[apparently the address for the CP list wasn't the one I normally use]
My comments inline:
On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 3:23:09 PM PST, furrier
I watched you live both in Acapulco and Prague. I don't agree with you and I don't understand how can people be so naive to think that AP can actually work.
Prior to the invention of the RSA encryption system (public-key) the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of the TOR system, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Bitcoin, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Ethereum, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work. But does the opinion of the public determine whether a given invention can work? Your statement implies that the opinion of the masses is somehow determinative of whether a technical advance should work. Can you explain why you think that AP shouldn't work? Today? Your position would have sounded plausible in 1995-96. Then, your technical ignorance approximated virtually everyone else's. But a lot has happened since then. >I am against the whole idea I am fond of pointing out that governments killed about 250 million people in the 20th century. See "Democide". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide (although, the definition varies; some people don't consider people killed in war to be victims of Democide. I consider that position to be insanely foolish.) Were you against that? If you were, how important do (or did) you think it was that this murder be stopped? If you agree that it was wrong that governments murdered 250 million people in the 20th century, then it is inaccurate to say you are against the WHOLE idea of AP. Because most people seem to agree that if AP was implemented, governments would no longer be able to kill people in such vast numbers, ever again. Maybe your (confused) position is that you don't want governments to kill people, but you cannot figure out how to stop that from occurring. Well, you can't, but I can. Am I really wrong?
, it's the same thing as cracking down on cryptocurrency
You do not explain that connection. >or dark markets to fight terrorism. You do not explain that connection.
If you want to fight terrorism
That depends on the definition of "terrorism". The U.S government doesn't define "terrorism" as mere random violence against innocents, but adds the condition that the motivation of the terrorist is to change laws or government, or both. But to the extent that terrorism attacks innocents, I agree it is wrong. And must be stopped.
build a society where terrorism is mute.
How about building a tool that makes "terrorism" completely unnecessary. Tim McVeigh didn't have a "magic bomb" which, when detonated, killed only the top 30 government employees responsible for the Waco massacre, even though they might have been hundreds of miles away from each other. Do you think that if McVeigh HAD access to such a "magic bomb", he would have preferred instead to destroy an entire building in Oklahoma city filled with innocents and relative-innocents? I consider such a position preposterous, and probably you'd agree as well. AP can be described as a "magic weapon" that can be used to target precisely the actual problem-causers, with little and probably no collateral damage. Please explain your precise objection to implementing it as I advocate.
Similar, if you want to fight politicians, build a society where politics are either mute or they don't affect our lives so much. Wake up people!
If you can explain how to do that, speak up. I am reminded of a joke, where a comedian says he bought a book titled "How to be a successful millionaire!". The first page of the book simply contained the words, "First get a million dollars". But how?