jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
 
> >Rather amazed AP hasn't yet risen (publicly) to affect things.

>> No disagreement from me on that!  When I proposed AP almost 22 years
>> ago, https://cryptome.org/ap.htm, I believed that the possibilities
>> and advantages of the system would be immediately debated and decided
>> upon.  A lot of debate did indeed occur, but even today the average
>> person remains unaware that there is a solution to militaries and
>> war, to government and tyranny.  How long until freedom breaks out
>> and lives? Most of the initial objection to AP was either dishonest
>> or uninformed.  Perhaps many people could not imagine that a complex
>> system of software could exist that would maintain anonymity, but two
>> decades of software development (TOR, Bitcoin,


>   tor and bitcoin are obviously not the proper tools to use
>    against the state. Especially tor, the pentagon's cyberweapon.

I read, months ago, that one of the military's uses for TOR is to control aerial drones from around the world.  Presumably, the reason for using TOR is to prevent systems in the link from identifying the traffic as "controlling an aerial drone" and cutting it off.

That use explains why they want the ability to have a low-latency link.  What it DOESN'T explain is why that low-latency link isn't merely one way to use the system:  Why can't the packets themselves decide how they are to be routed?  Why can't they have an arbitrarily-large number of hops, of course at the expense of higher latency.  

Why can't hops fork?  Why isn't dummy traffic inserted?  All explained by the military's need to make TOR good, but not TOO GOOD!

   
 >   You might have more luck with some sort of 'hight latency'
  >  mixing network and a crpytocurrency with built in
  >  'anonimity' (that is NOT bitcoin)

Zerocoin...    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin  

>> Silk Road

>    silk road clearly illustrates the shortcomings of using garbage
 >   like tor. Jusk ask Ulbricht.

Quite true.  Nevertheless, SR did have the salutory effect of showing how such a secret system could operate, for months and even years, despite flawed tools.  It was a data-point.  People will continue to construct and operate SR-2's, SR-3's, etc, hopefully with increasing levels of success.  They will learn.  

> and its
> successors, Ethereum, and Augur) should prove to everyone that we are
> up to the task.  I claimed that AP would eliminate both war an
> militaries.  People have claimed they want to end both for centuries.
>  Well, finally they actually get the promise of such an outcome, and
> a plausible mechanism to do so, and they fail or refuse to address
> the issue.  Maybe they don't really want peace:  They merely want the
> continuation of the status quo.  


>    Or perhaps your analysis is simplistic AP advertising, not
>   a serious look into the nature of state rule.

Should I have to be doing all the work, here?  I would argue that if a person proposes a plausible idea to eliminate war and militaries (what everyone has always said would be an excellent idea) it thereby becomes a obligation of the (interested) public to either credit or discredit it.  

>    AP may be a means for a libertarian defense system, but AP by
>    itself isn't necesarily libertarian

A gun isn't necessarily libertarian, either:  It can be used to shoot attacking, guilty people, or shoot innocent people.  That's not an argument to make ownership of guns impossible.