Yes, my covert wireless project. 😏 On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 12:15 AM grarpamp wrote:

...

'anonymous' is the americunt government - you know that, right?

You know there is no reason that it and or its elements could not be, after all, spying on, taking, and steering developments in its favor is a favorite game of all governments.

People should remember that possibility when making their own assessments and choices.

One choice could be crowdfunding a completely opensource version of Zerodium, thus putting those particular "anonymous" "cunts" out of business.

One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime.  I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP.  https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low.  But eventually, he will get found out.  And then he can get targeted using AP. If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer,  it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system.   But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work.  Not exactly the same thing. Its clear that the news media has a major problem  with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals.  We are definitely learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey,  Bill Cosby,   This site lists many others.   https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind of news.  And that's a good step.   On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons. On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

  This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time.   I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be achieved, at least initially.  People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service.   I think we should appply for some of these funds.  Potentially, they could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000.   They could also subsidize a portion of the internet service costs:  I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be $65/month.  (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 Gig service.) This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free.  This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself.  A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year.   Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish?  And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund.              Jim Bell

    On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp wrote:      https://www.unknown.fund/

" Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019

We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain.

Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity

The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain.

The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said:

“We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.”

The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening.

Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations.

Anonymous added:

“Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people."

The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place.

Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later.

Anonymous ended the brief with the words:

“If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.”

" 

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 23:30:50 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime.  I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP.  https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low.  But eventually, he will get found out.  And then he can get targeted using AP.

yes, that's completely insane. Where did you get the insane idea that 'car theft' 'should' be dealt with using 'political assassination'?

If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer,  it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system.

and now you're saying that you think it's OK to murder people for looking at pictures that the worst scum on the planet, americunt puritans and other psychos, deem 'dirty'. you've just shown that your system is totally and completely flawed.

 But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work.  Not exactly the same thing.

.... either people will get murdered for looking at pictures or not.

Its clear that the news media has a major problem  with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. 

how is a 'pedophile' a 'sex criminal'? Are you planning to murder children who 'play doctor' as well? Jim : looks like you need to go back to square zero, start with the A of the ABC, and learn what libertarianism is. Cause you do not have a fucking clue.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:49:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

 >   yes, that's completely insane. Where did you get the insane idea that 'car theft' 'should' be dealt with using 'political assassination'? 

"AP" is merely a label, for an idea whose most obvious application is as a way to entirely get rid of what is called "politics".  Evidently, that confuses you. 

I am not confused at all. I'm pointing out that not only that part of the system is insane. The name of system is wrong as well. "Assassination Politics" is a self evident concept. Murder of car thieves on the other hand is just sone insane nonsense that you somehow(...) attached to AP.

Before I even publicized it, with Part 1, I realized that it could be a substitution for the then-and-now-current so-called "criminal justice system".  

What about you answer the question. Where did you get your COMPLETELY INSANE 'idea' of murdering thieves from, exactly? As to replacing the justice system with "assassination politics" : that is insane as well. I suggest you go to a library and read a fair amount of liberal(now 'libertarian') authors. I can provide you a reading list... ...but the bottom line is that a liberal justice system is based on natural rights, voluntary courts and RESTITUTION. Not MURDER of thieves.

...

...

If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer,  it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system.

 >   and now you're saying that you think it's OK to murder people for looking at pictures that the worst scum on the planet, americunt puritans and other psychos, deem 'dirty'.

Strawman, the dishonest argumentation of first misrepresenting what somebody else said, and then "disproving" him.

I am not misrepresenting anything, nor 'disproving' what you said. You think that looking at pictures is a 'crime', but since you think the 'crime' may be hard to 'prove' then you wave your hands. "it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system" <-- hand waving... ...BUT if the 'crime' of looking at pictures COULD be 'proven' then you'd advocate murder for the people who look at pictures. Don't play dumb.

    Now, YOU justify what you claimed, in response to what I said.  You won't be able to.  

oops. I just did. Maybe you need to review basic logic as well before learning what libertarianism is.

 >   you've just shown that your system is totally and completely flawed.  But you haven't explained how and why.  

....What you are proposing, execution of thieves and non-criminals is COMPLETELY INSANE. What else do you want me to prove? Do you need proof that murdering thieves is morally wrong, let alone murdering COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEOPLE?

...

...

 But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work.  Not exactly the same thing.

    ....

...

    either people will get murdered for looking at pictures or not.

What alternatives would you suggest?

Alternatives to what. I am following your 'logic'. You are threatening people who look at pictures with MURDER. I suggest you learn the fucking ABC of libertarian philosophy. How about that.

 

...

...

Its clear that the news media has a major problem  with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. 

 >   how is a 'pedophile' a 'sex criminal'? Are you planning to murder children who 'play doctor' as well? 

I'm referring to people who actually act on their inclinations.  

Now you changed what you said. And how is that a crime anyway? And look and behold. You deleted my comment about children who play doctor eh. Again, are you planning to MURDER THEM TOO? You do understand that children 'playing doctor' are 'pedophiles' don't you? Or is that too much logic for you. So answer the question(s)

 >   Jim : looks like you need to go back to square zero, start with the A of the ABC, and learn what libertarianism is. Cause you do not have a fucking clue.

