Didn't I put a reference to Chuck Hamill's From Crossbows to Cryptography into my Assassination Politics essay?

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Thu Nov 7 19:42:57 PST 2019


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

> 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.


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.

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.



> 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.

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.

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.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list