Assassination Politics AP
limited funds
The first number of successful AP influences (proving runs) might be performed via AP boards that allow users to specify runoff of their donations, but that do not show that computation to potential predictors. Such that the influence funds shown as available to predictors might put every target of influence at the same rate, or at least raise the apparent reward for all targets across the board on average given the variety of runoff donations expected. This might give the initial handful of proving predictors equal incentive to prove the system. ie: Whereas a pool of willing predictors might not be in regional proximity to the hot targets, this could also serve to level that out, if again, helpful for the proving case. Similar to leveling soft and hard targets into easier proofs. On the other hand, such runoff and or levelling systems may be seen as artificial market regulations that should not be implemented.
On Thursday, October 31, 2019, 11:35:03 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
limited funds
The first number of successful AP influences (proving runs) might be performed via AP boards that allow users to specify runoff of their donations, but that do not show that computation to potential predictors. Such that the influence funds shown as available to predictors might put every target of influence at the same rate, or at least raise the apparent reward for all targets across the board on average given the variety of runoff donations expected. This might give the initial handful of proving predictors equal incentive to prove the system. ie: Whereas a pool of willing predictors might not be in regional proximity to the hot targets, this could also serve to level that out, if again, helpful for the proving case. Similar to leveling soft and hard targets into easier proofs. On the other hand, such runoff and or levelling systems may be seen as artificial market regulations that should not be implemented.
A few years ago, I heard of a new version of the "Grand Theft Auto" program, maybe it was 'version 5', that was going to have an "assassination contract" feature built in. I didn't, and don't, know anything else: My video-game playing days virtually ended about 1997, and I didn't play anything more modern later, (I can remember when Doom I was thought of as "realistic".) But it seemed to me that video games, especially modern ones, tend to lend themselves to immerse players in a modern, semi-realistic environment. If we want to learn as much as possible about the behavior of people with access to "assassination contract" scenarios, I assume it should occur in such games. What could have been learned, I never checked out.
On 11/1/19, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
A few years ago, I heard of a new version of the "Grand Theft Auto" program, maybe it was 'version 5', that was going to have an "assassination contract" feature built in. I didn't, and don't, know anything else
But it seemed to me that video games, especially modern ones, tend to lend themselves to immerse players in a modern, semi-realistic environment. If we want to learn as much as possible about the behavior of people with access to "assassination contract" scenarios, I assume it should occur in such games. What could have been learned, I never checked out.
There are MMORPGs, Second Life, many other sim platforms AP could be introduced on. Both in form of the raw text, such as added to the virtual world libraries, posted on virtual lightpoles, etc. And as a functional implementation, whether in a virtual market or embodied into a players character. Such platforms being centralized, the implementation would likely be reported and instantly shutdown. The raw text of AP might survive a bit longer. The main issue with such proposal as AP, as you noted, is getting exposure needed to run it through the critique and development cycles. For that you have to keep reposting AP everywhere... literally jamming it into peoples streams randomly throughout social media, news releases, journals, etc until a large enough mass starts to pick it up and work with it in their brains. Same as suggesting there is any truth out there besides the fake two party duopolies, etc... such as Libertarian Voluntary Anarchist models. Regardless of how valid the latter may in fact be, they are immediately dismissed because they are so far outside the everyday exposure and programmed computation modes of their brains. To counter that programming you have to either get lucky with a starburst logic bomb, or invest much traditional school time equivalent in reprogramming them. For example... the public conferences and interviews AP has done recently have had more public exposure effects towards that than all posts here to date.
Jim Bell's comments, inline: On Friday, November 1, 2019, 12:45:10 PM PDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: On 11/1/19, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
A few years ago, I heard of a new version of the "Grand Theft Auto" program, maybe it was 'version 5', that was going to have an "assassination contract" feature built in. I didn't, and don't, know anything else
But it seemed to me that video games, especially modern ones, tend to lend themselves to immerse players in a modern, semi-realistic environment. If we want to learn as much as possible about the behavior of people with access to "assassination contract" scenarios, I assume it should occur in such games. What could have been learned, I never checked out.
There are MMORPGs, Second Life, many other sim platforms AP could be introduced on. Both in form of the raw text, such as added to the virtual world libraries, posted on virtual lightpoles, etc. And as a functional implementation, whether in a virtual market or embodied into a players character.
