Everything is looking right now with the archives and my inbox on my end over here. I was possibly getting a cached archives page somehow around the 4th. Sorry if this potentially-false alarm was taxing.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 7:05 PM Karl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Note: I am not set up with pgp, so this message may be corrupt. > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 2:58 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 1 hi5:41:34 -0400 >> Karl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Punk, do you know how often the cypherpunks archive is updated? >> >> usually in real time, or a few minutes. >> >> > I seem to be disconnected from the list; didn't get the last archived >> > email yet, and recent posts aren't showing up. >> >> sometimes the confirmation messages get lost, but your messages >> are posted to the list anyway. >> > > I've been having the opposite. I'm getting confirmation messages, but > many threads haven't been showing up in the archives. The last email I > have from this thread in the archives was > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-August/081663.html : > none of our bitcoin history emails are showing up for me, but I have > acknowledgement emails for them. I emailed Greg a few days ago but no > reply. Maybe it wasn't received or I got his email address wrong. > > Below messages are related to politics and blockchains. Blockchains > provide more reliable message delivery than email. > > > >> > > But NOW he's complaining that his dear 'meritocratic' big businesses >> are siding with BLM. Which in turn tells you that BLM is just controlled >> opposition and which makes James' position even more ridiculous. >> > >> > The businesses are siding with BLM due to the effort of thousands of >> > american activists pressuring people to notice what's up in the flag >> > of violence against blacks, if it matters. It seems something else >> > may have mysteriously helped, too. >> > >> > The position you describe is in line with Trump, who lumps the >> > mainstream with the left. >> >> >> Not sure what position you're referring to. You mean my >> observation that US govcorp is pretending to be 'anti racist'? >> > > Kind of a merging and mutual learning between some fringe and right wing > behaviors that started before trump was elected, and then accelerated with > his election. > > It's meaningful for me because some of the professors who spoke out > against Trump's more oppressive policies experienced targeted bullying by > misled people with some similarity to what I experienced after taking > action against international energy pipelines and large banks. > > > It was a very minority view until he was >> > elected; mostly held by rural demographics near major business >> > enterprises in the areas I'd visited. >> >> >> >> > > > You could also use cryptography to make those things private, and >> mixing >> > > > layers to increase your anonymity, but that's not what I mean to >> worry >> > > > about here. >> > > >> > > But that's the thing. The more public information there is, >> the easier it becomes for censors to decide which transactions to reject. >> > >> > Not with full nodes: the network is invalid if any information at all >> > is missing. But yes, you need a miner to accept it, and you could be >> > identified, posting it >> >> the bare minimum is something like monero where amounts, senders >> and recipients are hidden(at least in theory). A system like monero leaks >> less information than bitcoin so it makes it harder for miners to censor. >> > > Zcash has a messaging app, too. Reference client is written in node, > which can scare some hackers away if it isn't ported to another language > yet. > > > >> > There's a way to push miner acceptance: you can make future >> > transactions require old ones. Like, you can post a special message, >> > and then buy or sell a product in a way that the purchase only goes >> > through if the "special message" is also mined. Once that money is >> > spent for something else, it is required that _all_ preceding >> > transactions go through, for the entire lifetime of the blockchain. >> > Censorship is actually incredibly hard if the protocol is used >> > properly. >> >> >> is that something that works with BTC? do you have a reference? >> > > Yes, that works with most chain protocols including btc. Apparently > because the usual issue is fee related not content related, google says > this technique is called "child pays for parent". Here's an article on its > use at coinbase, but I haven't read the article: > https://blog.coinbase.com/improving-bitcoin-reliability-through-child-pays-for-parent-77e771bb04d6 > > > > >> I also know that mining isn't too 'distributed' >> > > > >> > > > What's relevent is that it is still distributed enough to defend >> > > > information in the face of a nation state adversary. >> > > >> > > We'll see... >> > >> > This has already been shown to my satisfaction repeatedly. What would >> > demonstrate it to you? >> >> I mean, we'll see how well cryptocurrencies fare when attacked by >> govcorp. So far they have been tolerated or even encouraged. >> > > In USA they were severely discouraged and attacked for many years. I was > briefly in the development team of the blockchain qora before the dev team > was dispersed after publishing a nonworking client. This happened after I > posted publically that the system made deletion of information impossible. > > > >> > > bitcoin mining is going to be centralized because of economic forces. >> The underlying economic system is pretty centralized and controled by >> govcorp, so only big mining operations can be 'profitable'. >> > >> > This is another thing the devs seemed to realize too late that would >> > be changed if there were focused, productive harmony in their >> > community. They made Jim's error of believing money was held by the >> > people, not the leaders, and better capitalism would provide freedom. >> >> Some developers may have made a mistake, while others are >> actually happy with the current situation... >> > > A lot of overlap there. We are all still learning that billionaires don't > care about money. > > > >> > Instead