- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Future historians will recall the war between 4chan and LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner
by My 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

> Razer g2s at riseup.net > Wed Aug 30 09:26:15 PDT 2017 > > > Alt-Right and Antifa > neo-Nazi vs counter-protester > HWNDU > reading Vice > These hacks can't into basic timelines or narratives. Do you even know what happened ? None of these things are even related. > war between > This isn't even a thing. It is a game of capture the flag run by efbeiniggers to train more /pol/ice officers and other fags. > LaBeouf, Rönkkö, & Turner > There was a thread about this already, when it was actually happening. Where the fuck were you ? lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-January/035315.html

1 0

Wikileaks DNS hacked
by My 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

> CANNON cannon at cannon-ciota.info > Wed Aug 30 20:24:19 PDT 2017 > > wigileags was hijacked > It is a fucking trap. Julyin is ded or compromised. Fake videos. Gif related. Video without JavaScript: 8ch.net/player.php?v=https://media.8ch.net/file_store/d9fb098478757824dec02…

1 0

Paragon & other crypto cannabis communities
by My 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

> Cecilia Tanaka cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com > Wed Aug 30 14:17:33 PDT 2017 > > marijuana > cannabis > These are not the same thing. > blockchain quality monitoring > Can only do quantity with computer. Quantitative measurements is exactly what we need more of /s. > legal cannabis > Implying illegality. Do you know anything ? Pepe Cash is a way better way to use a ledger: rarepepedirectory.com/?page_id=1405 Pic related.

1 0

Stormfap go bye-bye now...
by Razer 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

Oldest white supremacist site shut down after complaint By JAY REEVES Associated Press August 28, 2017 12:03 PM BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The founder of the internet's oldest white supremacist site said he was trying to get back online Monday after a company revoked its domain name following complaints that it promotes hatred and is linked to dozens of murders. Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who has operated stormfront.org since 1995, said he didn't receive any warning before Network Solutions blocked the use of the stormfront.org name on Friday. Stormfront.org had more than 300,000 registered users, Black said, with traffic increasing since a violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Popular with the KKK and neo-Nazi groups, the site included forums where users sometimes promoted white power events. "I'm talking to my lawyers, and that's about all I can do right now," Black, of West Palm Beach, Florida, said in a telephone interview. "I can switch to another domain, but it might wind up the same way." Another major white supremacist website, The Daily Stormer, was previously shut down by the web-hosting company Go Daddy and then Google after the violence in Charlottesville. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said the stormfront.org shutdown followed complaints it filed with Network Solutions alleging the site promotes not only hate speech, but deadly violence. A spokesman for Network Solutions didn't immediately return an email seeking comment. Users of Black's website have been implicated in more than 100 killings, according to the complaint, including 77 people slain by neo-Nazi Anders Breivik at a camp in Norway in 2011. "Especially in the wake of tragic events in Charlottesville and the spike in hate crimes across the country, Stormfront crossed the line of permissible speech and incited and promoted violence," said a statement by Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Black, speaking about the shutdown during an online radio show Monday, said his site had rules against promoting violence or any crime. Black was a state KKK leader under former Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke, who appeared on the radio show following Black and expressed his "full support" for Black and the website. "He was the first major site defending the rights of white people," said Duke. Black has been involved in the white supremacy movement since the 1970s and was convicted in 1981 for his role in a right-wing plot to overthrow the government of Caribbean island nation of Dominica. =30= http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/artic…

5 8

Wikileaks under attack?
by CANNON 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

What happened to wikileaks? Any torrent links, mirrors along with source of their officialness?