Such platforms being centralized, the implementation would likely be reported and instantly shutdown.
I would think that sociologists and philosophers would be interested to know, at least theoretically, how an AP-type system would function, in a harmless environment like a game simulation program. "The raw text of AP might survive a bit longer. I'd like to relate a story. One time, maybe it was 1998 or 2000, I was released from prison, and I saw a copy of what purported to be my AP essay, somewhere on the Internet. But it was VERY different! By different, I mean very large numbers of spelling errors, punctuation errors, and other blatant defects. Now, I've long prided myself on being very precise and good at checking my work: There are VERY few errors in the (correct) archive of AP on John Young's Cryptome system. They exist, I think most are actually my errors, but are very few. (I didn't use a word-processor when I wrote AP, just a lot of care.) Most are not spelling errors, or punctuation errors, but they are broken sentences that somehow slipped by. One exception was the seemiing substitution of "evolutionary" for the obviously-correct "revolutionary" at the beginning of Part 2. I couldn't possibly have MEANT "evolutionary"! Particularly in that obvious context. And I didn't. Where that error came from, I have no idea. I don't doubt that it's NOT John Young's fault, and I haven't ever asked him to change anything about that version of AP, either. It obviously came to him in a state of error. How did that initial error occur? Its now a historic document, and editing it now would be...wrong. But that doesn't mean that I haven't been intensely curious, for many years, where that "evolutionary" came from. It would have appeared on the CP list, initially, presumably sometime in July 1995, which is another reason I want to see the initial appearance of Part 2. I hope, I virtually pray, that I DIDN'T screw it up and type "evolutionary" instead of "revolutionary". It simply doesn't make sense to say it that way. I once sent a 5-page letter to journalist Andy Greenberg of Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination... which I had typed on a prison typewriter (with a correcting ribbon, but no automatic spell-check at all). Later, Greenberg wrote a book, as I recall, where he relates receiving my letter, describing it as being "virtually without errors". As if that was supposed to be shocking. I was disgusted. Having said that, I wondered where that hugely-defective version purporting to be AP came from? And more importantly, I thought, WHO generated it, and WHY? I concluded that somebody was crudely trying to discredit me. The errors that were in the 'faked' AP did not appear to be those that would be generated by OCR'ing a paper-copy of AP, for instance. (Such would have been obvious, to anyone familiar with using OCR programs on printed text.) And even during that era, the vast majority of document-writing would have been done on word-processors with spelling checkers that would be automatically enabled, by default. And most people would use them. (I've always used spelling checkers, when I've used them, as a mere typo-detector.) So even a bad-typist wouldn't have generate that faked document, unless he had been deliberately doing so.
The main issue with such proposal as AP, as you noted, is getting exposure needed to run it through the critique and development cycles.
At this point, I think the discovery of the fraud of tampering with the CP archive could be further, additional proof of the government's malicious intent, I don't doubt that there could be some innocent data-loss, but based on what we now see, that virtually cannot be all of it.
For that you have to keep reposting AP everywhere... literally jamming it into peoples streams randomly throughout social media, news releases, journals, etc until a large enough mass starts to pick it up and work with it in their brains.
Same as suggesting there is any truth out there besides the fake two party duopolies, etc... such as Libertarian Voluntary Anarchist models. Regardless of how valid the latter may in fact be, they are immediately dismissed because they are so far outside the everyday exposure and programmed computation modes of their brains.
To counter that programming you have to either get lucky with a starburst logic bomb, or invest much traditional school time equivalent in reprogramming them.
For example... the public conferences and interviews AP has done recently have had more public exposure effects towards that than all posts here to date.
Such platforms being centralized, the implementation would likely be reported and instantly shutdown.
I would think that sociologists and philosophers would be interested to know, at least theoretically, how an AP-type system would function, in a harmless environment like a game simulation program.
