Trying to Connect with a Hacker Online

Karl gmkarl at
Tue Oct 13 11:53:26 PDT 2020

Okay, I'll read it more.

It sounds like you're imagining me suspecting the list administrator
of harming the list, and feel disgusted by that idea.  (I wouldn't
suspect them of this.)  It sounds like you then tell me that signing
messages is futile and pointless.  (I'm not sure why.)

It seems you're noting there being public cryptographic proof that I
would have sent signed messages, and harm befalling me because of
this.  (I have that harm already, and one can always make a new
private key for a new identity.)

But I wasn't asking why you think it's a bad idea.  I was asking what
you're frustrated about.

On 10/13/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:46:04 -0400
> Karl <gmkarl at> wrote:
>> Hey punk,
>> On 10/12/20, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:43:31 -0400
>> > Karl <gmkarl at> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Couldn't it be used for the mailing list, to verify that each person
>> >> is
>> >> saying what they intend?
>> >
>> > 	you think the list administrator is tampering with the messages? That
>> > would
>> > be pointless and easily detected. Signing messanges buys you nothing.
>> >
>> > 	ON THE OTHER HAND, if you sign your messages you're providing
>> > 'crytographic
>> > evidence' for govcorp to further attack you.
>> It sounds like you felt irritated when I mentioned verifying integrity
>> of messages.  What's going on?
> 	I explained why it's a bad idea above. Read what I wrote. If you want to
> sign your stupid messages, sign them and leave the rest of people and the
> list list alone.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list