Sounds like we're in agreement then that crypto systems with political solutions aren't actually crypto solutions at all then?

Anyone else (dis)agree?

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4:56:06 AM PST juan wrote:

> 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.