I've been thinking about your AP idea, and think rather than make mock contracts on political "targets", which is a bit incendiary, one could make headline "bounties" that, if met, get rewarded. Like "CIA director, X, dies from food poisoning". So I've been thinking of a few headline examples: * "Excrement Catapult baffles local police" * "Man arrested for putting testicles on double-parked car downtown." * "Fart panic on flight 403, hysterical cabin threatens landing" * "A sigh of relief for zero casualities as vacated skyskraper plummets 1000'." V * "Crowd screams out of shopping mall after home-made 'stink bomb' fills apparel store" * "'Friendly' christian argument ends in puke brawl" * "Food writers furious after finding semen on their salsbury" * "Routine stop leads to 20 car pileup." * "Rogue drives military tank through LA suburb." V * "Man puzzles customers with labyrinth at IKEA with no way out." V * "Phone lines flood governors's office at rush hour as "reverse graffiti" reveals private phone number at I-20 underpass." * "Man walks into Sunday church, shoots firearm until people are screaming, and walks out." Things like this, make things interesting without involving any death. What do you think? \0xD
On Thursday, January 2, 2020, 01:53:59 PM PST, \0xDynamite <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
Such platforms being centralized, the implementation would likely be reported and instantly shutdown.
I would think that sociologists and philosophers would be interested to know, at least theoretically, how an AP-type system would function, in a harmless environment like a game simulation program.
I've been thinking about your AP idea, and think rather than make mock contracts on political "targets", which is a bit incendiary, one could make headline "bounties" that, if met, get rewarded. Like "CIA director, X, dies from food poisoning".
One possibility would be to implement an AP system, but limit the payout for any one target to a fairly low value, say $1000. (enough to cause a bit of worry). Then file a lawsuit in Federal Court for an injunction against law enforcement authorities to demand that the legalities of such a system be debated and declared. 'They' would have to explain and document why they thought that such a system was illegal, or admit it would be legal. Jim Bell
I've been thinking about your AP idea, and think rather than make mock contracts on political "targets", which is a bit incendiary, one could make headline "bounties" that, if met, get rewarded. Like "CIA director, X, dies from food poisoning".
One possibility would be to implement an AP system, but limit the payout for any one target to a fairly low value, say $1000. (enough to cause a bit of worry). Then file a lawsuit in Federal Court for an injunction against law enforcement authorities to demand that the legalities of such a system be debated and declared. 'They' would have to explain and document why they thought that such a system was illegal, or admit it would be legal.
Having payouts is pretty risky, because they could claim that you aided or abetted a criminal act, but the beauty of using headlines is that you don't have to suggest that anybody get hurt. You/US have to be creative. It puts equal burden on the headline maker to think of something that gets *righteous* payback without actually hurting anyone. AND you get the added bonus of complete separation from the act. I shouldn't have used the example of a CIA director dying of food poisoning, because that could be construed as incentivizing murder (especially if you're offering payouts). I think in the end, the right way to handle this is to think creatively and not use assassination as a model at all, but keep the payout bounty idea. People just have to be more creative at getting payback. Marxos
I think in the end, the right way to handle this is to think creatively and not use assassination as a model at all, but keep the payout bounty idea. People just have to be more creative at getting payback.
Wait a second, i just realized that I've already implemented this. But I'm not allowed to talk about it. Find the github project JusticeLeague.
Quietly waiting for AP by Muslim Oswald.
Similarly, whereas non-aggression people wouldn't have anything to do with AP, the recent Iran hit by the US underscores that it would be GovCorp Politik creating AP and busy going after each other, even to point of above usage and outcome. They have already done centuries of WANTED: Dead or Alive, and Information Leading To..., and Deck of Cards Kill Lists, and endless hits and hires... all to the point that AP would hardly be far from a natural extension for them to make, and less risky to their image given some of its relatively anon properties, and cheaper by bypassing deep ops expenses.
I think it's now obvious that if my Assassination Politics idea https://cryptome.org/ap.htm was operating today, lying JOURNALISTS would be its initial, primary target. As well as, admittedly, ALL
But once they all learned
things would calm down immensely.