3 2

Paragon & other crypto cannabis communities
by Cecilia Tanaka 30 Aug '17

30 Aug '17

I don't use marijuana, but have no problems with it. :) =============== A Blockchain technology that will integrate itself with the legal cannabis community. With offline co-working spaces, blockchain seed-to-sale quality monitoring, and an online platform for voting on best cannabis-related startup ideas: 🌐 https://paragoncoin.com/ 👩‍👩‍👧‍👦 https://t.me/joinchat/Clv-u0IXuCq2B0xvCIlRXw =============== Bitcoin channel: Pot-Friendly Bitcoin Payments Startup Raises $1.5 Million http://www.coindesk.com/pot-friendly-bitcoin-payments-startu p-raises-1-5-million/ POSaBIT, a Seattle-based digital currency payments startup with a focus on serving legal cannabis outlets, has raised $1.5m in funding. Source (http://www.coindesk.com/pot-friendly-bitcoin-payments-start up-raises-1-5-million/) ========== US Cannabis Group Denied Banking, Time For Bitcoin? https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-cannabis-group-denied-bank ing-time-for-bitcoin "Bitcoin could come to the rescue of a cannabis advocacy group whose legal bank account was closed by a scared bank." ================ Bitcoin Lets POSaBIT Solve Cash-Only Cannabis in Washington State. https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-lets-posabit-solve- cash-only-cannabis-in-washington-state

1 0

Pink: Combining Sex and the Sharing Economy
by grarpamp 30 Aug '17

30 Aug '17

https://pinkapp.io/ https://pinkapp.io/pink-12-aug.pdf https://medium.com/@PinkApp https://twitter.com/@goPinkApp https://join.slack.com/t/pinkapp/shared_invite/MjMwOTM2OTIyMDU0LTE1MDM0MTQ5… Escort Agency, Revolutionized - Monetizing Human Desire "If Silk Road had used this design, they’d still be online" Pink is the world's first anonymous escort agency, leveraging blockchain fundraising and payments with anonymity technology to operate in an extrajurisdictional fashion. Selling sex is a lucrative yet difficult trade, ripe for disruption. >From safety to quality, marketing to payment, problems abound for both parties. Pink eliminates risk and guarantees service, end to end. In doing so, we generate and capture immense value. Marketplaces like Craigslist or Backpage create more problems than they solve. Buyers and sellers are left to fend for themselves. Such companies cannot and do not get involved in individual transactions. Pink transacts with both sides, acting as a true "Uber of Sex", delivering real customer service. Pink's booking commissions (12-25%) ensure significant profits to grow and deliver world-class service. Providers and clients only deal with Pink. We handle advertising, transportation, security, scheduling, legal costs, payments, and even taxes. For providers, Pink allows choosing the required level of verification of clients, and we guarantee payment. For clients, Pink assures accurate photos, health, and service levels - no more spam and fake profiles. In the case of any dispute, Pink acts as full mediator to ensure a fair outcome. Tinder Meets Buy It Now Clients swipe through providers to make a shortlist - more fun than browsing ads. Swipe up to Buy It Now! Hassle-Free Scheduling No more back-and-forth between multiple providers. See who's available and book instantly, with guaranteed availability! Perfect Profiles Pink personally, physically, verifies each and every provider on the system. What You See Is What You Get, Guaranteed. Get Rewarded Share the gift of love and both you and your friend will receive bonuses. As an active user, you'll automatically gain free services. Best Pricing Taking advantage of market data, Pink can dynamically adjust prices as well as A/B test photos and description text. Cash Accepted! Safe and Secure Being extrajurisdictional and anonymous, Pink minimizes legal risk for everyone involved. See our PDF for technical details. The First Post-ICO Blockchain Fundraiser Series A Token-Shares Sale Starts Sept 1 Pink is the first post-ICO era blockchain-fundraising company. Because Pink accepts cash, crypto currencies and eventually limited amounts of credit cards for payment, it does not need a token. Instead we will issue Token-Shares, also known as Blockchain Bearer Shares. The shares issued will receive dividends every quarter - a guaranteed minimum of 50% of profits. Pink will leverage blockchain smart contracts to track share ownership and distribute dividends. Token-Shares are issued in an ERC20-compliant token, making trading easy. On top of this, we will allow shareholders to opt into hidden ownership to allow them to remain fully anonymous. In such cases, we can distribute profits via Monero or other methods. As a full service company, Pink is geo-limiting its offerings at launch to ensure a safe and high quality operation. Pink aims to launch its first city in December, 2017. To do so, we are opening a small Series A investment round on Sept 1. We aim to raise $5,000,000 at $1/token-share. In January, after the successful launch, we will do a full Blockchain IPO, raising $50 million at $10/token-share. At IPO, Series A investors can, at their election, participate in a stock buyback program of up to 20% of their shares (an instant 200% ROI). We can seriously fight sex trafficking! Pink will grow quickly, as the only global commercial organization that will stand up for sex providers. Working for Pink will be safer and more profitable than being independent or working for a local organization. We will have strict verification of provider ages, done via our own Pink contractors. We are working on measures to detect coercion and offer help to providers suspected of being coerced. Abusive clients will be banned and dealt with by our security personnel as warranted. If you are a stakeholder in sex worker rights and want to work with us to shape our policies, please email us.

