Fw: BCH finally hit the fan
[apparently the address for the CP list wasn't the one I normally use] My comments inline: On Sunday, December 9, 2018, 3:23:09 PM PST, furrier wrote: >I watched you live both in Acapulco and Prague. I don't agree with you and I don't understand how can people be so naive to think that AP can actually work. Prior to the invention of the RSA encryption system (public-key) the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of the TOR system, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Bitcoin, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work.Prior to the invention of Ethereum, the vast majority of the population would not have understood how such a thing could work. But does the opinion of the public determine whether a given invention can work? Your statement implies that the opinion of the masses is somehow determinative of whether a technical advance should work. Can you explain why you think that AP shouldn't work? Today? Your position would have sounded plausible in 1995-96. Then, your technical ignorance approximated virtually everyone else's. But a lot has happened since then. >I am against the whole idea I am fond of pointing out that governments killed about 250 million people in the 20th century. See "Democide". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide (although, the definition varies; some people don't consider people killed in war to be victims of Democide. I consider that position to be insanely foolish.) Were you against that? If you were, how important do (or did) you think it was that this murder be stopped? If you agree that it was wrong that governments murdered 250 million people in the 20th century, then it is inaccurate to say you are against the WHOLE idea of AP. Because most people seem to agree that if AP was implemented, governments would no longer be able to kill people in such vast numbers, ever again. Maybe your (confused) position is that you don't want governments to kill people, but you cannot figure out how to stop that from occurring. Well, you can't, but I can. Am I really wrong? >, it's the same thing as cracking down on cryptocurrency You do not explain that connection. >or dark markets to fight terrorism. You do not explain that connection. >If you want to fight terrorism That depends on the definition of "terrorism". The U.S government doesn't define "terrorism" as mere random violence against innocents, but adds the condition that the motivation of the terrorist is to change laws or government, or both. But to the extent that terrorism attacks innocents, I agree it is wrong. And must be stopped. > build a society where terrorism is mute. How about building a tool that makes "terrorism" completely unnecessary. Tim McVeigh didn't have a "magic bomb" which, when detonated, killed only the top 30 government employees responsible for the Waco massacre, even though they might have been hundreds of miles away from each other. Do you think that if McVeigh HAD access to such a "magic bomb", he would have preferred instead to destroy an entire building in Oklahoma city filled with innocents and relative-innocents? I consider such a position preposterous, and probably you'd agree as well. AP can be described as a "magic weapon" that can be used to target precisely the actual problem-causers, with little and probably no collateral damage. Please explain your precise objection to implementing it as I advocate. >Similar, if you want to fight politicians, build a society where politics are either mute or they don't affect our lives so much. Wake up people! If you can explain how to do that, speak up. I am reminded of a joke, where a comedian says he bought a book titled "How to be a successful millionaire!". The first page of the book simply contained the words, "First get a million dollars". But how?
Re: BCH finally hit the fan
I watched you live both in Acapulco and Prague. I don't agree with you and I don't understand how can people be so naive to think that AP can actually work. I am against the whole idea, it's the same thing as cracking down on cryptocurrency or dark markets to fight terrorism. If you want to fight terrorism, build a society where terrorism is mute. Similar, if you want to fight politicians, build a society where politics are either mute or they don't affect our lives so much. Wake up people! Anyway, to stay on-topic, FUCK BCH ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 8, 2018 7:37 PM, jim bell wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018, 7:37:50 AM PST, John Newman > wrote: > >> On Dec 7, 2018, at 12:37 PM, furrier wrote: >> >>> I will disagree with you here. Craig may be an idiot and >>> the fact that he holds patents makes him dangerous but he >>> does not have the network effect that the BCH "community" has. >>> They are all over the place when it comes to fake >>> libertarianism. I attended Anarchapulco last February, these > >>Did you get to watch Jim Bell speak ? :P > > My speech at Anarchapulco 2018 was punctuated by two memorable things: One, > an audio artifact "gunshot", which they informed me that had occurred with at > least one previous speaker as well. The second, about 5 minutes before my > speech was intended to end, was an earthquake, maybe it was magnitude 7, but > the epicenter was a hundred or so miles south of Acapulco, so it was only a > mild shaking locally. > > Still, it was quite memorable. > > Jim Bell
War porn and China Dark Side of the Moon mission - [PEACE]
Joogle to exercise corporate manipulation right, de-rank RT articles: The missile-capable Buyan-M corvette: High seas hellraiser https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIGMad1XDRI Sukhoi flying porn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgo0ROQhu1U https://www.rt.com/news/446012-su34-su25-flying-video/ So I guess it's no wonder RT has to be de-ranked ... too much propaganda that (((those in charge of the US))) don't like. China's dark mission: https://youtu.be/KHldXfocLfs For those who didn't know TDSOTM (the dark side of the moon) apparently ranges in temperature from "craters of eternal darkness" "peaks of eternal light", and our humble moon experiences temperatures from 27 K "colder even than the surface of Pluto" (in those craters of eternal darkness I suppose), and as high as 390K, which is only ~117°C. Inderdasting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_units_of_temperature
Re: Assistance and Access Bill 2018 FAQ (Australia)
>> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6195_aspassed/toc_pdf/18204b01.pdf >> https://github.com/alfiedotwtf/AABillFAQ And why are you drawing up and giving the enemy a detailed list of all the ways and things they need to go after so they can fuck you even further? Politicians are retards, they're not going to know all that stuff till you drop it on them, then they'll take it and "vote" some more and use it against you as always too. And don't you know "lawyers" are "licensed" by the Government, so they all ultimately work at pleasure for that bitch your "Queen", and their stupid Bar Association Cabals, not for you. Wake up.