Ladies and gents, now folks, right here we've got the latest and best brought from long travels over the Ancient East, why it's AP!... the perfect cure for all today's ailments! Only a few clicks and $9.95 worth of crypto away. No wager too small, no influence too great. A few satoshis every day and you too can enjoy wielding the awesome threat levelling power of even the biggest baddest governments and nasties around. Revenuers pissing you off? Politicians lying out their ass? Road ragers giving you static? Neighbor's dog busting your sleep? Wars getting real old? No worries mate, this one tool fits them all! Not only does it offer bulletproof anonymyity, it's also guaranteed for life. And now, with runoff allocation and funds timeout, you pay nothing until the deed is done. Supply of early adopters is limited to the first 1k participants, so step right up, get and predict yours today. Hardass motherfuckers are standing by worldwide waiting to execute your order... Call now!
emoticon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOfIdGlyX5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFbCGT_AWBI
A lot of the funds in AP will be claimed early on by reeducators, counselors, activists, video stars. These people will be knocking on their doors and saying "look, you've got $100 on your head, quit being an asshole", $500 a whole day conversation, $1500 a week worth of boot camp, $3000 a stay in rehab, $50 for a mound of shit on the door, whatever. The executor posts the interaction video and claims the reward. An AP system can have many stops before ever reaching the final level.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 01:38:57AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
A lot of the funds in AP will be claimed early on by reeducators, counselors, activists, video stars. These people will be knocking on their doors and saying "look, you've got $100 on your head, quit being an asshole", $500 a whole day conversation, $1500 a week worth of boot camp, $3000 a stay in rehab, $50 for a mound of shit on the door, whatever. The executor posts the interaction video and claims the reward. An AP system can have many stops before ever reaching the final level.
It -is- very good that the car theft problem will eventually (by the final level) be solved, if not immediately.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 01:38:57 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
The executor posts the interaction video
ah yes. That's pretty anonymous...so on the technical side : 1) there's no anonymous network 2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking. 3) the list of problems is prolly (a lot) longer. Those two are just off the to of my head. on the political side : tyrannicide is fully legitimate and useful, but the idea that AP is an option for a liberal justice system is sheer nonsense, as illustrasted by Jim's 'idea' of executing thieves. At that point Jim invokes voluntary courts, while conveniently ignoring that liberals 'invented' liberal anarchy in the 19th century. Then again, that's the typical modus operandi of advocates of 'intellectual property' - which is actually intelectual theft. It's also quite notable that Jim has flatly 'claimed' that : "very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work" ... ... ...
On Sunday, November 17, 2019, 07:24:16 AM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 01:38:57 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
The executor posts the interaction video
ah yes. That's pretty anonymous...so on the technical side :
1) there's no anonymous network There ought to be.
> 2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking. Apparently you are pretending that you don't realize that an actual "killing" is necessary for AP to do its job. The real issue is deterrence. People will indeed change their behavior if to continue it means that they would eventually be killed. 3) the list of problems is prolly (a lot) longer. Those two are just off the to of my head. Since you are probably wrong, maybe you ought to list them on the political side :
tyrannicide is fully legitimate and useful, but the idea that AP is an option for a liberal justice system is sheer nonsense, as illustrasted by Jim's 'idea' of executing thieves. Interestingly, one episode of Star Trek Next Generation addressed this. Its legal system recognized only one punishment: Death. But the probability of actually enforcing the rules varied. Wesley trespassed, and the was seen.
At that point Jim invokes voluntary courts,
No, I had that idea DECADES ago. You just weren't paying attention. And you cannot understand things well enough to figure out how it would work. >while conveniently ignoring that liberals 'invented' liberal anarchy in the 19th century. Needless to say, you don't explain that statement, or its relevance. >Then again, that's the typical modus operandi of advocates of 'intellectual property' - which is actually intelectual theft. And you go off on yet another tangent of questionable relevance. > It's also quite notable that Jim has flatly 'claimed' that : > "very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work" Yes, and my tongue was at least partly in my cheek. B^).Read David Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman and his 1973 book, The Machinery of Freedom, and specifically "The Hard Problem". https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/ People who claim they want 'anarchy' (many so-called 'anarchists' are merely Communists, socialists, or other types of leftist nuts) probably don't realize that David Friedman stated this problem quite well. Nobody else found the solution. Independently I was aware of that problem, but was unaware of Friedman's existence, his book, or the name "The Hard Problem". In January 1995, I solved the problem. Using AP, a region run under principles of anarchy can defeat the governments and militaries of conventional nations. Not only that, I quickly realized that this effect is inevitable: No government can survive the onslaught of AP donations. Even the citizens of conventional states can defeat their own government, just as effectively. Jim Bell
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:46:30 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) there's no anonymous network
There ought to be.
