- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

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 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '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

JFK
by Flaxantan 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

The reason why Lee Harvey Oswald had so many connections to people related to the CIA and to those with QKENCHANT clearance provided by the CIA is that he was to provide countersniper duties to protect the President. No one expected he would assassinate the President. There had to be a coverup because of Soviet disinformation, any ambiguousness would be seized upon by the Soviets. Some JFK investigators had communist ties and links. Weisberg for instance was blacklisted by the FBI from making FOIA requests because of his Communist background that he was fired from the State department for. https://jfkresearch.wordpress.com/category/harold-weisberg/ This was a well meaning coverup. The CIA and the FBI are not responsible for JFK's assassination. Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

3 2

Fwd: [Cryptography] [ANNOUNCE] HashCash Digital Cash
by grarpamp 30 Jun '17

30 Jun '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ashish Gulhati <crypto(a)ashish.neomailbox.com> Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:06 AM Subject: [Cryptography] [ANNOUNCE] HashCash Digital Cash To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com An untraceable, permissionless digital cash system based on blind signatures. Screenshots, FAQ, and executables for some platforms are at: http://www.hashcash.com/ HashCash is free software, written in Perl and published under the Artistic License 2.0. Source can be downloaded from CPAN. On Unix-ish systems it should also be possible to download and install the package with: cpan Crypt::HashCash (note different capitalization from Adam's Hashcash) HashCash is a lightweight Chaumian blind-signature based digital cash system, designed to work without the need for user registration or accounts. The current implementation is a minimal usable version. It is experimental and released for beta testing. HashCash can operate with various blind signature algorithms and value bases. The initial version includes support for blind RSA and ECDSA signatures, and a vault based on Bitcoin. HashCash coins are bearer tokens of specific denominations, blind-signed by a vault, representing a quantity of some value (precious metals / Bitcoin / altcoins / fiat / whatever) stored by the vault. Users can export coins from their wallets and send them directly to anyone else using any communication medium. Coins can be encrypted when exported, and the encryption passphrase sent to the recipient using an alternate communication method, to protect coins in transit. For in-person transactions, recipients can just scan coins as QR codes from payers' devices. The wallet can work with multiple independent vaults, just as an email client might connect to multiple email accounts on different servers. With the free vault software and fairly modest hardware and bandwidth requirements, operating a HashCash vault is within the capabilities of most people with basic computer skills, facilitating decentralizaton based on a diversity of competing private vaults. Independent automated reliability and reputation tracking of vaults could help users select reliable vaults to use. Coin minting and verification fees can be set independently by each vault, and are built into each interaction with a vault, which enables vaults to operate without the need for user accounts. A vault's private keys can be kept completely offline at all times, by running the vault on machines air-gapped from the Internet and communicating with them over serial links. The HashCash protocol is designed to facilitate air-gapped vaults, as well as completely offline yet fully functional wallets, which can provide a high level of security for naive users. Offline mode for the wallet is included in current implementation. I'm still fine-tuning the support for air-gapped vaults. It works and has been well tested, just needs to be cleaned up. Support for air-gapped vaults should be included in an upcoming release soon, and an experimental live air-gapped vault should also be online shortly. In the meantime, you can get a feel for the system by running a vault locally. More details on that on the Download page: http://www.hashcash.com/download.html Comments, bug reports, code, translation assistance, etc. most welcome and greatly appreciated. Hash http://www.hashcash.com _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

4 6

[WAR] Israel now targetting Palestinians, Syrian military and civilians
by Zenaan Harkness 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

Israel knows no restraint, and no amount of middle eastern land shall ever be enough - from the great Pyramid to the Euphrates river, Israel shall continue to conduct their ISIS operations and land grab expansionist policy, at least until a little international unity against Israel is witnessed on the world front. No wonder Saudi Arabia's got balls - with USA and Israel behind them. Note also how at the bottom the tweeter calls Israeli-occupied Western Syria "northen Israel". http://theduran.com/breaking-israel-attacks-syrian-arab-army-from-the-occup… BREAKING: Israel attacks Syrian Arab Army from the occupied Golan Heights

1 3

Fwd: [ PFIR ] Idiots on Canadian Supreme Court demand right of GLOBAL Google censorship!
by Cecilia Tanaka 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

I didn't delete Lauren's comments because they're the best part of the message, haha!! ;D (I know, it's tragic, not funny.) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility) Announcement List" Idiots on Canadian Supreme Court demand right of GLOBAL Google censorship! Google Must Delete Search Results Worldwide, Supreme Court of Canada Rules http://fortune.com/2017/06/28/canada-supreme-court-google/ The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Google on Wednesday in a closely-watched intellectual property case over whether judges can apply their own country's laws to all of the Internet. In a 7-2 decision, the court agreed a British Columbia judge had the power to issue an injunction forcing Google to scrub search results about pirated products not just in Canada, but everywhere else in the world too. - - - What a complete batch of power-grabbing idiots on the Canadian Supreme Court. My God, they demand the right to impose GLOBAL censorship? What total asses. Beyond stupid. More dangerous than President Chump when it comes to speech rights. Because the EU wants to do the same thing with their nightmare "Right To Be Forgotten." And China too. And Russia. And France. And more. And there are vile, sick politicians here in the USA who would do this same thing if they could figure out how to get it past the First Amendment. It's a race to the lowest common denominator censorship bottom. My view is that Google should consider cutting off all services to countries that make such demands. Period. Otherwise, one day Google Search results pages will be nothing but a big white empty space. --Lauren--

2 1

what kind of psychologist would write this?
by Ryan Carboni 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm I pointed this out before, but I have gravely overestimated all of you somehow. That letter seems to appeal to the biases of schizophrenics and aims to make them more odious.

1 0

Appelbaum in Cairo
by grarpamp 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

Appelbaum in Cairo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl88J8KOLlY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIvt9snFQig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qa8SRN86V8 Principled balls of steel. We need this voice among the voices.

2 1