You need to go back and learn what LOGIC is.  

Right back at you. See above. And after that you need to learn what natural rights are and how they apply to people of different ages.

I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious. Cheers, John On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime.  I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP.  https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low.  But eventually, he will get found out.  And then he can get targeted using AP. If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer,  it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system.   But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work.  Not exactly the same thing. Its clear that the news media has a major problem  with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals.  We are definitely learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey,  Bill Cosby,   This site lists many others.   https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists

If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind of news.  And that's a good step.  

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

  This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time.   I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be achieved, at least initially.  People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service.   I think we should appply for some of these funds.  Potentially, they could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000.   They could also subsidize a portion of the internet service costs:  I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be $65/month.  (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 Gig service.) This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free.  This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself.  A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year.   Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish?  And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund.              Jim Bell

    On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp wrote:      https://www.unknown.fund/

" Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019

We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain.

Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity

The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain.

The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said:

“We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.”

The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening.

Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations.

Anonymous added:

“Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people."

The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place.

Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later.

Anonymous ended the brief with the words:

“If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.”

" 

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

I object to replacing a police state with a police state by mob, which seems to be what you are actually proposing.

On Nov 16, 2019, at 12:56 AM, jim bell wrote:

I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself. This sounds remarkably passive-agressive.

You either have a valid objection, or you don't. If you had one, you should be willing to state it.

Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it.

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman wrote:

I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system. But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not exactly the same thing. Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, This site lists many others. https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists

If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind of news. And that's a good step.

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 Gig service.) This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year. Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. Jim Bell

On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp wrote:

https://www.unknown.fund/

" Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019

We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain.

Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity

The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain.

The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said:

“We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.”

The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening.

Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations.

Anonymous added:

“Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people."

The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place.

Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later.

Anonymous ended the brief with the words:

“If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.”

...

...

"

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote:

I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called an "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative.

What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car thieves and people that look at porn. You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?)

For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody will need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved by donation.

Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right now. Maybe they never let it take off. Maybe even if the tech is there, which it isn’t now, people are too fucking happy to get the latest gizmo from Apple and ignore the fact that they are slaves. Most people are not anarchists. Can the critical mass of well-intending users of AP, a group of which I don’t think I can consider you to be a member after your most recent suggestions, be depended upon to win in a fight to target and pay for assassinations against the billionaire ruling class and their government and corporate lackeys?

That, at least if it is likely to be true, would be a genuine benefit, a huge one in fact. So, how do you know that even if AP has some sort of negative factor associated with it, that a post-AP world wouldn't be better than today? I suggest that 'you' (term used generically) who expresses an objection to AP have a certain responsibility to figure out which is better: The status quo or the post-AP world. It's not a legitimate objection to cherry-pick one aspect, ignore everything else, and declare "I don't like it!!!"

It is absolutely legitimate to find certain aspects of AP, or in this case how it would be implemented by you, and see obvious problems. How else do you problem solve or analyze the efficacy of.. anything?

If, nearly 25 years after AP was first publicized, nobody has done the admittedly-involved work to determine this, that suggests that people are unthinkingly defaulting to the status quo, and for no obvious reason. The old excuse, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is a poor excuse.

I think people probably either see the limitations I’ve expressed, or they are part of that population that is disgusted by the idea and doesn’t really want to live in a world of escalating assassination wars. I mean, it sounds like a cool video game :)

Wouldn't it have been better if, 10-20 years ago, somebody had implement a 'model AP' system, a simulation of it. In other words, just figure out what would likely happen. No actual cash, no payments, no deaths, etc. Wouldn't we have learned something? If your opinion today had been informed by this kind of simulation, how do you know your opinion wouldn't have been different today?

Sure, a simulation would be cool, even today. Neither of us can know how the outcome of a simulation would affect our thoughts on AP - until we see one, it’s pure conjecture.

Jim Bell

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:22:33 PM PST, John Newman wrote:

I object to replacing a police state with a police state by mob, which seems to be what you are actually proposing.

...

On Nov 16, 2019, at 12:56 AM, jim bell wrote:

I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself. This sounds remarkably passive-agressive.

You either have a valid objection, or you don't. If you had one, you should be willing to state it.

Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it.

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman wrote:

I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system. But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not exactly the same thing. Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, This site lists many others. https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists

If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind of news. And that's a good step.

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 Gig service.) This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year. Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. Jim Bell

On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp wrote:

https://www.unknown.fund/

" Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019

We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain.

Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity

The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain.

The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said:

“We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.”

The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening.

Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations.

Anonymous added:

“Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people."

The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place.

Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later.

Anonymous ended the brief with the words:

“If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.”

...

...

"

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

On Nov 16, 2019, at 2:51 AM, jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 12:22:31 AM PST, John Newman wrote:

...

On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote:

I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called an "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative.

What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car thieves and people that look at porn.

NO! 24 years ago, I DID propose the former. But go back and read: I DID NOT propose the latter. It was raised as a possibility, by someone else, and I then COMMENTED on that concept.

If you cannot follow English-language discussion any better than this, who can trust your conclusions?

...

You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?)