Oh yes. I wholeheartedly agree. It's a moral imperative. And the rights to life liberty and property ought to be respected as well. But they are not. In other words, your comment is completely irrelevant. There's no anonymous comms, so no AP. End of story.
> 2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking.
Apparently you are pretending that you don't realize that an actual "killing" is necessary for AP to do its job.
I think you meant to type "an actual "killing" ISN'T necessary" So let me explain the obvious : If you point a toy gun at people and tell them "obey me!" they will laugh at you. If you point a real gun and start killing them, they will obey. Likewise, if AP is just a bluff and people like trump and bezos AREN'T actually killed, then the system would be just a joke that nobody would pay any attention to.
The real issue is deterrence.
And the only way to get deterrence is to HAVE the ACTUAL ability to kill the criminals and KILL the most important ones. Then see what happens. Now, the fact that I had to explain such basic facts...is...akward to say the least. But it clearly shows that you make shit up as you go. Which is very un-engineering-like.
People will indeed change their behavior if to continue it means that they would eventually be killed.
Nah. They will change their behavior ONLY IF they actually GET KILLED.
3) the list of problems is prolly (a lot) longer. Those two are just off the to of my head.
Since you are probably wrong, maybe you ought to list them
Nah. It's clear that you ignore anything you can't answer. If you give any meaningful reply to the two points above, then I might.
on the political side :
tyrannicide is fully legitimate and useful, but the idea that AP is an option for a liberal justice system is sheer nonsense, as illustrasted by Jim's 'idea' of executing thieves.
Interestingly, one episode of Star Trek Next Generation addressed this. Its legal system recognized only one punishment: Death. But the probability of actually enforcing the rules varied. Wesley trespassed, and the was seen.
Looks like you didn't finish your last sentence or the paragraph. Anyway, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that your proposal of murdering thieves is insane and I guess I'll have to add fully criminal. And yet you keep ignoring the objection. Now you made a completely irrelevant comment about some piece of fascist american shit, 'startrek'. "one episode of Star Trek Next Generation addressed this." Did it address the fact that your proposal of murdering thieves is insane? Please, let us know when you admit that your understanding of political philosophy is seriously flawed.
At that point Jim invokes voluntary courts,
No, I had that idea DECADES ago. You just weren't paying attention.
Dude. I'm referring to how you present your argument here. You first propose random murders then try to patch it up with 'courts'.
And you cannot understand things well enough to figure out how it would work.
Dude. You should pay more attention to your betters.
>while conveniently ignoring that liberals 'invented' liberal anarchy in the 19th century.
Needless to say, you don't explain that statement, or its relevance.
What do you want me to explain? Voluntary courts and 'production of security' in the free market were first discussed around 1850 (as far as I know, but there must surely be 'previous art') So when you say regarding courts "No, I had that idea DECADES ago." ...the proper reply is : molinari and spooner had the idea 170 YEARS AGO. So who gives fuck about you 'having' that idea?
>Then again, that's the typical modus operandi of advocates of 'intellectual property' - which is actually intelectual theft.
And you go off on yet another tangent of questionable relevance.
It's fully relevant. You never cite 'previous art'. That's intellectual fraud.
> It's also quite notable that Jim has flatly 'claimed' that :
> "very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work"
Yes, and my tongue was at least partly in my cheek. B^).
Oh really. So you are still 'partly' claiming that sort of garbage. (and frankly I don't believe you were partly joking, but meh)
Read David Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman
fuck friedman. Now, if you have some point to make, make it on your own. But since you keep naming that psycho, I'll make another inference about you. You don't think natural rights are a valid concept I take it? You have repeatedly ignored all my comments about rights being the justification for anarchy, so I assume you don't 'believe' in rights?
and his 1973 book, The Machinery of Freedom, and specifically "The Hard Problem". https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/ People who claim they want 'anarchy' (many so-called 'anarchists' are merely Communists, socialists, or other types of leftist nuts)
and 99% of 'libertarians' are actually americunt fascists. Let me know when you acknowledge that fact. And like I said in my previous message your comment about lefty fake anarchists was irrelevant. And is still irrelevant.
probably don't realize that David Friedman stated this problem quite well. Nobody else found the solution.
friedman wants the americunt empire minus taxation for big business. So he wonders how to keep the empire while pretending he doesn't want the military. That's certainly a problem for him...