1 0

Cryptocurrency Anonymity Tracking
by grarpamp 30 Aug '17

30 Aug '17

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608716/bitcoin-transactions-arent-as-ano… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15085522 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.04748.pdf Cookies, conversions, CoinJoins, analysis https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/08/23/2234207/irs-now-has-a-tool-to-unmas… http://www.thedailybeast.com/irs-now-has-a-tool-to-unmask-bitcoin-tax-cheats https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3935924-IRS-Chainalysis-Contract.ht… You can use bitcoin. But you can't hide from the taxman. At least, that's the hope of the Internal Revenue Service, which has purchased specialist software to track those using bitcoin, according to a contract obtained by The Daily Beast. The document highlights how law enforcement isn't only concerned with criminals accumulating bitcoin from selling drugs or hacking targets, but also those who use the currency to hide wealth or avoid paying taxes. The IRS has claimed that only 802 people declared bitcoin losses or profits in 2015; clearly fewer than the actual number of people trading the cryptocurrency -- especially as more investors dip into the world of cryptocurrencies, and the value of bitcoin punches past the $4,000 mark. Maybe lots of bitcoin traders didn't realize the government expects to collect tax on their digital earnings, or perhaps some thought they'd be able to get away with stockpiling bitcoin thanks to the perception that the cryptocurrency is largely anonymous. "The purpose of this acquisition is to help us trace the movement of money through the bitcoin economy," a section of the contract reads. The Daily Beast obtained the document through the Freedom of Information Act. The contractor in this case is Chainalysis, a startup offering its "Reactor" tool to visualize, track, and analyze bitcoin transactions. Chainalysis' users include law enforcement agencies, banks, and regulatory entities. The software can follow bitcoin as it moves from one wallet to another, and eventually to an exchange where the bitcoin user will likely cash out into dollars or another currency. This is the point law enforcement could issue a subpoena to the exchange and figure out who is really behind the bitcoin. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/6u72kt/cryptocurrency_retu… https://hackcabin.com/post/dont-mine-bitcoin-mine-altcoins/

2 1

projection and externalization of authority - was [zenaan@freedbms.net: Re: One-line password generator]
by Zenaan Harkness 30 Aug '17