I can discuss the possibility that tomorrow, it will rain. That doesn't mean I ADVOCATE that it rain, or that I WISH it to rain, let alone can I MAKE it rain!

...

...

For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody will need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved by donation.

...

Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right now.

Can you explain how that might happen? You are speculating.

All of this discussion is speculation Jim :). The way I see it being co-opted is pretty simple: govcorp uses its nearly limitless financial resources to target anyone who is pushing for AP in a way that would take them out of power. You don’t think they will fight with everything they have? They even have AP to use for their ends, because at this point AP has to be a system with perfect privacy (right? We hope so!), making government assassinations deniable. Legit AP participants, by which I mean people not sanctioned by govcorp who are donating funds and killing the rich/politicians/law-enforcement/etc, would be vilified by the media and the vast majority of society would see AP as horrible criminality. People don’t give a fuck about real freedom, not most of them. The ruling class has too many resources. And some of your most recent statements paint AP in a fucked up new light. When the originator and biggest proponent of the idea has stated he thinks killing car thieves is a valuable usage of the tool, essentially portraying it as a replacement for the current criminal justice system, I think you lose another big chunk of sympathetic support. Murderous treatment of a mere thief is squalid, gross, and totally reminiscent of cops, jail, death row, torture, and the prison-industrial complex...

...

Maybe they never let it take off.

Prior to the development of Bitcoin, there were probably discussions to the point, "Maybe they will never let digital cash take off. Didn't seem to stop it, huh? And now, there are many hundreds of altcoins in existence, and there is little news of somebody trying to "ban" them.

And today, there is actually a REAL death-prediction market in existence, Ethereum+Augur. But not, yet, an "assassination market", but that simply because a large payment to one unknown predictor. So, we are vastly closer to an AP-type market in 2019 than we were in 1995. Your weak speculation wouldn't have appeared to be so weak in 1995 or 1996, but you are well over 20 years too late.

In danger of repeating myself, I think it boils down to a few things. Not enough “regular people” give a goddamn about freedom, toppling the government, etc. They are happy to shake a US soldier's hand and thank him for his service, they call cops when they have a problem, they just want a veneer of freedom and plenty of toys to buy. Further, you’ve poisoned the well with some noxious ideas about minor shit. It seems to me AP is for war criminals, billionaires, people destroying the planet for profit, etc… not for minor thievery or other shit that, under the current system, would just land you on paper or in some part of the American gulag for a brief time.

...

Maybe even if the tech is there, which it isn’t now, people are too fucking happy to get the latest gizmo from Apple and ignore the fact that they are slaves.

If they never have any sort of idea that they can be anything other than slaves, you will be right. But I think we are long past that situation.

Do you see a groundswell of support for anarchism in the wealthy American empire? Take off the blinders man. People are fucking stupid and mostly law-abiding “good citizens” who just want more money.

...

Most people are not anarchists.

Mostly because they have grown up their entire lives being unaware of the possibility that a society can be run without a centralized, heirarchical government. And they were also nearly unaware that some non-governmental entity could issue "currency" that people could actually use to buy real things. Things have changed, huh?

Crypto-currency is an important precursor to the technical problems of AP, but AP isn't just a technical problem. The fact that people are investing in bitcoin to try to make a big score has fuck all to do with the ideas behind AP, which involves financing murder for the greater good (oh, and to deter car theft :).

...

Can the critical mass of well-intending users of AP, a group of which I don’t think I can consider you to be a member after your most recent suggestions,

You were completely wrong about what you claimed to be my recent suggestion.

...

be depended upon to win in a fight to target and pay for assassinations against the billionaire ruling class and their government and corporate lackeys?

The key in such a project is to eliminate, as much as possible, the need to 'trust' individuals. I again refer to Ethereum+Augur, which it is said can continue to run even if thousands of CPUs are taken out of service.

...

...

That, at least if it is likely to be true, would be a genuine benefit, a huge one in fact. So, how do you know that even if AP has some sort of negative factor associated with it, that a post-AP world wouldn't be better than today? I suggest that 'you' (term used generically) who expresses an objection to AP have a certain responsibility to figure out which is better: The status quo or the post-AP world. It's not a legitimate objection to cherry-pick one aspect, ignore everything else, and declare "I don't like it!!!"

...

It is absolutely legitimate to find certain aspects of AP, or in this case how it would be implemented by you, and see obvious problems. How else do you problem solve or analyze the efficacy of.. anything?

I have been trying to get this analysis started since 1995.

...

If, nearly 25 years after AP was first publicized, nobody has done the admittedly-involved work to determine this, that suggests that people are unthinkingly defaulting to the status quo, and for no obvious reason. The old excuse, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is a poor excuse.

...

I think people probably either see the limitations I’ve expressed, or they are part of that population that is disgusted by the idea and doesn’t really want to live in a world of escalating assassination wars. I mean, it sounds like a cool video game :)

Actually, "assassinations" will not "escalate": They will de-escalate. As people surrender, there will be an increasingly smaller reason to resort to AP. The more certain the targets' loss becomes, the less likely that they will resist.

You don’t think govcorp will do everything they can to protect their people? Their resources are vast and would be deployed as soon as the first AP hit happens (or the first AP hit is bungled, always a possibility with this).

...

