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

[Punk - Stasi 2.0]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:42:57 -0500
grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> 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.