On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 02:09:29 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019, 04:49:59 PM PST, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:40:15 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

I just did a search of my AP essay.  I didn't find a reference to Chuck Hamill's essay, "From Crossbows to Cryptography" in it.   https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/from-crossbows-to-cryptography.pdf... is going on?  

...

    AHHH that's the title. I've been looking for that supreme piece of garbage but couldn't find it because I thought the title had the word "arrow" in it. Haha.

  >  Alternatively, that supreme piece of garbage is just one more piece of decent governmetn diversion. It fuels the incredibly stupid and self-evidently false idea that 'technology' favors freedom.

We don't say that 'technology' ALWAYS 'favors freedom', in any particular case.

I don't know who you mean by "we". I was commenting on what that guy hamill says. Quoting him : "In fact, technology represents one of the most promising avenues available for recapturing our freedoms from those who have stolen them." That's a pretty bold, pretty false, and unfounded, statement. "By its very nature, it favors the bright (who can put it to use) over the dull (who cannot). It favors the adaptable (who are quick to see the merit of the new) over the sluggish (who cling to time-tested ways). And what two better words are there to describe government bureaucracy than “dull” and “sluggish”? " And that, again, is just crazily stupid. The idea that government is 'dull' and 'sluggish' and doesn't use 'technology' to more perfectly enslave its subjects is so incredibly detached from reality....that I have to wonder if the author can be THAT retarded.

That claim sounds like a strawman, which I have found is typically the most common example of false argumentation. 

I'm quoting. Where's the strawman?

Government can employ technology for those purposes, and you can then notice that, but that doesn't mean that the net effect of technology favors non-freedom.

Except it does. Technology favors non-freedom. That is my postion and I can easily argue it. And half the argument is simply looking around at what's happening. We live in a fuckign global police-surveillance state. Thanks to cheap microelectronics.

Further, 'Government' buys technology using money robbed from the public, robbery that I have long argued would be prevented using an implementation of the AP system. 

Government develops 'technology' in partnership with the corrupt-to-the-core, pseudo-private sector. And that's one of the main reasons why 'technology' works AGAINST freedom. Technical development requires technical infrastructure, and that infrastructure is in the hands of govcorp.

Please try to explain why "government", the major form of "unfreedom", would remain capable of doing its work if any of its employees to try to tax were targetable with a functioning AP-type system.

The problem looks rather simple, and I say this as an open sympathizer to the assassination program. For example, in order for AP to work 'we' need good anonimity. And as 'we' know, good anonimity is nowhere to be found. And that's because the whole telecomms infrastructure is controlled by the enemy, aka govcorp. AP might work IF the technical requirements, like secure communications, were there. So how are you going to 'bootstrap' AP? Yes, in an 'AP world' there may be secure communications. But you can't get to an AP world without secure communications...And today, of course we don't have them.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:18:44 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

    I'm quoting. Where's the strawman? 

You quoted, and then you misinterpreted.

I've been reasonable so far. Now I'm done, and I'll call your bullshit straight out. I am misinterpreting FUCK. And there isn't any room for 'interpretation' actually. Hamill believes that govt is too stupid and burreaucratic to use 'technology'. That is what he clearly says, and he is pathetically wrong.

...

...

Government can employ technology for those purposes, and you can then notice that, but that doesn't mean that the net effect of technology favors non-freedom.

 >   Except it does. Technology favors non-freedom. That is my postion and I can easily argue it. And half the argument is simply looking around at what's happening. We live in a fuckign global police-surveillance state. Thanks to cheap microelectronics.

Technology CAN 'favor non-freedom'.   But that doesn't mean it does so in each and every case.

Yes it does. You of course haven't provided any single counter example. And even if you could find say 10% of counter examples (and Im being generous), there remains the other 90% of cases where technology favors the govt and the 'private' mafias that are govt's accomplices. Look at the fucking world around you. And read a fucking history book. The 'technological' 'progress' is NOT MATCHED, AT ALL, by any similar moral and political progress.

