cryptography necessary for keeping the system secure and useful in the absence of a centralized entity. Centralized blockchains with poor incentives are open to attack just like any other legacy system. WHY ARE BANKS SCARED OF BITCOIN? Traditional banks have long made money by charging users to store and use their money. The average account holder pays account maintenance fees, debit fees, overdraft fees and a plethora of charges designed to profit the bank. All the while, the bank loans out the money sitting in the account, while giving users only a fraction of the earned interest. Bitcoin, however, poses a threat to the banking industry’s revenue model. With cryptocurrencies, there are no institutions helping users to store, manage or use their money. The owner remains completely in control of their bitcoins. But, wait, there’s more. BETTER AND CHEAPER TRANSACTIONS Bitcoin makes it possible to transfer money to anyone, instantly, irrespective of the amount involved or the recipient’s location. And users can do that without relying on an intermediary like their local bank. On average, Bitcoin-powered transactions are faster and cheaper than transactions through banks. Consider how much time it takes to process an international transfer and the hefty fees that banks charge. Except for miner fees, people are not paying anyone else to process transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. And amounts of any size, large or small, can be moved without the usual red tape. In less than 10 minutes, Bitcoin processes an irreversible money transfer. Banks simply cannot match that. STORE OF VALUE Banks help customers arrange long-term investments in gold, bonds and other assets, to secure the value of their money. And they charge a fee for custodianship, investment consulting and portfolio management. But what happens when people figure out they don’t have to rely on banks to store value? Due to its intrinsic properties, Bitcoin is rapidly emerging as a preferred store of value. Bitcoin is scarce (only 21 million units will ever be produced), but also fungible and portable. This makes it even better than traditional stores of values like gold. Because anyone can easily buy bitcoin and HODL, banks can no longer make money off shilling asset management plans. Banks, like JPMorgan, have adapted by selling bitcoin-based investments such as futures — but that won’t save them. RESISTANCE TO MANIPULATION Banks have long survived by manipulating the financial system for private gains. The 2008 financial crisis resulted from underhanded dealings by some of the world’s biggest banks, including Lehman Brothers, which later declared bankruptcy. For instance, banks always lend out more money than they own in what’s called leveraging. Should everyone decide to withdraw their money from banks, the entire industry would inevitably crash. Bitcoin allows people to be their own banks. Money in a Bitcoin wallet cannot be manipulated or used by anybody apart from the holder. For the first time, people now have the power to control their money. BANKS CANNOT KILL BITCOIN The intensity of the banking industry’s information war shows just how much they fear Bitcoin — as they should. It’s only a matter of time before bitcoin permeates every financial sector — offshore settlements, escrow, payments, asset investments and more. When that happens, banks will become the latest victims of technological disruption. Just as Netflix replaced video rentals and Amazon replaced bookstores, Bitcoin will replace banks. And no amount of doubt-sowing and misinformation will reverse that.

1 0

The Guardian: Priti Patel, hear this loud and clear: Julian Assange must not be handed over to the US
by jim bell 11 May '22

11 May '22

The Guardian: Priti Patel, hear this loud and clear: Julian Assange must not be handed over to the US. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/10/priti-patel-julian-as…

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Moore is No Friend of Bitcoin or Blockchain Shills [re: WD huge HDD]
by grarpamp 11 May '22

11 May '22

On 5/10/22, jim bell <jdb10987(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > https://www.techradar.com/news/western-digital-has-made-a-huge-hdd-breakthr… https://www.techradar.com/best/large-hard-drives-and-ssds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives It is suggested that drive space may be hitting harder limits sooner than those crypto Maxi's who shill that Moore is going to keep creating for them the ridiculous amount of storage, bandwidth, and CPU, for zero cost, out of nothing, for everyone, that currently popular crypto designs will require at their shilled multiple of scale-years. Current estimates require at least 40+TiB per year to store and validate such blockchains at scale... every user must buy and do that, worldwide, in perpetuity, else their chains as currently designed and used lose both privacy and trust and more. Legacy blockchain coin models, Maxi shills, have a problem, and are lying. Even simple example of Bitcoin-BTC, users don't even pull their simple UTXO's forward to allow anywhere near the needed level of scale-years pruning. And Lightning is a scam.

1 0