Using AP, a region run under principles of anarchy can defeat the governments and militaries of conventional nations.
no they can't. The americunts will simply nuke them.
Murder has been around since humanity, same as war and all other concoctions of immoral force initiated, so AP is not really any sort of new news upon the world. Whether it come from Tyrant King, be distributed by "democracy" as "law", or goes down in a back alley, of the intertubes... makes little difference there. And like nuclear weapons, in time someone would have thought it up, and many will attempt to tinker with such gadgets until finding the magic combination that goes boom. Old news. What is interesting is that AP depends on a first proof of concept in order to have any future influence capability. And that each higher level of influence via its own 1st PoC adds efficacy surety to all levels of influence below it. Yet given some experience the world already has with diabolical machines, and AP being such a machine, proving in AP may be unlikely to ever reach murder level, particularly if lower levels are already providing effective influence in widespread fashion upon society... the threat of an already functional system may deter. ie: AP may be no more "scary" than already nukes, kings, governments, law, thugs, etc. And might end up being more moral. Assuming that one of the levels of influence may in fact end up being a murder, consider also that it may be quite unlikely that any sort of anarchist, libertarian, voluntaryist, etc would ever take part in its design and operation due to their superceding belief in the NAP. Alternatively, consider how millions of others in world would surely accept a single instance of proof as necessary to achieve otherwise peaceful influences thereafter. Thus this cohort may be far more likely to be the gadgeteers. In general, consider the various lines of rational or irrational thinking required to actually launch such a device. And that history certainly shows politicians love to develop and launch such colossal weapons against each other. Analysis of AP question seems quite related to nuclear M.A.D. question, game theory, etc.
On 11/17/19, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
The executor posts the interaction video
ah yes. That's pretty anonymous...so on the technical side :
1) there's no anonymous network 2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking.
Didn't mean executor as in murderer, for which AP would hopefully have not have to go through more than one instance to enable its deterrance function, but as executor of the listed lesser job posting... $100 to go knock on the door of some asshole and post the video of chewing them out, etc. All sorts of corrective service levels might be placed before some nonresponsive asshole insists on promoting themselves into the higher levels. Not only would the lower levels not require anonymity to claim, but the higher levels might be modeled after whatever anarchism / libertarian suggest is fitting.
executing thieves
That's murder, don't do that.
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 02:19:03 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/17/19, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
The executor posts the interaction video
ah yes. That's pretty anonymous...so on the technical side :
1) there's no anonymous network 2) putting a bounty on someone's head doesn't necessarily mean the target would get killed. The thinking that 'the market' will magically provide any 'service' is just magical thinking. Wishful thinking.
Didn't mean executor as in murderer,
yeah, I guessed as much, but still I don't think you can have non-anonymous agents. Consider that a guy telling a politician : "stop being a criminal, or else" would be seen by govcorp as threatening the poor politician. Which is technically correct since the system does rely on death threats.
for which AP would hopefully have not have to go through more than one instance to enable its deterrance function,
yeah, if trump or bill gates , or zukerberg, or bezos or bloomberg, etc get executed like they deserve then the rest of the 'free market' mafia should get the message. So other criminals would see the size of the bounties on their heads and should be 'deterred'. No need to tell them anything else.
but as executor of the listed lesser job posting... $100 to go knock on the door of some asshole and post the video of chewing them out, etc. All sorts of corrective service levels might be placed before some nonresponsive asshole insists on promoting themselves into the higher levels.
Maybe but it would have to be done anonymously somehow.
Not only would the lower levels not require anonymity to claim, but the higher levels might be modeled after whatever anarchism / libertarian suggest is fitting.
executing thieves
That's murder, don't do that.
To underscore a point : AP may be some hypothetical guerrilla system to be used against the 'elites'(oligarchs) and their mercenaries, but it is not by itself a libertarian justice system, at all.
https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7nwis4/why_i_believe_chainl... https://chain.link/ Chainlink (LINK) is a decentralized oracle service, which aims to connect smart contracts with data from the real world. Since blockchains cannot access data outside their network, oracles are needed to function as data feeds in smart contracts. Oracles provide external data (e.g. temperature, weather) that trigger smart contract executions upon the fulfillment of pre-defined conditions. Participants on the Chainlink network are incentivized (through rewards) to provide smart contracts with access to external data feeds. Should users desire access to off-chain data, they can submit a requesting contract to ChainLink’s network. These contracts will match the requesting contract with the appropriate oracles. The contracts include a reputation contract, an order-matching contract, and an aggregating contract. The aggregating contract gathers data of the selected oracles to find the most accurate result.