30 Aug '17

The relevance of the following is not the crypto (I know nothing, I, know, nuszink on zis topik!), but the highlights regarding human nature to project not only authority upon external "others", but also to project one's own beliefs, or indeed even to project one's wants. That last bit (projecting one's wants) stood out to me today - an extension of the insight re projection. , ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness <zenaan(a)freedbms.net> ----- From: Zenaan Harkness <zenaan(a)freedbms.net> To: debian-user(a)lists.debian.org Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:41:03 +1000 Subject: Re: One-line password generator On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 02:28:01PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > now it's not about information technology any more but about math and the > difficulty to properly discuss a mathematical opinion. > > > Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > Which myth? > > The one denounced by Thomas Huehn's article. That's not true. > Saying that /dev/random > gets fed directly from the entropy pool: > https://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/structure-no.png WHERE in the article does he say that?!!! The article does not say that! The image might seem to suggest that. Once again: QUOTE THE ARTICLE!!! Then, QUOTE ME. Then, and only then, might you see where you are going wrong in your understanding. At the moment, what you keep doing is essentially handwaving, appealing to "the article", yet in the next paragraph denouncing (or expressing your dissatisfaction with) the article. You cannot have it both ways - as in, either you want precision in your own understanding, or you just want to hand wave about "that article" and "some cryptographers" and "what Ted Ts'o said" and what I said which you reply to. If you want to get close to understanding that which you're not understanding about cryptography, you MUST begin to be precise (no more handwaving exercises). Quote PRECISELY what someone (ANYONE!) said, and then quote, EXACTLY what an article or someone else says, that you want to compare the two statements with. Frankly Mr Thomas Schmitt, you continue to completely unfairly place a ridiculous burden upon your conversational compatriots to second- and triple- guess whatever it is that you might possibly think that you're trying to say, and further more guess and assume as to what it is you might be thinking (evidently mostly erroneously) which leads you to be trying to say whatever it is you're trying to say. Here's another homework task for you: Learn the art of axiomatic written communication. > Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > > I should have wrote "/dev/random should be treated as though it is > > > > the input feed to /dev/urandom" (sorry about that). > > I wrote: > > > But that it isn't. The myth model says that it would be. > > > I can't see the myth in my words that you say is debunked > > The word "myth" refers to the topic and title the article, not to your words. > > I apologize for any implied belittleing of your arguments. It was not > intentional. NO! Again you are misunderstanding me - you are failing to see that I completely welcome "belittling" of my arguments - I'm not here to win any cryptography awards, and if I'm wrong, I'd much rather know about it. Please see above for my actual points that I am raising. Your lack of precise communication is completely unfair to put on others when you are wanting to gain a deeper understanding of cryptography. > > Exactly which part of my sentence above, do you say contradicts what > > you say just here? > > The part that /dev/urandom is equivalent to stemming from /dev/random. That i absolutely not what I said. > They are more or less siblings, according to Thomas Huehn and Andy Smith. He might have said that, and you seem to want them to be, but both Huehn's and Smith's position, and your apparent want, are utterly unrelated to what I said. There's a name for this technique (unintended by you I presume) which is called "projection" - you want something to be a certain way, or assume it is a certain way, and so you project upon the words of others what you believe or want to believe. This projection is what you are doing in respect of my words. It stems from a lack of precision in your communication technique, and also from putting a VERY unfair burden on your co-communication partners, and BOTH these two points demonstrate a very unfair laziness on your part - you are wanting easy answers to difficult concepts, and are relying upon whoever responds to you to try and figure out what you're thinking, assuming, projecting and misunderstanding - in the world of cryptography, that's dangerous for you if your need for cryptography is related to your safety. > > > not a strongly obfuscated but still diluted result. > > > Yes, your naivety shines through. > > I am not alone with that > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_… > "A CSPRNG can "stretch" the available entropy over more bits." Everyone in the world can be wrong about something, or any significant subset of the people in the world can be wrong about that thing. But this fact will never change the fact that they're still wrong about it. 1. That's wikipedia, not the bible of computational crypto. 2. The term "stretching" is a convenient metaphor. 3. To understand why "stretching" is an appropriate metaphor requires a deeper understanding of crypto than you or I seem to possess. 