they produced a mess of cryptoanarchic millionaires which is >> > still quite helpful. >> >> well, I don't think they are too helpful. Even roger ver who has >> somewhat clear ideas is more ultimately more concerned about all his money >> than freedom . >> > > I guess yeah. I'm not sure who finances Steem, but I think it managed to > form a smidge of improved communication between techheads and oppression, > just slightly. Many of these new blockchain businesspeople are against > cover-up and have a technology to prevent it. Doesn't mean they don't get > covered up and stigmatized. > > > Blockchains still show a single programmer can change the whole world, >> > by stepping into the digital cultural spaces that people leave >> > unaddressed, and automating them. >> > >> >> we'll see. Also automation isn't good per se. >> > > Yeah automation is deadly. This list is mostly programmers. I see that > bitcoin already has changed the world, by trending financial distribution > and economic discourse farther from government control. > > > > >> > > My comment was somewhat obscure. What I meant is that >> 'satoshi' wasn't worried about mining being centralized...and wasn't >> worried about 'scaling' either. Here's the pertinent bit >> > > >> > > https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/ >> > > >> > > "as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be >> left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware" >> > > >> > > ...you know, like amazon-NSA. >> > >> > Nice pairing of names. This is just because Satoshi was making the >> > Jim fallacy I mentioned above. >> >> >> Question is, was that a honest mistake, or part of the 'design'? >> > > Both. We're referencing a political issue. People raised in capitalism > believe it to mean freedom. Within it, it can be, which moves capitalist > power around a lot. For people who don't value money and can influence > that, there's a lot of space the people who do value it are not worrying > about at all. > > >> > It takes a very long time for bitcoins to merge with amazon-nsa. They >> > don't like them: the dollar seems more predictable and familiar, and >> > the dollar makes it much easier for them to keep secrets. >> >> The fact that bitcoin's supply can't be manipulated makes it >> unappealing to govcorp. However, other bitcoin features aren't as governmnt >> unfriendly as that one. Bitcoin as a surveillance tool with unerasable >> records is something that govcorp likes. >> > > I like how it surveils everyone equally in that permanent record. Govcorp > has a lot of secrets. > > It is easy for a skilled developer to add privacy to blockchains > comparable to other private systems if needed, see monero, zcash. > > > > > > 1. Bitcoin is hugely valuable and is designed to rise in value >> exponentially >> > > > 2. The design is such that censoring it e.g. by miner collusion >> also lets >> > > > people steal money >> > > > 3. There are more creative thieves than creative censors >> > > > 4. When the protocol is attacked, it becomes obvious on the >> network: the >> > > > whole network is told >> > > >> > > >> > > the protocol doesn't allow double spending, but it certainly >> allows 'discrimination'. >> > >> > I don't know what you mean here. Economic discrimination and miner >> collusion? >> >> yes, miners can even mine empty blocks if they want and sitll be >> paid for it(block reward). >> > > Mmm it doesn't sound like you have a good handle of the protocol. The > design is such that nobody does that. Block rewards shift exponentially > towards being proportional to included transactions as years pass. It > takes a long time to mine a block. > > > > >> > > Look at ethereum. The chain was 'forked' and the majority of >> people went to the chain that had some 'bad' transactions reverted. Same >> thing could happen to bitcoin. >> > >> > This required agreement from the entire dev team and is exactly how >> > blockchains die. Note that ethereum is big enough that the original >> > chain is still easy to acquire in its entirety. Bitcoin is much >> > bigger. >> >> yeah the original chain is likely to survive. My point is that it >> may be possible for govcorp to take an existing system and force a mahority >> of people to accept 'new rules'. >> > > Yeah, they've been pushing that stuff, as could possibly be my references > following. > > >> > Disruptive forking has already happened to bitcoin with bch, bsv, etc. >> > It doesn't mean any information is lost, though: each one of those >> > chains has the entire history prior to the fork. >> >> True. But those forks were not really attacks but rather >> competition. >> > > Aren't these exactly what you describe above, with people deciding on new > rules without agreement as rational collective decisions reduce alongside > negative media etc? > > > All the people who >> > trusted the blockchain to preserve something, in bitcoin and ethereum >> > prior to their unexpected forks, have that trust still honored, >> > without any regard to the content: except for the one person whose >> > permanent impact was hacking the ethereum community itself. >> >> True. >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > It is still impossible enough to erase things on the Bitcoin >> blockchain, >> > > > for now, >> > > >> > > True, for now. On the other hand, look at all the cancer that >> grows around bitcoin like coinbase-mosad-GCHQ-NSA. Bitcoin 'exchanges' are >> worse than banks. >> > >> > Economic war is happening. But bitcoin still has friendly communities >> > who will trade with you in person for cash. Most of the exchanges >> > appear run by millionaire cryptoanarchists, learning business and the >> > intense difficulties the situation entails. >> >> >> I don't think any big exchange is run by anarchists. On the othre >> hand, something like coinbase is run by literal US govt agents. >> > > I believe those two sets to overlap. > > Cryptocurrencyophiles call themselves cryptoanarchists but they are > generally pro-capitalism and pro-blockchain-businesses. Many many > cryptoanarchy business out there, see smart contracts, but often small > yeah. The first exchange, mtgox, was run by a guy from the Bitcoin > community; I wasn't around much after that. > >