...

Further, 'Government' buys technology using money robbed from the public, robbery that I have long argued would be prevented using an implementation of the AP system. 

    Government develops 'technology' in partnership with the corrupt-to-the-core, pseudo-private sector.

Again, you are abusing statistics.  Quantify your claims.  Percentages.  You won't be able to do that.

I'm not abusing fuck. I'm stating the nature of reality. And I don't need to provide any exceedingly detailed report for you. I'm not going to go through every single example of corporatism in the modern world. Check the archives. But I will do post this again https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/ 17 FUCKING TRILLIONS DOLLARS to prevent the americunt fascist economy from collapsing.

 >And that's one of the main reasons why 'technology' works AGAINST freedom. Technical development requires technical infrastructure, and that infrastructure is in the hands of govcorp.

I keep saying that occasionally, that is true.  But not in every case, or even most cases.

In all cases. Or else feel free to list all the cases where technology isn't controlled by the governme "Quantify your claims.  Percentages." "Quantify your claims.  Percentages." I'm all ears.

...

...

Please try to explain why "government", the major form of "unfreedom", would remain capable of doing its work if any of its employees to try to tax were targetable with a functioning AP-type system.

 >   The problem looks rather simple, and I say this as an open sympathizer to the assassination program. For example, in order for AP to work 'we' need good anonimity. And as 'we' know, good anonimity is nowhere to be found. And that's because the whole telecomms infrastructure is controlled by the enemy, aka govcorp.

To say, "the WHOLE telecomms infrastructure is yet another strawman of yours.

Haha. Are you delusional, or what?

 >   AP might work IF the technical requirements, like secure communications, were there. So how are you going to 'bootstrap' AP? Yes, in an 'AP world' there may be secure communications. But you can't get to an AP world without secure communications...And today, of course we don't have them.

This matter has never been competently discussed, at least not on the CP list.  In the mid-1990's, I think people simply couldn't imagine that an AP-type system could be constructed.  Now, we've seen TOR, Bitcoin, and Ethereum/Augur. I'm not referring to them as if they currently could be used to implement AP.  But they show how the tools akin to them could be constructed.

Where are those tools? Oops. They DO NOT FUCKING EXIST. Isn't this hilarious. Aren't 'you guys' engineers? WHERE is your cypherpunk anonimity network THAT ACTUALLY WORKS? You couldn't get it working AFTER ALMOST 30 FUCKING YEARS? At some point Jim your 'optimism' is just being detached from reality.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:30:46 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

On Thursday, November 7, 2019, 07:54:36 PM PST, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:18:44 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

...

    I'm quoting. Where's the strawman? 

...

...

You quoted, and then you misinterpreted.

  >  I've been reasonable so far. Now I'm done, and I'll call your bullshit straight out. I am misinterpreting FUCK.

 >   And there isn't any room for 'interpretation' actually. Hamill believes that govt is too stupid and burreaucratic to use 'technology'. That is what he clearly says, and he is pathetically wrong. 

You must believe that you are the master of the strawman argument.  Misrepresent what other people say, and you can "win" any argument.  Quantify, for one thing.

I didn't misrepresent anything. Feel free to make stuff up. It will get you nowhere. Also, notice how you are siding with hamill who has made various claims that are 1) self-evidently false 2) unfounded 3) HAVE NOT BEEN 'quantified' But hey, I don't see you applying the same high standards that you expect from me to hamill's bullshit? Tsk tsk. randroid hamill asserted : "Within a few years, it should be economically feasible to similarly encrypt voice communications; soon after that, full-color digitized video images. Technology will not only have made wiretapping obsolete, it will have totally demolished government’s control over information transfer" Now Jim, is your 'understanding of reality' that today, wiretapping is 'obsolete'? Do you think that the government's control over information transfer has been 'totally demolished'? (LMAO!!!!) Then again are you willing to admit that silicon valley is just an arm of the US, child-murdering military? Or are you going to lie about that as well? So WHAT, EXACTLY, am I 'misinterpreting' or 'misrepresenting' here?