...

Wouldn't it have been better if, 10-20 years ago, somebody had implement a 'model AP' system, a simulation of it. In other words, just figure out what would likely happen. No actual cash, no payments, no deaths, etc. Wouldn't we have learned something? If your opinion today had been informed by this kind of simulation, how do you know your opinion wouldn't have been different today?

...

Sure, a simulation would be cool, even today. Neither of us can know how the outcome of a simulation would affect our thoughts on AP - until we see one, it’s pure conjecture.

AP, itself, won't require a simulation. But a simulation may make some people feel better, become more confident that things will turn out okay.

Ok, you are the one who brought up simulations. I still think it would be fascinating.

...

Jim Bell

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:22:33 PM PST, John Newman wrote:

I object to replacing a police state with a police state by mob, which seems to be what you are actually proposing.

...

On Nov 16, 2019, at 12:56 AM, jim bell wrote:

I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself. This sounds remarkably passive-agressive.

You either have a valid objection, or you don't. If you had one, you should be willing to state it.

Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it.

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman wrote:

I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system. But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not exactly the same thing. Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, This site lists many others. https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists

If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind of news. And that's a good step.

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 Gig service.) This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year. Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. Jim Bell

On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp wrote:

https://www.unknown.fund/

" Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019

We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain.

Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity

The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain.

The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said:

“We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.”

The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening.

Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations.

Anonymous added:

“Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people."

The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place.

Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later.

Anonymous ended the brief with the words:

“If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.”

...

...

"

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:29:50PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 01:50:43 AM PST, John Newman wrote:

...

On Nov 16, 2019, at 2:51 AM, jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 12:22:31 AM PST, John Newman wrote:

...

On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote:

I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your use of the word, "seems".  Also, there is what is typically called an "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative.

What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car thieves and people that look at porn.

NO!  24 years ago, I DID propose the former.  But go back and read:  I DID NOT propose the latter.  It was raised as a possibility, by someone else, and I then COMMENTED on that concept.

...

If you cannot follow English-language discussion any better than this, who can trust your conclusions?

...

...

You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?)

...

I can discuss the possibility that tomorrow, it will rain.  That doesn't mean I ADVOCATE that it rain, or that I WISH it to rain, let alone can I MAKE it rain!

...

...

...

For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons.  The argument is simple:  Nobody will need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved by donation.

...

...

...

Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right now.

...

Can you explain how that might happen?  You are speculating.

...

All of this discussion is speculation Jim :). Yes, certainly.  I think the problem is that people don't take the discussion seriously enough.  There was plenty of time to speculate in the 1990's, but I don't think anybody came to enough detailed conclusions.  

...

The way I see it being co-opted is pretty simple:  govcorp uses its nearly limitless financial resources to target anyone who is pushing for AP in a way that would take them out of power. You don’t think they will fight with everything they have? 

Well, they certainly went after me, huh?  But remember, during the initiation of AP, few if anybody needs to "advocate" for AP, and even if they want to, they can do so anonymously.  At least, the tools should exist to allow anonymous discussion,  

...

They even have AP to use for their ends, because at this point AP has to be a system with perfect privacy (right? We hope so!), making government assassinations deniable.

That merely means that they can have a show at fighting back.  Not that this will be effective at saving the then-existing government.

...

Legit AP participants, by which I mean people not sanctioned by govcorp who are donating funds and killing the rich/politicians/law-enforcement/etc, would be vilified by the media and the vast majority of society would see AP as horrible criminality. 

That's what discussions of this issue are for.  Make what amounts to a virtual list of the crimes of governments, past and present, and explain why "the system" didn't stop them at the relevant times.  Explain that AP can punish the guilty without the vast majority of the people having to 'stand up' and take a visible position on the subject.  

 >People don’t give a fuck about real freedom, not most of them.

...

The ruling class has too many resources. And some of your most recent statements paint AP in a fucked up new light.

No, you are continuing to misrepresent what I have said.  Someone raised an issue, and I simply commented.  I didn't expose some sort of 'new' flaw or weakness or undesirability in an AP system that wouldn't have been obvious in 1995.  The big problem is SOMEBODY LOST THE FUCKING ARCHIVE!!   Or at least, allowed it to be faked.  

...

When the originator and biggest proponent of the idea has stated he thinks killing car thieves is a valuable usage of the tool

And I did that, 24 years ago.  To show the public how a crowd-funded, crowd-sourced retribution system can actually accomplish something that had nothing to do with politics.

...

, essentially portraying it as a replacement for the current criminal justice system,

What!?!? You mean that the CONCEPT of AP replacing the current criminal justice system is NEW TO YOU!!!  You obviously haven't been paying attention!  If anything, I consider that outcome as unavoidable as AP itself, and indeed quite desirable.  

Yes, in fact I'm surprised to hear you state it so baldly. I guess I should re-read your essays. I didn't realize you were simply attempting to replace fucking "law enforcement officers" and the gulags & death chambers they herd "criminals" into with your assassination program. Thought such a plan is entirely in line with murdering someone for stealing a car. Surely the more noble goal would be to utterly destroy the very concept of the "law enforcement officer", and his gulag along with it. Delegating "LEO" to assassins paid by an anonymous mob - well, it might not be any worse than the current situation, but it's not really progress is it? Maybe I'm misreading you and when you talk about AP replacing the current criminal justice system this is what you mean.