4. To understand why "stretching" is an inappropriate metaphor requires only to see that people keep getting lead up the garden path of colourful metaphors. > (The authors of that page throw much more math terms than have been > in this thread yet. Whether this makes them more credible stays undecided.) Their credibility is not relevant to your lack of understanding. You seem to be personally desiring the result of "some external authority I can trust" vs my preferred personal approach of "comprehend enough personally to be able to analyse what purported authorities say on the topic, so that I don't have to rely upon them." Whether I have achieved my intention is completely up for debate - I may well be utterly delusional, and frankly you ought never rely on anything I ever say, about cryptography or otherwise. I am only an authority on what I believe that I comprehend about something, and to the extent that you seek any external (to yourself) authority to "trust" in respect of computational crypography, means I must, absolutely, distance myself from you, as any reliance you put on me is a danger of liability to me. You cannot rely upon what I say about crypography, so don't even think about so relying! > Maybe the answer by Jalai in > https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/1740/stretching-a-random-seed-to… > points out a lower limit for the loss of entropy by exploiting the key > of a cipher. > Maybe it's a red herring. Many possibilities, and no one you can rely upon or trust about it - I suggest the only safe approach is being suspicious of anyone proclaiming authority, ESPECIALLY in respect of any matter which might effect you personally. > > This is not the place to gain a deep understanding of > > cryptographically secure random numbers > > You tell me So you say! And so you kept implying, and now you so say explicitly! > that if i read 1024 bytes from a not very secret stream that > was encrypted with a secret 384 bit key i get 1024 bytes of entropy ? You are now putting words in my mouth. You have crossed a line. Do not do this again. (The way you have done this is in a way which would undermine the separation of authority between myself, yourself, any external authority I may otherwise to choose to trust, and vice versa for yourself, were I to accept your projected assumptive authority!) Take my words as you will, but this technique is completely unacceptable to use in your conversation with me, so speak for yourself! I shall continue finish replying to this email, but you can expect less responses from me foing forward. > I'd like to read the proof for this. Whatever proof you need for your own strawmen, is a matter for you - attempting to extract things out of others in a way which they would find disrespectful if they understood what you did, is something one might consider striving to avoid. > > If you want to comprehend the significance of your naivety, find the > > number of molecules in the universe, > > What does this have to do with the question whether N bits of > information can give birth to more than N bits of information ? How do you expect to comprehend the security of any computational crypto system you choose to use ("trust") if you won't even do the most basic "cryptographic" math when it is suggested to you that doing so may well give rise within you to the understanding you purport to seek? You must begin to be comfortable in your mind with certain concepts, and the interrelation of those concepts, and thus be able to communicate with others (if that's what you want to do) by naming and comfortably relating those concepts to one another. Again, how you can you possibly gain within you the understanding you proclaim to seek, if you cannot communicate readily and freely on various --foundational-- (to cryptography) concepts? (This is an axiom of comprehension, also called a principle although the latter word is overloaded with socio psychological meanings and thus less preferable for precise communication - but hey, I might be utterly off base on my axioms, so don't trust for a minute any axiom that I present - you would merely be projecting authority upon an external source (me) and failing to know from within yourself, which (according to this incredibly humble authority) is a "dick move".) More suggested homework if you truly wish to feel comfortable with computer crypto (which, evidently it appears, you yet do not): - magnitudes - comparing magnitudes - computational difficulty - number spaces, and the magnitudes of number spaces - why cryptography relies on numeric magnitudes - what it means, computationally, to rely on a numeric magnitude - how the magnitude relied upon in the kernel random devices relates to the real world, in a way which is actually useful (this is your "atoms in the universe" homework bit) - understand the difference between the "stretching" metaphor which was provided by the kernel and other tech heads as an analogy to try to explain difficult concepts to those of us who struggle to comprehend what's involved in these algorithms - the difference between information-theoretically secure and computationally secure - the difference between theoretical and infeasible computational security (protip seach term "information theoretic") > > you're going down completely non-productive rabbit holes, > > I would like to know how one can be so sure that the holes are not > productive. Your "productivity" is a damn lazy imposition you appear to be continue putting on those other than myself who apparently wish to assist in your search for crypto understanding. > > without spending the necessary effort to learn about the maths, > > Oh. It's not the math. It's the jumps in the argumentation and the > lack of proof for strong statements. Which you will always flounder around when you have such little comprehension of the maths involved. This is what I have termed "cotton wool" thinking - where we want all our cake (the nice secure crypto in this example) AND to eat it too (in this example, to understand it to a level where we feel safe in using it, but without putting the effort in to actually bake the cake - we just want to eat it without effort). You can never have it both ways - either you learn, or you will forever continue to rely on external authorities who appear to contradict one another, and some proclaimed authorities who do contradict one another, and many (!) proclaimed authorities who simply have it wrong. > I can be convinced. Just give me links to convincing texts. You do the work - it's your journey! As I said, nothing I say can be relied upon, so there's no use me saying anything to you, unfortunately. Respectfully, Zenaan ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

opennic is safe ?
by Yush Bhardwaj 29 Aug '17

29 Aug '17

Is this safe to use https://www.opennic.org/ and they also provide free domains which can be access only by using there nameservers. anyone have any idea about openic In reddit also posts are 2 years old Regards Yush Bhardwaj

5 7