Re: Assange Journalism
Very little from Snowden's many years as CIA employee prior to short-term as NSA contractor has been revealed. Turf battles between the two agencies are legendary, including planting their spies in each other's innards. CIA favors human agents, NSA technology. This suggests Snowden was a CIA implant to out (selective) NSA technology. If so, it certainly worked, at least for a while until NSA used the operation to beef up funding for new and possibly stronger technology. Just look at its vast construction of MD tech temples and recruiting at universities. To be sure all the 9/11-fattened spies benefited from Snowden's operation, and in that his op is hardly new, the spies have been running breaches for decades to enhance funding and deepening secrecy. They all work in concert at this, exchanging tips and perks with foreign spies. Leaks, aka unauthorized disclosures, have been part of this from day one of spying, not just modern, but also ancient, even neanderthal. Spies beget spies, secrecy begets secrecy, ostensible betrayals beget ostensible betrayals. Favored journalists beget favored journalists. Outlaw mavericks beget the same. The sanctimonious name "national security" is a relatively new moniker, circa 1947 in he US, but so are nations rather than royalties and theocracies. One way to tell who runs the shows is by looking at their self-vaunting monuments. In the case of CIA and NSA, look at their infrastructure for humans and technology, respectively. Digital technology is an NSA operation, for example, journalism and academia run by CIA. Division between the two established by the National Security Act of 1947. CIA remained ostentatously above board, NSA hiding behind No Such Agency. I assume Snowden is still working for CIA, bound by a secrecy agreement until he dies, not the secrecy-porous for NSA contractors. Presumbably Moscow assesses him this way, and will persistently suck his mind and blood as they run his worldwide recruiting operation in cahoots with CIA, NSA hot on their heels but winded by obesity. Greenwald is a vain, useful idiot in this charade. So too Assange. Mammon bless their Oscar-winning entertaining foolhardiness, aka "influence." Both tailoring bespoke regalia for Trump's royalist "L'état, c'est moi." At 08:27 PM 12/8/2018, juan wrote: On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:26:46 -0500 Steve Kinney wrote: > > > On 12/8/18 3:41 PM, juan wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:44:22 -0500 > > Steve Kinney wrote: > > >> Greenwald distributed the PRISM documents to several press outlets, at > >> least one of which edited them before release per side by side > >> comparison of published versions. (Or, more than one version was > >> distributed by Greenwald for whatever reason.) > >> > >> So it seems likely that Snowden got his information about how and where > >> the documents were forwarded to news outlets from Greenwald himself. > > > > I didn't see evidence for that. > > Because Snowden's tale includes how he failed to find a journalist, any > journalist, who was interested in his materials /and/ capable of > communicating via an encrypted channel. Yes but that doesn't add up. > So he had to settle for film > maker Poitras, and attorney & partisan political talking head Greenwald > - just because Poitras was willing/able to use TOR and/or GPG. The story I remember is that he wanted to contact greenwald and that greenwald was too retarded to know how to use pgpg. > > Before delivering docs to Greenwald, nobody in the news biz would talk > to Snowden, at least not on his terms. After, he had no opportunity to > do any more handoffs. > > Snowden's tale of how "journalists" should decide what to release > strikes me as a cover story, explaining away his failure to send the > docs to Wikileaks by 'failure' you mean he just didn't want to send them to wikileaks because wilileaks would actually publish the stuff? I guess in the end it doesn't matter if he gave the docs only to greenwald or to a couple more journos. But granted, if only greenwald got them in the first place then yes, that's even more suspect. > and have done with them, vs. throwing away his entire > life, more or less, via contrived-looking cloak and dagger bullshit. > You mean he could have leaked the docs without being detected? Maybe, I guess. > :o/ > > > >