 >I think you lose another big chunk of sympathetic support.

In other words, if nobody explains to people what will eventually happen, they will be confused and even scared.  THAT is the reason for the discussion!   And quite possibly, that's one powerful motivation for somebody STEALING THE FUCKING ARCHIVE!  

...

Murderous treatment of a mere thief is squalid, gross, and totally reminiscent of cops, jail, death row, torture, and the prison-industrial complex... THAT is why a system will take the current system's place, one that actually employs a series of voluntary court systems, one that uses AP as an ultimate enforcement system, motivating people to agree to what will amount to arbitration.You really don't understand this?!?  You never heard of this?  Read the (now non-existent) archives!!!

...

...

...

Maybe they never let it take off.

...

Prior to the development of Bitcoin, there were probably discussions on CP to the point, "Maybe they will never let digital cash take off."  Didn't seem to stop it, huh?  And now, there are many hundreds of altcoins in existence, and there is little news of somebody trying to "ban" them.

...

And today, there is actually a REAL death-prediction market in existence, Ethereum+Augur.  But not, yet, an "assassination market", but that simply because a large payment to one unknown predictor.  So, we are vastly closer to an AP-type market in 2019 than we were in 1995.  Your weak speculation wouldn't have appeared to be so weak in 1995 or 1996, but you are well over 20 years too late.

...

In danger of repeating myself, I think it boils down to a few things. Not enough “regular people” give a goddamn about freedom, toppling the government, etc. They are happy to shake a US soldier's hand and thank him for his service, they call cops when they have a problem, they just want a veneer of freedom and plenty of toys to buy.  Further, you’ve poisoned the well with some noxious ideas about minor shit. It seems to me AP is for war criminals, billionaires, people destroying the planet for profit, etc… not for minor thievery or other shit that, under the current system, would just land you on paper or in some part of the American gulag for a brief time. That's the pessimistic POV.  But I believe things can, and will, change.  

...

...

...

Maybe even if the tech is there, which it isn’t now, people are too fucking happy to get the latest gizmo from Apple and ignore the fact that they are slaves.

...

If they never have any sort of idea that they can be anything other than slaves, you will be right.  But I think we are long past that situation.

...

Do you see a groundswell of support for anarchism in the wealthy American empire?  Take off the blinders man.  People are fucking stupid and mostly law-abiding “good citizens” who just want more money.

That's why most technological developments don't come in, in the form of a 'vote'.  Ever heard of a 'vote', perhaps in the late 1800's, where the public voted to allow automobiles to operate on the roads of the day?   I suspect it never happened, or at least if it did, it wouldn't have made any difference.  How about a 'vote' to let people use electricity?   Or the telephone?  Didn't happen.  Railroads?  Airplanes?  Didn't happen.  Refrigerators?  Dishwashers?   Was there a 'vote' to allow digital cash?  Computers?  Fax machines?  Pain relievers?  Antibiotics?  Microwave ovens? Anything like that?  Didn't happen.

I think the fact is, it simply doesn't matter what the public 'thinks' about AP.  It will begin to operate regardless of the wishes of maybe 99% of the population.  In 1995, when I wrote the AP essay, people in America didn't HATE their politicians.  Now they do, to a very large degree.  I have come to believe that when AP begins to operate, at least a large minority of the population will cheer.  And they will, because up until then they have become familiar with calling the first targets criminals and evil people.  And in many cases, they will be RIGHT.  

...

...

...

Most people are not anarchists.

...

Mostly because they have grown up their entire lives being unaware of the possibility that a society can be run without a centralized, heirarchical government.  And they were also nearly unaware that some non-governmental entity could issue "currency" that people could actually use to buy real things.  Things have changed, huh?

...

Crypto-currency is an important precursor to the technical problems of AP, but AP isn't just a technical problem.  The fact that people are investing in bitcoin to try to make a big score has fuck all to do with the ideas behind AP, which involves financing murder for the greater good (oh, and to deter car theft :). None of your arguments explain why you think AP won't work.  Just explains why YOU don't want to see it work.  Can't you see why that is irrelevant for most people?

I can see that you're making an irrelevant and poorly constructed argument :) For one thing, I layed out quite clearly what I think the weaknesses of AP are, you can re-read my previous email if you like. It's pretty simple stuff - I lack faith in the "human spirit" to prevail over the global orwellian nightmare into which we are devolving, and disagree with you that the ruling class will accept the assassinations of themselves or their henchmen without fighting back. It has nothing to do with my own desires about AP working or not working. Of course I agree that tyrannicide is a noble and moral goal. Although... killing people for petty theft is not, and positioning AP as a functional replacement for the current criminal justice system is fucking insane.

...

...

...

Can the critical mass of well-intending users of AP, a group of which I don’t think I can consider you to be a member after your most recent suggestions,

...

You were completely wrong about what you claimed to be my recent suggestion.

...

...

be depended upon to win in a fight to target and pay for assassinations against the billionaire ruling class and their government and corporate lackeys?

...

The key in such a project is to eliminate, as much as possible, the need to 'trust' individuals.  I again refer to Ethereum+Augur, which it is said can continue to run even if thousands of CPUs are taken out of service.

...

...

...

That, at least if it is likely to be true, would be a genuine benefit, a huge one in fact.  So, how do you know that even if AP has some sort of negative factor associated with it, that a post-AP world wouldn't be better than today?  I suggest that 'you' (term used generically) who expresses an objection to AP have a certain responsibility to figure out which is better:  The status quo or the post-AP world.  It's not a legitimate objection to cherry-pick one aspect, ignore everything else, and declare "I don't like it!!!"

...

...

It is absolutely legitimate to find certain aspects of AP, or in this case how it would be implemented by you, and see obvious problems. How else do you problem solve or analyze the efficacy of.. anything?

...

I have been trying to get this analysis started since 1995.

...

...

If, nearly 25 years after AP was first publicized, nobody has done the admittedly-involved work to determine this, that suggests that people are unthinkingly defaulting to the status quo, and for no obvious reason.  The old excuse, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is a poor excuse.

...

I think people probably either see the limitations I’ve expressed, or they are part of that population that is disgusted by the idea and do>esn’t really want to live in a world of escalating assassination wars.  I mean, it sounds like a cool video game :)

...

Actually, "assassinations" will not "escalate":  They will de-escalate.  As people surrender, there will be an increasingly smaller reason to resort to AP.  The more certain the targets' loss becomes, the less likely that they will resist.

...

You don’t think govcorp will do everything they can to protect their people?

The key words are "everything they CAN".   Which won't be nearly enough.  I think in the mid-1990's there was discussion on CP to the extent "If [fill in the blank, a technological development the government doesn't want to see occur] happens, 'they' would just shut down the Internet!!!".     At that point, that tactic might actually have seemed plausible!    Back in the 1980's, if in an office the telephones went down, you could imagine people standing around, being unable to accomplish nearly anything.  And in the 1990's, if their local computer networks went down, the same effect:  People can't accomplish what they expect to be able to do.   By the 2000's and certainly in 2019, what would happen if the Internet went down?   Sheer disaster.  All over the world.

...

Their resources are vast and would be deployed as soon as the first AP hit happens (or the first AP hit is bungled, always a possibility with this). People won't necessarily know some event was "the first AP hit" for hours, days, or perhaps over a week.  There would be much speculation, obviously.  

...

...

...

Wouldn't it have been better if, 10-20 years ago, somebody had implement a 'model AP' system, a simulation of it.  In other words, just figure out what would likely happen.  No actual cash, no payments, no deaths, etc.  Wouldn't we have learned something?  If your opinion today had been informed by this kind of simulation, how do you know your opinion wouldn't have been different today?

...

Sure, a simulation would be cool, even today. Neither of us can know how the outcome of a simulation would affect our thoughts on AP - until we see one, it’s pure conjecture.

AP, itself, won't require a simulation.  But a simulation may make some people feel better, become more confident that things will turn out okay.

Ok, you are the one who brought up simulations. I still think it would be fascinating.

...

...

              Jim Bell

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:22:33 PM PST, John Newman wrote:

I object to replacing a police state with a police state by mob, which seems to be what you are actually proposing.

...

On Nov 16, 2019, at 12:56 AM, jim bell wrote:

I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself.  This sounds remarkably passive-agressive.

You either have a valid objection, or you don't.  If you had one, you should be willing to state it.

Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it.

On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman wrote:

I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

  One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime.  I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP.  https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low.  But eventually, he will get found out.  And then he can get targeted using AP. If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer,  it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system.  But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work.  Not exactly the same thing. Its clear that the news media has a major problem  with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals.  We are definitely learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey,  Bill Cosby, This site lists many others. https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists

If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind of news.  And that's a good step.

    On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

  Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

  This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time.  I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be achieved, at least initially.  People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. I think we should appply for some of these funds.  Potentially, they could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000.  They could also subsidize a portion of the internet service costs:  I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be $65/month.  (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 Gig service.) This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free.  This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself.  A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year. Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish?  And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund.             Jim Bell

    On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp wrote:

  https://www.unknown.fund/

" Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019

We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain.

Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity

The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain.

The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said:

“We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.”

The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening.

Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations.

Anonymous added:

“Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people."

The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place.

Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later.

Anonymous ended the brief with the words:

“If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.”

...

...

"

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4  C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:37:54 -0500 John Newman wrote:

I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious.

well, tyrannicide is a moral obligation. And the right to defend oneself from govcorp is the obvious extention of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. And so, killing govcorp agents (unless let's say, they surrender) is legitimate. Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them. On the other hand, Jim's 'political theory' is clearly nonsense with little connection to liberal anarchy. He has never studied the topic, despite claiming he's a 'libertarian' and now an 'anarchist', because he 'invented'...nothing and has 'solved'...nothing. Political assassination and 'dark markets' are certainly not 'his' ideas so his claim to 'intellectual property' is bullshit...ignoring for a second that 'intellectual property' itself is bullshit.

On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 10:04:15 AM PST, coderman wrote: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 16, 2019 5:45 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

...

