Sounds like we're in agreement then that crypto systems with political solutions aren't actually crypto solutions at all then? Anyone else (dis)agree? On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4:56:06 AM PST juan wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:30:49 -0800 > > Alex Stahl wrote: > > Point is the technology is neutral/agnostic to its location and > > operator - and that a key part of the solution is in fact political. > > Oh yes, I do see that. And it's based on the > 'division-of-power' and 'checks-and-balances' doctrine, which I > don't find especially convincing or effective. > > > Hell, I'm still wondering who would use such a system in the first > > place without the imposition of regulation? > > Well, the leaders of the liberal democracies might be able to > create a few laws and regulations to adopt chaum's system and > save the children from digital terrorism. Or something. > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:31:49 AM PST juan wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:15:36 -0800 > > > > > > Alex Stahl wrote: > > > > Second, he implied that, with the use of these policies, if a > > > > message were to traverse a network with nodes operated by the US, > > > > Canada, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China and Japan, > > > > > > I think the actual network would be more like washington, > > > boston, new york, los angeles, london, panama, puerto rico, > > > marshal islands and maybe brussels.