On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:30:49 -0800 Alex Stahl <alex@testcore.net> wrote:
Point is the technology is neutral/agnostic to its location and operator - and that a key part of the solution is in fact political.
Oh yes, I do see that. And it's based on the 'division-of-power' and 'checks-and-balances' doctrine, which I don't find especially convincing or effective.
Hell, I'm still wondering who would use such a system in the first place without the imposition of regulation?
Well, the leaders of the liberal democracies might be able to create a few laws and regulations to adopt chaum's system and save the children from digital terrorism. Or something.
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:31:49 AM PST juan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:15:36 -0800
Alex Stahl <alex@testcore.net> wrote:
Second, he implied that, with the use of these policies, if a message were to traverse a network with nodes operated by the US, Canada, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China and Japan,
I think the actual network would be more like washington, boston, new york, los angeles, london, panama, puerto rico, marshal islands and maybe brussels.