...

well, tyrannicide is a moral obligation. And the right to defend oneself from govcorp is the obvious extention of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. And so, killing govcorp agents (unless let's say, they surrender) is legitimate.

to murder Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal.  If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder!   Merely for self-defense.

is to forfeit the moral argument.  I don't think so.  If killings committed by government people are going to happen anyway, and responding by killing them is labelled "murder", how does that 'forfeit the moral argument' to engage in self-defense? in terms of cognitive bias alone, better to err towards never killing - i could cite ethical reasons as well, but they are well worn. (we condemn state orchestrated murder, AP is just a decentralized tyrant doing same)

Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be involved in these two hypothetical situations.  I wrote my AP essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995.   Later, I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose?   The fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice.   Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying!   Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability to defend themselves.  You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for themselves.

Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them.

"the street finds its own uses for things" the beauty of mass resistance is that the tools are already prevalent. we have a beautiful reference case unfolding before us: Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests choose no murder choose mass resistance best regards, | | | | | | | | | | | Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests This is a list of tactics and methods used by the protesters during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. | | |

What is justice? If it is not visiting upon those who do wrong the same wrongs that they commit, what is it? Kurt On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:38 AM coderman wrote:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell wrote: ...

Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for self-defense.

a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all!

Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose? The fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice.

again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better to not kill anyone!

Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying!

if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this too! ;)

Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability to defend themselves. You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for themselves.

i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice nor moral.

best regards,

"Eye for an eye" is not the only form of justice. Restitution is another. Depending on the crime and the individuals involved, sometimes communication and (if it happens) empathic meeting of minds/ hearts is sufficient - depends of course on the individuals, as sometimes "pizza and coffee" is insufficient to be relevant. Some (though perhaps quite rare, and again, depending on the crime) are able to find closure and peace with no "external" restitution. Again, it always depends on the individual(s) involved and what is important to them in their own Souls/ lives. Folks should listen to Juan a little more - he has repeatedly stated certain of the (actual) libertarian fundamentals many times... On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:47:48AM -0700, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote:

What is justice?

If it is not visiting upon those who do wrong the same wrongs that they commit, what is it?

Kurt

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:38 AM coderman wrote:

...

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell wrote: ...

Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for self-defense.

a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all!

Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP essay about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, I frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose? The fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice.

again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better to not kill anyone!

Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying!

if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this too! ;)

Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability to defend themselves. You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for themselves.

i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice nor moral.

best regards,

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:03:50 +0000 coderman wrote:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 16, 2019 5:45 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

...

... well, tyrannicide is a moral obligation. And the right to defend oneself from govcorp is the obvious extention of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. And so, killing govcorp agents (unless let's say, they surrender) is legitimate.

to murder is to forfeit the moral argument. in terms of cognitive bias alone, better to err towards never killing - i could cite ethical reasons as well, but they are well worn. (we condemn state orchestrated murder, AP is just a decentralized tyrant doing same)

you might argue that killing people in self-defense should be done only as last resort and I would generally agree, but govcorp criminals are in their own very special category. As you know, if you chose to consistently oppose any of the state's dictates, you will be murdered, and pretty quickly depending on circumstances. I'd also suggest that the only 'argument' that govcorp understands is violence.

...

Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them.

"the street finds its own uses for things"

the beauty of mass resistance is that the tools are already prevalent.

And if there was mass resistance we wouldn't be talking about AP...

we have a beautiful reference case unfolding before us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactics_and_methods_surrounding_the_2019_Hong_...

I think we can assume that a good deal of those events are organized by the CIA, GCHC, the pentagon, the jews at wall street, google, facebook, and etc.

choose no murder choose mass resistance

best regards,

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:30:28 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 09:45:06 AM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

   

...

    Using 'crowdfunding', anonymous comms and virtual 'money' to coordinate defensive actions against govcorp would be typically cypherpunk, obviously. Though my personal view is that there's no way govcorp would allow THEIR 'technology' to be used against them.

Is that an argument that we, the public, shouldn't even try?

No, it's just an observation. Just like I observe that expecting privacy from the tor network is incredibly naive (read, completely retarded). So whoever tries AP should plan the thing very well unless their aim is to end up like Ross Ulbricht.

...

    On the other hand, Jim's 'political theory' is clearly nonsense with little connection to liberal anarchy. He  has never studied the topic, despite claiming he's a 'libertarian' and now an 'anarchist', because he 'invented'...nothing and has 'solved'...nothing. Political assassination and 'dark markets' are certainly not 'his' ideas so his claim to 'intellectual property' is bullshit...ignoring for a second that 'intellectual property' itself is bullshit.

First off, my impression is that at least a large minority, and quite possibly a majority, of people who call themselves "anarchists" are merely big-government-loving leftists,

Yes, but I'm obviously not talking about those fake anarchists. And since you mentioned them, I'd point out that 99% of 'libertarians' are actually right wing fascists who want the world to be ruled by google and goldman sachs...with the help of a 'private' army of course. You know 'big businesses are amerika's most persecuted minority'... Out of curiosity, what's your take on fake libertarians, like ayn rand?

but have become 'politically-homeless' (at least by label) because Communism and Socialism have failed so miserably over the last 30, and even the last 100 years.  That sounds like a major internal contradiction, and it certainly is, but that isn't a contradiction I am somehow responsible for.  

Yes, left-wing, fake anarchists. I don't see why they are relevant here.

Secondly, I strongly suspect that a huge majority of so-called "anarchists" have never even heard of David Friedman's "Hard Problem", 

can you stop invoking that amoral fucktard please?

  https://voluntaristicsociety.liberty.me/national-defense-the-hard-problem/   

there's no national defense under anarchism because by its very definition, anarchism excludes 'nations' - aka states.

The idea that it would be extremely difficult for a society based on anarchism and/or libertarianism principles to defend itself against external attack by more-conventional regions.  (the ones which have governments which can tax their citizens.)  So, very few anarchists have ever realized that 'anarchy' is hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work.......

Ok, so now you're arguing against anarchy? Some libertarian you are.

At least, not until I invented my AP idea,

So you do not understand that the libertarian argument for anarchy is that government violates natural rights? This is not an utilitarian problem. The typical RADICAL STATIST garbage about anarchy being "hopelessly unstable and could never possibly work" is well, that. Statist garbage.

which will allow people in anarchic regions to take down the governments (and militaries, and nuclear bombs)  that are in other, conventional-government nations.  Not that the citizens of those other nations won't want to help getting rid of "their own" governments, too!

So, if you realized that AP doesn't work you'd be back to being a criminal statist cheering for the state's murderers, right? You ARE actually an statist because you think that anarchy(as proposed by actual 19th century liberals) could never work.

Tim May, and others, seem to have invented the concept of the "murder market", certainly a concept worthy of debate.  But their market amounted to "anonymous person A anonymously hiring anonymous per son B to kill named person C".  

I was the person who, unaware of their discussions (except, very indirectly) added the concepts currently known as "crowdfunding" and "crowdsourcing" to the mix, long before those terms had been invented:    "Thousands or millions of anonymous persons A1, A2, A3, etc offering to hire anyone in the world B1, B2, B3, etc, to kill named person C, and offering to pay in a form that cannot be used to identify either the A's or the B's, and yet be able to prove to the public that the person who eventually got the reward was the same person who correctly 'predicted" C's date (or circumstances, etc) of death. " Other than to simply deny this,

deny what? Ah, your claim to that particular application of May's or cypherpunk's anonymous markets?

can you actually explain why you think this won't work?   Particularly since the tools to accomplish it are not, as they were in 1995, unknown today.

I explained why it's unlikely to work, many times, including this message. For starters there's no anonimity network that works. As a matter of fact the HIGH LATENCY remailers from the 90s are better than the current 'low latency' PENTAGON OWNED tor network, which is THE only fake-anonymous system out there.

On 11/15/19, jim bell wrote:

This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition.

I think we should appply for some of these funds.

Yes, strong alternative and in fact entirely new and open fully independant competition in this space is very much needed.

I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node

What's the spec?

People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes

Any good overlay network is encrypted so comes with deniability, same for any storage elements on disk. Generally, except for "liability" of an exit function which may or may not be present, and simple blocking of otherwise useful IP's by blacklists, anyone can run one. No different than any other overlay today.

This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free.

"We'll pay for your upgrade for one year!"

This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself.

10 cypherpunks writingcode for subsistance room and board for a year is $125k. That's a reasonable side gig stipend, but go with say $250k if you want people to be more full time at it. Lots of options within that bottom line figure... 5 x $50k, etc.

A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year.

Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund.

In a lot of the grantmaking biz, capital outlay is often easier for entities to write than ongoing funds. Assuming this Anon entity is real, it may be wise to assume and plan, that it being anonymous, may not prefer to stick around for very long. Also, an $80 HW appliance may support one network well and be adoptably cute on the desk, but it's definitely going to bog down when trying to run multiple overlay networks nodes on it... storage, messaging, cryptocurrency, etc. And it probably would have trouble meeting whatever needs may come at 5-10 years. Unless viewing the $80 one as a disposable to be tossed for a hotter new $80 one every N years... It may be better to drop around $300 or so towards a mini-ITX platform spec that can support multiple different software networks at the same time. As well as some external expansion for WiFi and SDR interfaces via some USB ports. So with being a little more generous on the HW buy and the SW dev, that gives around $850k... still well under $1M or 1.4% of the fund. Maybe you'll want to stick a $120k second year $10/mo internet subsidy tail into that $1M, and throw the remaining $30k at advocacy, talks, training. Various ways to do $1M quite effectively.

The submitters should continue development of any good ideas without relying on such entities, sending their ideas to public forums to seek other support if needed, not least so that if their own development ends, others can pick them up and run with them, against any such entities intended imposition of race condition or worse. There are others who have received no response.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 03:53:22 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:43:08AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:

The submitters should continue development of

...

any good ideas without relying on such entities, sending their ideas to public forums to seek other support if needed, not least so that if their own development ends, others can pick them up and run with them, against any such entities intended imposition of race condition or worse.

Ack.

...

There are others who have received no response.

Is there a location at which these proposals have been published?   Has anyone proposed what we propose doing, building an anonymization network, as a competitor to TOR? Well, I should say, not precisely as a "competitor" to TOR, but maybe a "TOR-done-right"???              Jim Bell