Then prove it. I'll show a contrary:  The Internet changed the world so that instead of our world of, say, 40 years ago, 1978, we have vastly more sources of news, we can discuss amongst each other.  You don't want to consider that "improvement". 

'vastly more sources of news' - handwaving bullshit. Unless you believe that cnn, bbc, faux news, msn, alex jones and the like are 'sources of news'. And if that's the case then of course this discussion is beyond pointless.

And, you cannot (or will not) quantify this benefit.   Understandable, because such things are hard to quantify,

indeed, what units are we supposed to use to 'quantify' this? isn't all the information 'leaked' and even published by the scumbags themselves enough for you? You never heard about the ATT backbone wiretaps, the utah datacenter, snowden and assange, intel and amd bakdoors, etc etc etc?

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:42:57 -0500 grarpamp wrote:

...

Technology favors non-freedom. That is my postion and I can easily argue it.

Generally, today, yes, because those who are leveraging technology to effect today are GovCorp, not everyone else.

It is not just today. There's a historical pattern for technical 'progress' and the political structures associated with it.

The slaves are too busy watching Simpsons on YouTube. Until they change, of course they will lose.

Right.

...

And half the argument is simply looking around at what's happening. We live in a fuckign global police-surveillance state.

No shit. That and more, well documented, and plainly visible to anyone with a brain.

Well, I'd bet you can talk to a 100 'libertarians', and 99 of them will tell you that we live in the best of possible worlds, 'technology' wise.

But your aggro bash-it-all method is really fucking lame since you refuse to offer readers your equally arguable alternatives to which they then might adopt and carry on as their actual lives.

The least I can do is bash stuff that is stupidly wrong. If you are choosing a path that leads you straight to a cliff, you should appreciate a warning telling you that. I don't have to provide you a full roadmap after warning you. And as matter of fact I don't have any such roadmap.

What would Juan's world look like?

Because sure as fuck no one is living in it now. And if you bothered to tell them what it was, maybe they might see it, wake up, and want to.

I'm anything but a salesman =P

...

Technical development requires technical infrastructure, and that infrastructure is in the hands of govcorp.

...

The problem looks rather simple, and I say this as an open sympathizer to the assassination program. For example, in order for AP to work 'we' need good anonimity. And as 'we' know, good anonimity is nowhere to be found. And that's because the whole telecomms infrastructure is controlled by the enemy, aka govcorp.

Then start laying p2p neighbor-to-neighbor guerrilla meshnet fiber around them. Nowhere in the world do you and your neighbor need a ridiculous GovCorp permit / inspection / record to quietly put fiber / wifi / longwave SDR between your homes. Go buy the shit and put it in.

That's not a bad idea, except it requires some sort of critical mass. But then the same critical mass could be used to slaughter a few pigs...

And go create better overlay networks. And better privacy cryptocurrencies that can actually scale to billion of users.

...

AP might work IF the technical requirements, like secure communications, were there. So how are you going to 'bootstrap' AP? Yes, in an 'AP world' there may be secure communications. But you can't get to an AP world without secure communications...And today, of course we don't have them.

Just like any system in the world today operates with errors, caveats, faults, corruption, influence, attacks, etc...

100% flawless anonymity, comms, payments, etc are not required for a successful AP system.

That doesn't mean it's not best to pursue 100%, only that there are points where any system trends from unusable, to sweetspot, to waste chasing marginal returns.

The current stuff is nowhere near 100%. If you're planning to get rid of trump, wall street jews, google jews and the rest you should be using PGA. Pretty Good Anonimity. Or is your plan to end up in jail or dead...? I don't think 'we' are at the point of chasing any 'marginal returns'.

A professional influencer who can routinely "get away with murder", might accept risk of non payment on some fraction of predictions as cost of doing business.

Etc for all other components and participants of the system.