http://www.cynikal.net/users/baptista/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.joebaptista.com/Assassination_Politics/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.joebaptista.com/AP/ PAM, WIKIPEDIA A Farewell to Arms?, Horsewood R., Geopolitical Risk Futures - What the Creators Envisioned Prediction Markets, Wolfers J., Zitzewitz E., 19 November 2003 PAM: "Market in Death" Or Your Next Decision Support Tool?, Net Exchange, 9 September 2003 DARPA's Policy Analysis Market for Intelligence: Outside the Box or Off the Wall?, Looney R., 2 September 2003 PAM Notice, July 2003 PAM: An Electronic Commerce Application of a Combinatorial Information Market, Polk C., Hanson R., Ledyard J., and Ishikida T., June 2003 On Idea Futures, Eudoxa Policy Study #2, 2003 The Organizations Behind PAM, Net Exchange, 2003 The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS), Christey S., 1 April 2000 Wired_News, 14 April 2000 J. Bell Nomination, Chrysler Award for Innovation in Design, JYA/URBAN DEADLINE, 11 July 1998 AP Protocol, Bell J., 3 April 1997 The CYPHERNOMICON: Cypherpunks FAQ and More, Version 0.666 May T., 10 September 1994 In 1995 I warned the Internet was a dangerous place and predicted "you can use the Internet to disrupt economies". Back then my predictions were dismissed as kooky. Today the use of computers and Internet to conduct warfare is common practice. Our reliance and dependance on technology is not an asset. It is a long term liability. The Loonie Death List ... the revolution is here: is your list ready? "I promise to pay the assassin who executes a civil servant, politician, or elite on my list one loonie" -- by Joe Baptista, a critical examination of political satire and law. The law that applies to the Loonie Death List is R. v. Batista, 2008 ONCA 804 https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca804... Instructions to my lawyer Agent Mooseman https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.joebaptista.com/loonieDeathList/mylawyer/a... Instructions to my civil servants https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.joebaptista.com/loonieDeathList/cctrolls/c... Comming soon .. the list of exemptions .. starring ... and inclusions ... starring Assassination Politics FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY CIA approved and tested AP or "Assassination Politics": Definition an imaginative and sophisticated protocol for improving governmental accountability by way of anonymous, untraceable political assassinations. It is an intricately designed system to enhance public influence on government. AP uses encryption, untraceable digital cash, anonymous communication, algorithmicly complex wagering and other unique technologies developed on the Internet. Essentially AP is a death lottery where civil servants and politicians are the candidates. This page dedicated to Jim Bell who designed assassination politics. Jim Bell, photo by Declan McCullagh
How in the holy Universe would one ever distinguish that this "system" over time was working anymore than random chance?
The system itself must be publicly accessible so that anons can fund different corrective, rehabilitative, warning and a variety of other goals and levels as needed. Predictors come from all walks and must be able to see the board to select their jobs. The predictions must also be public in order for the awarders to hand out to matching predictors. Funders need to see correct awards to trust putting their funds into new objectives. And any derivatives layer would also need everything public. Predictions could be private if an AI factbot is awarding to the correct predictor. And news media would cover changes of heart in high profile figures anyways. Initially, until a new far lower equilibrium count is reached, politicians and evil corp types will be resigning in large numbers. Given effectively zero of them resign in history, that will be more than random. Other than identities, locations, fintech, the system is open.
Also, what is the difference between your system that Assassinates Politicians and a duplicate system in which one donates small amounts of cash to sway peoples opinions away from said politicians views, call it Political(instead of Character) Assassination.
The former solves the problem at the source by modifying the selected person etc, the latter tries to route around them which may have limited success.
death?
Anyone who understands how AP works will know that even the most stubborn target will stand down well before then. You should make some budget estimates on how much it might take for various type of people in various roles to wise up and correct their ways before then.
encryption breaks and your "anonymity" just went out the window.
Security is rarely a function on a single variable S(x). And most breaks are not in the cryptography itself.
participants (5)
-
\0xDynamite -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness