Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 5:23 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > (BTW, to be useful to more people, we ought generally keep such conversations > on list.) isn't it in the list? > > On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:11:31AM +, other.arkitech wrote: > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 2:07 AM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 11:28:30PM +, other.arkitech wrote: > > > > > > > In USPS, as long as the network is big, it makes harder -not > > > > impossible- to reconstruct the state from recorded transactions because > > > > nodes handle only a fraction of the traffic. > > > > Still, addresses are anonymous, > > > > > > I don't believe this statement to be correct. > > > > the last one?, why? > > anonymous in the sense of bitcoin, where there is no easy link between > > addresses and people. > > Let's keep it clear that "anonymous" in that sense is marketing guff at best, > deceptive and misleading at worst. > > Re useful anonymity, IPv4 addresses give you, literally, less than 'none' - > they are -good- for tracking people and transactions! Let's assume the netowrk runs with chaff traffic. knowing your IP4 doesn't mean knowing your tx activity. > > > > > and nodes mix all of them as they arrive, > > > > > > Your mixing protocol will need to be well documented at some point, this > > > is not the easiest problem. > > > > Not easy, not trivial. Good thing is that I've gone through it already. So > > I speak about it backed with my impl that works as I expect. > > > > > For example, can a mixing protocol help to handle rogue clients (CIA > > > writes their own USPS client) which does things it should not do, or does > > > not do things it should do? > > > > The system has been built knowing there's gonna exist evil tweaks to the > > code. So it is all about honest nodes dealing with untrusted nodes that are > > 'telling lies' or not following the protocol. > > > > > Some issues can be handled by protocol - as in, verifiable/ enforced by > > > other clients - some cannot, and so those fail paths must be considered - > > > are they important, do they only matter when predator nodes reach 50%+1, > > > or whatever... > > > > issues that cannot be verifiable/enforced by other nodes shouldn't be > > issues at all, but without mentioning any of those failpaths I cannot > > narrow a better answer to this. > > If -colluding- predators acquire >50% voting power, the network failed and > > the system burns in flames, collapses, eaten by a dark hole. > > Meaning that the situation is for an aeronautical engineer equivalent to an > > air crash where people die. > > Listen - in computer communication land, any relevant privacy, any relevant > anonymity, wallet safety, and much more, is really hard. What is this sentence about? now you listen, any hard problem can be decomposed so each part is simpler. > > Every challenging question to you, is another opportunity for you to strut > your stuff - NOT a benefit to the asker of the question (in general) -- so > every brushed off question (e.g. "without you giving me really precise > question, I won't put my mind to this further"), every non-answer (e.g. "it's > all about honest nodes," "the design knows there are evil nodes" etc) is sort > of telling us "I'm not going to explain the design further until I release > it, y'all just have to trust me till then." What's the problem mate? you think I can write a paper on each answer? > > And that's OK - you are of course free to ask folks to wait, just test it, > and trust you till then. > > But please don't complain again that you are getting insufficient feedback, > then wonder why the next conversation once again fell flat... > I wont. it looks like I am begging for feedback. I am not. > > > > making the equivalent of a big tx with many inputs-many outputs > > > > on every consensus cycle. > > > > > > Mixing may be good, may also have downside (?), but needs analysis by a > > > number of people to assess benefits/problems. > > > > > > > Still yes, individual tx can be recorded as they arrive with a trivial > > > > patch. This would allow to follow the money across anonymous accounts. > > > > And this could lead to potential associations with separate events > > > > (e.g. I buy
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, June 8, 2020 5:50 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > I would not call it premine, just mined, the network is running and mining. > > Premine implies that the genesis started with allocations > > That's one form. > > Another form is, as before... mining after genesis only by a > select group of internal/closed/invitee people, not publicly > announced till later, and not reset upon such announcement. > > Another form is... ASIC companies mining before selling and > shipping the HW to users, and early shipping in qty to select > purchasers, not telling general public buyers they are doing this, > getting shafted with a partially mined out "new" die process. > > All three forms, of which there are probably more forms, > are often frowned upon by large portions of the crypto space. > > Some claim it is free market to do. > Others choose to boycott. > Both have their arguments. > > But for every form, it do cause some controversy, > that probably could be avoided from the start. > > The facts of how and when certain announcements, > coins were generated, distributed, held, taxed, etc > in some of the various coin projects are known. > > Lots of coins did preallocation, founder taxing, and various > garbage-for-gold IPO scams. > > USPS mined with some private and invitee people after > genesis before public posts. > > Satoshi posted to a pretty big public list of people, then a public genesis > moment, then all public everyone including his own "self, and investor > pay[back] purpose" were fairly mining publicly from that date onward. > There was no private/invitee period after genesis before public post. > > Users could treat as color premined coins in a public crypto, > but that is hard to do in practice. > > In a privacy crypto, or one with privacy elements, projects > would even more want to meet some rather honorable ways > to all the crypto space regarding their release process. > > Since at least 2013 there are pretty well recognized large > announcement channels in each constituent and offshoot area. > There might even be BCP now on how releases should > maybe be done to help avoid some controversies. > > Many coin projects users still have weird feeling about "fairness" > of release process that might naturally be holding any of those > coin projects back from what would otherwise be stronger adoption. > Many coin projects still struggle with the issues of their own > history regarding choices about money they gave themselves. > > Just like banks that add a zero (0) doing fractional reserve lending. Reseting a system breaks the promise. It is not easy action to do. By doing this you are saying that the governance is weak, people who were trusting the system for long, running their hardware, would feel betrayed, and only because some potential new users don't like it to start after others. Imagine if I say now that -because Bitcoin wan't announced on TV worldwide- the network has to be reseted so I join. Sounds crazy of course, but this shares the same aspects when dealing with a claim for reseting a blockchain. Anyway the USPS was publicly posted soon after the genesis block, inviting people to try the system. https://github.com/other-arkitech/us I think there are previous posts in reddit. I can say again that the crypto earned by nodes since the network started has no exchange value as per today, nor the coins have a ceiling (like e.g., 21M). So they just count as a measure of the time they have been working for the network, and this is the fair status.
Re: Cryptocurrency:
I've found this resource about cypherpunks: https://github.com/jooray/cypherpunk-research Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 3:40 PM, Karl wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 11:34 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 3:24 PM, Karl wrote: >> >>> I missed some of your expressions. >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 10:59 AM other.arkitech >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by >>>>>>>>>>>> modifying software? >>>>>>>>>>>> Nop. That's not true. >>>>>>>>>>>> (Or I haven't understood well what you say) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> People go to places on the internet to download things. Others can >>>>>>>>>>> upload things to those places to download. You can upload >>>>>>>>>>> something that lies about what it is doing, and gives you use of >>>>>>>>>>> the ip address of the downloader's computer when run. Do you >>>>>>>>>>> understand? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It sounds like this is surprising to you? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> so you refer to computers running malware, that case is contemplated >>>>>>>>>> in the design as an 'evil node' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it sounds like you haven't addressed a sybil attack from massively >>>>>>>>> distributed malware, which is fine nobody can cover everything. not >>>>>>>>> sure where the design lives. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the malware is distributed in a bigger scale than the honest >>>>>>>> software, indeed, the evil network becomes the 'honest' one to the >>>>>>>> eyes of the software, that's 51% attack. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of >>>>>>>> 80%-20%, the likeliness of an evil network overtaking the honest one >>>>>>>> is lower than the opposite. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The evil network wont work if many evil nodes run behind same IP, so >>>>>>>> the malware must meet the same distribution enforcement applied to the >>>>>>>> honest net. Nodes running malware must be geographically distributed, >>>>>>>> so local marketplaces spreading malware have less chances to spread >>>>>>>> worldwide in order to compromise the network. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure you're hearing me when I say that one person is able to >>>>>>> distribute malware to thousands (or more) of other people worldwide, >>>>>>> producing a sybil attack from an individual. Is this something you're >>>>>>> able to repeat back to me? It sounds like you have an expectation >>>>>>> around handling this? >>>>>> >>>>>> i though i gave a fair response. >>>>>> i understand you say that many computers can be infected of malware by a >>>>>> single individual who is creating an attacking botnet. >>>>>> An I said such botnet must be bigger than the network to succeed. >>>>>> >>>>>> The security of USPS depends on the number of nodes, the bigger the best. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. It is actually reasonable to create a botnet that covers an >>>>> entire sector of the world (such as everybody running ubuntu 20 or >>>>> windows 10 or the latest iOS) by finding, developing, or observing an >>>>> unpatched exploit. With more than one exploit a botnet developer could >>>>> cover multiple such sectors. I imagine this would usually produce more >>>>> ip addresses than a specific network service like USPS uses. >>>>> >>>>> This concern is one of the ones USPS hasn't been acknowledging. >>>> >>&
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, June 7, 2020 1:22 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > > > I am try to honestly persuade you guys to try USPS if you're really > > > > interested in it as a next-gen cryptocurrency system. > > > > My interest is to gain users that can explore every corner of it, in > > > > order to find gaps, failures, etc. Just helping me in its development. > > > > > > Open source and utility are what I see as being needed. > > USPS needs a whitepaper, philosophy/presentation, if it expects these. > Just closed source binary blobs with unexplained CLI don't help users, > reviewers, contributors, understand that big pictures. True, let's see how may can deal with raw software while I can work on this side. cli software has a good functional help though
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, June 7, 2020 1:15 AM, grarpamp wrote: > Govts and GovCorp adversaries sitting on big quantity of IPv4/8's > and /n's scattered worldwide, and limitless IPv6/n's. > How going to audit all those Sybils? IP4 allocated on known pools assigned to world-wide areas. this wikipedia page illustrates a distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IPv4_address_allocation The point is that the system can control the allocation of nodes by ip4 pool. In fact , any node can connect to the system, by any transport like ip6 or tor, but only those participating in the voting process are sybil-controlled. > With massive piles of premined coins and central corporate investors? I would not call it premine, just mined, the network is running and mining. Premine implies that the genesis started with allocations, which it is not true. The way to verify it is by looking at the public ledger, taking the amount of coins in circulation and the originating time -oct-2018- and veryfy it matches 5e8 per minute. Anyway this is just a number which is unbounded. it is huge intentionally, but small compared to the capacity. Time will adjust the number to real value. Governance is meant to be distributed, not central authority, eligibility will be given only by skill, not economic power. > If want to raise Sybil costs, WoT-like human factors > cost much more than those. WoT -web of trust, right? > No one seem bold enough to do old school WoT, > at least for designs that use some pure "middle" nodes > (privacy architecture depends if client UTXO nodes can do WoT safely too). WoU - more fairly named for this systems based on untrusted nodes > Even worshipped Tor is a Sybil free for all, using all IPv4 btw ahem, > nothing stopping them, 100 bad nodes a month, > people got booted for pressing that uncomfy facts about tor.
Re: Cryptocurrency: Coinbase Sells Its Users Out to FED IRS DEA Etc ChainAnalysis Partners
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, June 7, 2020 12:14 AM, grarpamp wrote: > Some often good people often have way of getting > themselves trapped up in things. > Coinbase has always been garbage, trolls upon the ecosystem, > fakeass corporates hardly plowing profits into freedom efforts, > thus foolishly subjugating themselves in the end. > Users into cryptocurrency should establish > local person to person exchange... agree, node to node P2P exchanges, if that gives an anonymous trait > ethos well advocated and performed in > early days... and should be reinstated again.
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 3:24 PM, Karl wrote: > I missed some of your expressions. > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 10:59 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by >>>>>>>>>> modifying software? >>>>>>>>>> Nop. That's not true. >>>>>>>>>> (Or I haven't understood well what you say) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People go to places on the internet to download things. Others can >>>>>>>>> upload things to those places to download. You can upload something >>>>>>>>> that lies about what it is doing, and gives you use of the ip address >>>>>>>>> of the downloader's computer when run. Do you understand? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like this is surprising to you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so you refer to computers running malware, that case is contemplated >>>>>>>> in the design as an 'evil node' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it sounds like you haven't addressed a sybil attack from massively >>>>>>> distributed malware, which is fine nobody can cover everything. not >>>>>>> sure where the design lives. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the malware is distributed in a bigger scale than the honest >>>>>> software, indeed, the evil network becomes the 'honest' one to the eyes >>>>>> of the software, that's 51% attack. >>>>>> >>>>>> Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of >>>>>> 80%-20%, the likeliness of an evil network overtaking the honest one is >>>>>> lower than the opposite. >>>>>> >>>>>> The evil network wont work if many evil nodes run behind same IP, so the >>>>>> malware must meet the same distribution enforcement applied to the >>>>>> honest net. Nodes running malware must be geographically distributed, so >>>>>> local marketplaces spreading malware have less chances to spread >>>>>> worldwide in order to compromise the network. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure you're hearing me when I say that one person is able to >>>>> distribute malware to thousands (or more) of other people worldwide, >>>>> producing a sybil attack from an individual. Is this something you're >>>>> able to repeat back to me? It sounds like you have an expectation around >>>>> handling this? >>>> >>>> i though i gave a fair response. >>>> i understand you say that many computers can be infected of malware by a >>>> single individual who is creating an attacking botnet. >>>> An I said such botnet must be bigger than the network to succeed. >>>> >>>> The security of USPS depends on the number of nodes, the bigger the best. >>> >>> Thanks. It is actually reasonable to create a botnet that covers an entire >>> sector of the world (such as everybody running ubuntu 20 or windows 10 or >>> the latest iOS) by finding, developing, or observing an unpatched exploit. >>> With more than one exploit a botnet developer could cover multiple such >>> sectors. I imagine this would usually produce more ip addresses than a >>> specific network service like USPS uses. >>> >>> This concern is one of the ones USPS hasn't been acknowledging. >> >> 51% attack is always a concern. My answer is to have a big honest network >> that makes it very difficult for a botnet to coordinate the attack. the >> attacking vector is a war on size. > > Always a fan of assuming honesty, but it's good to have something to fall > back on if honesty isn't upheld in some edge situation. This is where > cryptocurrency usually shines. > > Given it doesn't take financial resources to acquire IP addresses, USPS could > struggle to use the usual cryptocurrency avenue of it being more profitable > to support the network than attack it. > > But really hashpower is just plain much harder to acquire than ip addresses. > I'm not sure there are even any laws against botnets. > > The use of hashpower, difficulty, and an append-only log also lets users of > cryptocurrencies detect at
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 2:00 PM, Karl wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 9:48 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 1:28 PM, Karl wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 8:14 AM other.arkitech >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:00 PM, Karl wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:49 AM other.arkitech >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >>>>>> >>>>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>>>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 11:38 AM, Karl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:18 AM other.arkitech >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:17 AM, Karl wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 7:29 PM other.arkitech >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The >>>>>>>>>>> 'consensus' is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. >>>>>>>>>>> But how robust is relying on IP addresses at the end of the day? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space >>>>>>>>>> is saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice >>>>>>>>>> tool for Sybil control >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OA, when you say this people start disregarding what you say because >>>>>>>>> it is false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any software developer can get thousands of IP addresses by altering >>>>>>>>> a piece of pirated software to include something new of their own >>>>>>>>> design and sharing it in a venue where it hasn't been shared on >>>>>>>>> before. There are many many other ways and people _think_ of them, >>>>>>>>> _use_ them, are _observed_ using them, and things spread and grow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by >>>>>>>> modifying software? >>>>>>>> Nop. That's not true. >>>>>>>> (Or I haven't understood well what you say) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> People go to places on the internet to download things. Others can >>>>>>> upload things to those places to download. You can upload something >>>>>>> that lies about what it is doing, and gives you use of the ip address >>>>>>> of the downloader's computer when run. Do you understand? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It sounds like this is surprising to you? >>>>>> >>>>>> so you refer to computers running malware, that case is contemplated in >>>>>> the design as an 'evil node' >>>>> >>>>> it sounds like you haven't addressed a sybil attack from massively >>>>> distributed malware, which is fine nobody can cover everything. not sure >>>>> where the design lives. >>>> >>>> If the malware is distributed in a bigger scale than the honest software, >>>> indeed, the evil network becomes the 'honest' one to the eyes of the >>>> software, that's 51% attack. >>>> >>>> Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of >>>> 80%-20%, the likeliness of an evil network overtaking the honest one is >>>> lower than the opposite. >>>> >>>> The evil network wont work if many evil nodes run behind sam
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 1:28 PM, Karl wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 8:14 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:00 PM, Karl wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:49 AM other.arkitech >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 11:38 AM, Karl wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:18 AM other.arkitech >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >>>>>> >>>>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>>>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:17 AM, Karl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 7:29 PM other.arkitech >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The >>>>>>>>> 'consensus' is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. But >>>>>>>>> how robust is relying on IP addresses at the end of the day? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space is >>>>>>>> saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice tool >>>>>>>> for Sybil control >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OA, when you say this people start disregarding what you say because it >>>>>>> is false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any software developer can get thousands of IP addresses by altering a >>>>>>> piece of pirated software to include something new of their own design >>>>>>> and sharing it in a venue where it hasn't been shared on before. There >>>>>>> are many many other ways and people _think_ of them, _use_ them, are >>>>>>> _observed_ using them, and things spread and grow. >>>>>> >>>>>> what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by >>>>>> modifying software? >>>>>> Nop. That's not true. >>>>>> (Or I haven't understood well what you say) >>>>> >>>>> People go to places on the internet to download things. Others can >>>>> upload things to those places to download. You can upload something that >>>>> lies about what it is doing, and gives you use of the ip address of the >>>>> downloader's computer when run. Do you understand? >>>>> >>>>> It sounds like this is surprising to you? >>>> >>>> so you refer to computers running malware, that case is contemplated in >>>> the design as an 'evil node' >>> >>> it sounds like you haven't addressed a sybil attack from massively >>> distributed malware, which is fine nobody can cover everything. not sure >>> where the design lives. >> >> If the malware is distributed in a bigger scale than the honest software, >> indeed, the evil network becomes the 'honest' one to the eyes of the >> software, that's 51% attack. >> >> Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of 80%-20%, >> the likeliness of an evil network overtaking the honest one is lower than >> the opposite. >> >> The evil network wont work if many evil nodes run behind same IP, so the >> malware must meet the same distribution enforcement applied to the honest >> net. Nodes running malware must be geographically distributed, so local >> marketplaces spreading malware have less chances to spread worldwide in >> order to compromise the network. > > I'm not sure you're hearing me when I say that one person is able to > distribute malware to thousands (or more) of other people worldwide, > producing a sybil attack from an individual. Is this something you're able > to repeat back to me? It sounds like you have an expectation around handling > this? i though i gave a fair response. i understand you say that many computers can be infected of malware by a single individual who is creating an attacking botnet. An I said such botnet must be bigger than the network to succeed. The security of USPS depends on the number of nodes, the bigger the best. > I also see no reason a malware marketplace would not spread worldwide. no technical reason, obviously it is flat internet. But people operate in cultures, I mean that a malware disguised say for instance inside a pirate copy of photoshop will only be spread across those who use photoshop who are not caring about malware, not all possible computers. > Really struggling to communicate here. I understand you need to know your > software is given a fair trial to actually run, is that correct? Sorry about that if that's my fault. I try to respond with what I think about the attack vector you describe. I am try to honestly persuade you guys to try USPS if you're really interested in it as a next-gen cryptocurrency system. My interest is to gain users that can explore every corner of it, in order to find gaps, failures, etc. Just helping me in its development. >
Re: Cryptocurrency:
> Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of 80%-20%, > the likeliness of an evil network overtaking the honest one is lower than the > opposite. errata: Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of 20%-80%
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:00 PM, Karl wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:49 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 11:38 AM, Karl wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:18 AM other.arkitech >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:17 AM, Karl wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 7:29 PM other.arkitech >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The >>>>>>> 'consensus' is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. But >>>>>>> how robust is relying on IP addresses at the end of the day? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space is >>>>>> saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice tool for >>>>>> Sybil control >>>>> >>>>> OA, when you say this people start disregarding what you say because it >>>>> is false. >>>>> >>>>> Any software developer can get thousands of IP addresses by altering a >>>>> piece of pirated software to include something new of their own design >>>>> and sharing it in a venue where it hasn't been shared on before. There >>>>> are many many other ways and people _think_ of them, _use_ them, are >>>>> _observed_ using them, and things spread and grow. >>>> >>>> what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by modifying >>>> software? >>>> Nop. That's not true. >>>> (Or I haven't understood well what you say) >>> >>> People go to places on the internet to download things. Others can upload >>> things to those places to download. You can upload something that lies >>> about what it is doing, and gives you use of the ip address of the >>> downloader's computer when run. Do you understand? >>> >>> It sounds like this is surprising to you? >> >> so you refer to computers running malware, that case is contemplated in the >> design as an 'evil node' > > it sounds like you haven't addressed a sybil attack from massively > distributed malware, which is fine nobody can cover everything. not sure > where the design lives. If the malware is distributed in a bigger scale than the honest software, indeed, the evil network becomes the 'honest' one to the eyes of the software, that's 51% attack. Provided a world distribution of people that can be evil/honest of 80%-20%, the likeliness of an evil network overtaking the honest one is lower than the opposite. The evil network wont work if many evil nodes run behind same IP, so the malware must meet the same distribution enforcement applied to the honest net. Nodes running malware must be geographically distributed, so local marketplaces spreading malware have less chances to spread worldwide in order to compromise the network.
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 11:38 AM, Karl wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 7:18 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:17 AM, Karl wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 7:29 PM other.arkitech >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The >>>>> 'consensus' is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. But how >>>>> robust is relying on IP addresses at the end of the day? >>>>> >>>> >>>> IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space is >>>> saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice tool for >>>> Sybil control >>> >>> OA, when you say this people start disregarding what you say because it is >>> false. >>> >>> Any software developer can get thousands of IP addresses by altering a >>> piece of pirated software to include something new of their own design and >>> sharing it in a venue where it hasn't been shared on before. There are >>> many many other ways and people _think_ of them, _use_ them, are _observed_ >>> using them, and things spread and grow. >> >> what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by modifying >> software? >> Nop. That's not true. >> (Or I haven't understood well what you say) > > People go to places on the internet to download things. Others can upload > things to those places to download. You can upload something that lies about > what it is doing, and gives you use of the ip address of the downloader's > computer when run. Do you understand? > > It sounds like this is surprising to you? so you refer to computers running malware, that case is contemplated in the design as an 'evil node' >>
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:17 AM, Karl wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 7:29 PM other.arkitech > wrote: > >>> so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The 'consensus' >>> is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. But how robust is >>> relying on IP addresses at the end of the day? >>> >> >> IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space is >> saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice tool for >> Sybil control > > OA, when you say this people start disregarding what you say because it is > false. > > Any software developer can get thousands of IP addresses by altering a piece > of pirated software to include something new of their own design and sharing > it in a venue where it hasn't been shared on before. There are many many > other ways and people _think_ of them, _use_ them, are _observed_ using them, > and things spread and grow. what? any developer geting thousands of public IPv4 addresses by modifying software? Nop. That's not true. (Or I haven't understood well what you say) > Relying on IPv4 scarcity is great because it makes it a lot harder to > compromise that aspect of the network for the _average_ person. And your > software is small so nobody is going to try to compromise it for any serious > reason. If it is a valuable idea, then once it is open source people will > discuss and fix security vulnerabilites, but you should be aware that they > exist so you can relate around them. Yes, I hope a public review of the code will catch a few impl glitches, hopefully not any affecting the design
Re: Cryptocurrency:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, June 5, 2020 10:26 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jun 2020 20:02:14 + > "other.arkitech" other.arkit...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > I feel a bit sad, bcs nobody cares about USPS, even though it looks like > > matching all the stuff you say about desirable coins (with the exception of > > the opening of the source code, which I stated will come after finding > > angel investor and create dev-community) > > I believe this is the only mind-blocking anti-feature. > > Correct me if there is any other major complain about USPS > > so your system doesn't have a bloated chain, which is nice. The 'consensus' > is handled by voting...based one IP address one vote. But how robust is > relying on IP addresses at the end of the day? > IPv4 provides unique features no other protocol has. address space is saturated (scarce) and addresses are not cheap. It is a a nice tool for Sybil control > then what about privacy? The fact that nodes don't keep the history doesn't > mean it isn't trivial for anybody to keep a copy of all transactions. So, are > you using techniques like, say, those used by monero to hide amounts and > senders/receivers? That's a good one. tl;dr; planned feature. Monero, AFAIK, makes it difficult not impossible to trace transactions. So it adds some obfuscation. If validation nodes are open source at some point in the code they have to do the basic math. Other thing is that this math is done not by all nodes but only some of the nodes. That's the difficulty for a listener node to catch all transactions. In USPS, as long as the network is big, it makes harder -not impossible- to reconstruct the state from recorded transactions because nodes handle only a fraction of the traffic. Still, addresses are anonymous, and nodes mix all of them as they arrive, making the equivalent of a big tx with many inputs-many outputs on every consensus cycle. Still yes, individual tx can be recorded as they arrive with a trivial patch. This would allow to follow the money across anonymous accounts. And this could lead to potential associations with separate events (e.g. I buy something and then I buy other thing; an observer could find a parallelism using time and sequence to narrow or find out addresses belonging to me). I have ideas to tackle these cases which are very real theoretically, although only for a minority of people would result of some real concern (to me is a concern)) To be added in the future, as the concern grows bigger, a mixer implemented as a public algorithm (my name for ~smart contract). With this feature one could use it anytime they can break the potential traceability of their money moves, which is already difficult if the network is big. Privacy to me falls more on the ability to do real P2P end2end (real end2end) encrypted trades between 2 nodes without awareness of the rest. Yet Thanks 4 digging OA
Re: [Cryptography] Zoom publishes draft cryptographic design for end-to-end encryption
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, May 28, 2020 1:18 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > There is a good bounty if you can break it. That should be enough to think > > the suite is being challenged all the time, without success so far. > > That's naïve. > > If you can break P256 there are better targets than bitcon. Well, it is money, the number 1 motivator. Please, can you mention some of these other targets?
Re: Cryptocurrency: -- The New Social Contract
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:43 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:19:26AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote: > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:05:01PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 + > > > > "other.arkitech" other.arkit...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a > > > > > product fit to them will be supplied. > > > > > If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being > > > > > open to what exist is essential for survival and rise. > > > > > > > > Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's > > > > not because I'm a commie like stallman. > > > > > > For the record, Richard Stallman is very pro commercial software, making > > > money from your software development, etc - in fact this is fundamental > > > since his very beginning of the "modern" Free Software movement over 30 > > > years ago. > > > A lot of people misunderstand this. > > > Stallman says "make as much money as you can from free software, just > > > make sure it's free software". > > > > yes :) > > Free speech, not free beer > > :) > > Which is why, when non-free software is presented with only a promise of > "it'll be free libre at some unknown point in the future, but 'before version > 1.0'", some folks are naturally skeptical :D at the end of the day any development of any product is nothing but a promise. Some trust must be in place during such a time. The remaining choices are ignore and/or wait till the product is well mature and adopted (a.k.a missing the early-bird bus)
Re: Cryptocurrency: -- The New Social Contract
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:05:01PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:57 + > > "other.arkitech" other.arkit...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > > For those who like to play a different game in the private sector, a > > > product fit to them will be supplied. > > > If you only tolerate Free software is fine, your choice. For me being > > > open to what exist is essential for survival and rise. > > > > Yes, I think free software is far superior to anything else. But that's not > > because I'm a commie like stallman. > > For the record, Richard Stallman is very pro commercial software, making > money from your software development, etc - in fact this is fundamental since > his very beginning of the "modern" Free Software movement over 30 years ago. > > A lot of people misunderstand this. > > Stallman says "make as much money as you can from free software, just make > sure it's free software". yes :) Free speech, not free beer
Re: Shame on trolls
no worries, i understand how this sort of threads can produce unintended damage you're right, many things come from a forefront defensive barrier given past episodes. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:53 PM, John Young wrote: > My comment was not aimed at you, a number of folks have posted > requests to enlist supporters, researchers, funders, for their > projects. A few have repeated the tequests for many months, became > irate and accusatory at lack of response. Might wonder if the aim > is/was to grab free work, or proselitize for an ideology, overcome > loneliness and isolation, front for others, or to just fuck with > somebody. All these have been happening on cpunks since its earliest > days. Lack of moderation allows that abuse or promise. Promises have > sometimes come true. Moderation never delivers on promises, usually > suppresses them as off-topic or calling them trolls.. > > At 06:35 PM 5/26/2020, you wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > It's notable that your software is closed source, and I really > > > understand open source as what is expected to be supported on this list. > > > But Punk-Stasi was "flaming" you and you don't need to listen to > > > that. People aren't censored here. That means random criticism > > > comes through. Do you need help setting up filters? > > > K > > > > Nah, one thing is criticism and other is a guy calling you > > repeatedly a scammer when you are showing up your work. That is not > > precisely good taste. > > the source code is GPL, but I haven't published it yet, that's all. > > Is in the roadmap. For reasons it will be released before 1.0 > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:06 AM other.arkitech > > > <mailto:other.arkitech@protonmail.comother.arkit...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear readers, > > > My intention is to respond to a public attack against my honesty > > > and the legitimacy of my proposal. > > > I am pretty annoyed for the behavior of this individual in the list > > > towards the system I am presenting here. > > > I don't know anything about him or her or whether they are a group > > > of gansters operating the same moniker. > > > The only thing I know is that they are pushing my project USPS is a > > > SCAM and thus I am a SCAMMER, or the other way around. > > > I call to everyone willing to read the landing page of my project, > > > which I provide a pdf attached, > > > and, from it and the ideas grasped in this list, manifest IF it > > > could be deduced that this is a scam, or looks like. Please manifest. > > > Otherwise, everyone undermining legitimate and respectable projects > > > run by others, in any stage of development, on any stage in their > > > roadmap, with counter positive and public undermining attitude. > > > Those should be IMHO punished with public ashame until an apology > > > is published by, in this case, PunkStasi. > > > > > > I leave it this way, > > > Please, anyone, let me know reasons for which this email is WRONG > > > or/and RIGHT. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > - > > > > > > Other Arkitech > > > The project this subject airs as a scam: > > > http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ > > > Ref: > > > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080648.htmlhttps://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080648.html
Re: Shame on trolls
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:06 PM, Karl wrote: > To comment further, it looks like P-S may have been setting up a little > disruption around the difference between the goals of your project and the > benefits and failings of existing blockchains, and maybe some other social > differences going on. I can't know why they would do that, but often it's > satisfying to see the different people involved learn by getting confused > around each other, because it means the confusion is on a path to resolving > (even if that resolution involves further conflict). Blockchains are a > high-emotions topic for some: hating or loving them for a variety of reasons. > P-S's interaction with you resulted in you making this post, and us > responding to you. Perhaps I needed some kind idler to come forth with a deodorant. I am not proud of this post, but, well, that's it. it is what it is. Thanks for responding any way. I dont really need to get deeper on this shitty topic I've created. : ) > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:02 PM Karl wrote: > >> Hey, >> It's notable that your software is closed source, and I really understand >> open source as what is expected to be supported on this list. >> >> But Punk-Stasi was "flaming" you and you don't need to listen to that. >> People aren't censored here. That means random criticism comes through. Do >> you need help setting up filters? >> K >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:06 AM other.arkitech >> wrote: >> >>> Dear readers, >>> My intention is to respond to a public attack against my honesty and the >>> legitimacy of my proposal. >>> >>> I am pretty annoyed for the behavior of this individual in the list towards >>> the system I am presenting here. >>> >>> I don't know anything about him or her or whether they are a group of >>> gansters operating the same moniker. >>> The only thing I know is that they are pushing my project USPS is a SCAM >>> and thus I am a SCAMMER, or the other way around. >>> >>> I call to everyone willing to read the landing page of my project, which I >>> provide a pdf attached, >>> and, from it and the ideas grasped in this list, manifest IF it could be >>> deduced that this is a scam, or looks like. Please manifest. >>> >>> Otherwise, everyone undermining legitimate and respectable projects run by >>> others, in any stage of development, on any stage in their roadmap, with >>> counter positive and public undermining attitude. >>> Those should be IMHO punished with public ashame until an apology is >>> published by, in this case, PunkStasi. >>> >>> I leave it this way, >>> Please, anyone, let me know reasons for which this email is WRONG or/and >>> RIGHT. >>> Thanks. >>> -- >>> Other Arkitech >>> >>> The project this subject airs as a scam: http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ >>> Ref: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080648.html
Re: Shame on trolls
> Hey, > It's notable that your software is closed source, and I really understand > open source as what is expected to be supported on this list. > > But Punk-Stasi was "flaming" you and you don't need to listen to that. > People aren't censored here. That means random criticism comes through. Do > you need help setting up filters? > K Nah, one thing is criticism and other is a guy calling you repeatedly a scammer when you are showing up your work. That is not precisely good taste. the source code is GPL, but I haven't published it yet, that's all. Is in the roadmap. For reasons it will be released before 1.0 > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:06 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Dear readers, >> My intention is to respond to a public attack against my honesty and the >> legitimacy of my proposal. >> >> I am pretty annoyed for the behavior of this individual in the list towards >> the system I am presenting here. >> >> I don't know anything about him or her or whether they are a group of >> gansters operating the same moniker. >> The only thing I know is that they are pushing my project USPS is a SCAM and >> thus I am a SCAMMER, or the other way around. >> >> I call to everyone willing to read the landing page of my project, which I >> provide a pdf attached, >> and, from it and the ideas grasped in this list, manifest IF it could be >> deduced that this is a scam, or looks like. Please manifest. >> >> Otherwise, everyone undermining legitimate and respectable projects run by >> others, in any stage of development, on any stage in their roadmap, with >> counter positive and public undermining attitude. >> Those should be IMHO punished with public ashame until an apology is >> published by, in this case, PunkStasi. >> >> I leave it this way, >> Please, anyone, let me know reasons for which this email is WRONG or/and >> RIGHT. >> Thanks. >> -- >> Other Arkitech >> >> The project this subject airs as a scam: http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ >> Ref: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080648.html
RE: Shame on trolls
Not self-promotion, that's not the reason. Just needed to let out what I think about this. Those who don't find it arguable in terms of general social behavior can ignore this thread. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 7:07 PM, John Young wrote: > Trying to enlist list or SM members in a groveling campaign of > self-promotion is as pandemical online as off. Aggrieved lament at > minimal interest is a necessary fart let, expecting some kind idler > to come forth with a deodorant, or a mean ass-wipe to hurl turds at > the stank bitch pleader. > > Here you are, this is where to wiggle into a troll-fish-trap.
Re: [Cryptography] Proposal for a PoS blockchain
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:07 PM, wrote: > On 2020-05-24 11:31, other.arkitech wrote: > > > I am running an idea comparable you yours: > > http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ > > Hi, Many thanks for your offer about your network. I would like to join > your network or maybe you help me in new network. Both are ok for me as > long as find our intentions are same. > I have a bunch of questions about your network’s features and structure > and software design (is it forked?) and consensus algorithm (is it PoW?) It is not forked. Built from scratch in C++. It is a Byzantine Fault Tolerant algorithm. In contrast to Po* variations of a competitive consensus mechanish. The one I invented is collaborative, allowing ALL nodes to get a payoff for the validation work done each consensus cycle (adaptable depending on the load, set to min 1 minute to save CPU/and bandwidthresources). The security of the network is based on the number of nodes, the biggest the best. Sybil attack is prevented with an invention based on IPv4 protocol. Allowing the homogeneous spread of the network across the surface. IPv4 are publicly discosed, but (with the collaboration of chaff traffic included in the development roadmap) this is not a concern to privacy assunming a huge number of nodes, because all you can see is whether or not a node is running behind a paricular IP. > and so on. I didn't find much documentation about those stuff. If you > already have documents, please send me. BTW I write some of more > important issues here. For the moment, while I am coding, I discipline myself to not focus on formal documentation. All my interest is to get people involved after informal conversations. That would progressively change while approaching a release date, when All possible docs should be ready to be read. > > What is “your motivation” of establish this network? Is it just a new > cryptocurrency or you meant for something else? I am involved in the crypto-movement as developer of BCH, until I went for my own ideas by the beginning of 2017. I have for many years or decades a thread running underneath about replacing governemnts by low cost machines changing the way society organizes, making everyone involved (I mean 3rd world) and rising their and our lifestyle. Which I think is very possible. when I realized the Satoshi paper I was immediately trapped and commited to align this tech with my ever goal. So I changed my work from Aeronautics to Crypto-Finance, where I got inmersed in bitcoin-core, then I went along the BCH fork because I was in agreement with rising the block size. > > > A multi-coin platform with enhanced trading capabilities. For the shake > > of privacy and self-managed societies. > > What do you mean for “multi-coin”? Is it the concept of “colored coin” Imagine you operate USPS. You can create a Coin (MatBitCoin) becoming the mint. You control everything about it included creation and destruction of volume. That coin could well represent your own value as a worker, so you could start using it in the same way central banks control the mint optimizing their economy. Same extended to millions would create a rich soup of value-exchanges. > of Bitcoin or something else? > Frankly speaking I like the idea of “privacy” and “self-managed > societies”. Can you explain it in details? Systems able to remove 3rd parties are threatening politics as well. Since politicians are simply your intermediaries towards public budgets decision making. This system models a flat society where every participant is using a node to fast interact P2P with other individuals, groups or companies > What types of privacy practices have you implemented or added to current > existing privacy tools, on your network? What do you intend for > “societies”? Just some online groups, or there are something in real > world that represent these societies? Which parameters form a society? The world society seen as 10Billion people, 10B different mindsets, that many 'centralized systems' (a node is a centralized system itself, with the only function to execute the owner's intent and will, without any discrimination). So the target is 10-100 Billion nodes. Then we can see on one side a human side composed of all humans, they cannot be traced to the node they run unless they leak it), and on the other side the interaction (half public/half private) among the participants. > Which parameters characterize a society comparing another society? What > type of “self-management” do you mean? Only management in coins > distributions? Or managing in consensus rules as well? whatever we need to live without the need to have a central ruling gov that steals our power and a good fraction of the money they say we earn. > > What kind of security practices have you done for n
Shame on trolls
Dear readers, My intention is to respond to a public attack against my honesty and the legitimacy of my proposal. I am pretty annoyed for the behavior of this individual in the list towards the system I am presenting here. I don't know anything about him or her or whether they are a group of gansters operating the same moniker. The only thing I know is that they are pushing my project USPS is a SCAM and thus I am a SCAMMER, or the other way around. I call to everyone willing to read the landing page of my project, which I provide a pdf attached, and, from it and the ideas grasped in this list, manifest IF it could be deduced that this is a scam, or looks like. Please manifest. Otherwise, everyone undermining legitimate and respectable projects run by others, in any stage of development, on any stage in their roadmap, with counter positive and public undermining attitude. Those should be IMHO punished with public ashame until an apology is published by, in this case, PunkStasi. I leave it this way, Please, anyone, let me know reasons for which this email is WRONG or/and RIGHT. Thanks. -- Other Arkitech The project this subject airs as a scam: http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ Ref: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080648.html usps.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document
Re: Cryptocurrency: -- The New Social Contract
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 8:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > [OA,] *you were asked here
> > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2020-May/080618.html
> > to provide basic documentation, and you failed to provide any.
>
> O.A, there is something you need to be aware of that perhaps you are missing:
>
> A bit over 30 years ago, Richard Stallman personally and at apparently not
> insignificant personal sacrifice, ushered in the present era of a new social
> contract which despite many years of 'despondent underdog status', now
> finally predominates, and even Microsoft admits they "were on the wrong side
> of history", notwithstanding MS still seems allergic to the word "freedom":
>
> Microsoft on 'wrong side of history' with open source, president Brad Smith
> says
> https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-wrong-side-history-open-source-president-brad-smith-says
>
> Steve Ballmer called Linux a "cancer," but Microsoft's current president says
> Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when it comes to open source.
>
> Sean Endicott
> 19 May 2020
>
> Microsoft president Brad Smith recently shared his thoughts on open source
> and how Microsoft approached it at the turn of the century. Speaking at an
> MIT event, Smith stated that "Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when
> open source exploded at the beginning of the century, and I can say that
> about me personally." Smith has been with Microsoft for 25 years and The
> Verge points out that he has been part of several legal battles surrounding
> open source software as one of Microsoft's senior lawyers. Now, Smith has a
> different view.
>
> The Microsoft president added that "The good news is that, if life is long
> enough, you can learn … that you need to change."
> ...
>
> This social contract brought forth by Stallman was likely not the first
> actually free/libre software, but was certainly the explicit naming of, and
> call to live, this ('new') social contract in relation to computer software.
>
> And today there are few who do not understand at least the
> personal/individual benefits (as well as corporate/business benefits) to
> engaging with and embracing libre software, notwithstanding that many do live
> in mere utility and 'personal benefits' rather than the actual higher ethic
> of freedom for one and all as a matter of principle.
>
> Suffice to say, in 2020 it will simply never fly if you try to go against
> this new social contract.
>
> Proprietary, closed hidden and anti competitive simply is not tolerated by
> those you want to be in association with.
>
> From code to protocols, and even your foundation principles, to be "taken
> seriously" there is one option - open and libre protocols, open and libre
> source code, and the reference implementation must be available for download
> and inspection, and libre licensed.
>
> There is no other option.
>
> You have been treated with kid gloves up until a couple days ago, and you've
> been provided abundant notice of the things you must provide, and not even a
> draft protocol document have you provided.
>
> There is a phrase in English, "put up or shut up".
>
> (You may want a different reception in the face of your possible desire "to
> be trusted" and your desire to have folks sign NDAs and accept proprietary
> source code, but that is fanciful wishing in the face of the 30+ years FLOSS
> social contract we live with today - you ain't gonna turn back this clock,
> sonny!)
>
> Good luck,
You don't need to sell free software to a free software advocate.
Re: Cryptocurrency:
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, May 25, 2020 10:33 PM, grarpamp wrote: > > Crytocurrencies require a log of ALL TRANSACTIONS, not just the so called > > utxo set... > > If one can form a consensus over one set of data, peoples > favorite bloated log, which is in effect one big pile of state, > then one can perhaps form a consensus over any other set > from it, eventually among other possiblities, mining deltas > to move a UTXO state db forward, potential db distribution > and update mechanisms, etc... all under some form of > consensus, facts of formal verification, etc. That's USPS mechanism: state+diff=next state The unbloated trait is present as well. There is no history to carry on with it acting like an elastic gum (time to sync a new node for instance). The verification taking place to calculate the next state is enough to trust on the state. There is no need to validate the history from the genesis to trust the last state. The truth starts there, on the last block. > To claim Satoshi Genesis Blockchain whitepaper is only > way to do things, that there are no other ways to be found, > or proofs proving no others, is really quite ridiculous in > such early days of research where no one knows much > about what is or isn't possible. All possible within physics. > People with head locked in sand will never find them.
Re: tor replacement - was Re: Box for simple Tor node.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:41 PM, jim bell wrote: > Algorithm-agnostic anonymization network. > > Let's say we are agreed that a new anonymization network should be > implemented. One problem is that advances in such networks generally > require implementing entirely new networks to check out new algorithms and > new features, such improvements are strongly deterred. After all, that's one > reason that TOR doesn't get as many improvements as we might like. (Another > reason is that it is financed, at least in part, by people who are hostile to > a "too-good" anonymization system.) > > Sure, we could implement a new set of nodes, hopefully at least 1000 in > number. I think that ordinary, residential users should be able to run nodes. > Internet services are provided with as much as 1 terabyte/month capacity, and > possibly unlimited as well. (CenturyLink 1 Gbps, for example)We could > implement a new onion-routing system, akin to TOR but with some improvements, > most prominently adding chaff. So far, so good. But there may be other > ideas, other improvements that people might want to try out. > > I've already proposed that it should be possible for just about every node to > be an output node. Possibly every node should be an input node, as well. > The big impediment to this is that people naturally want to avoid the > potential legal harassment they might get if their IP node sent out gigabytes > of 'in the clear' forbidden data. My ideas for a solution? Output data > could be encrypted, enough to make it unreadable except by the end recipient. > The operator of an output node that emits only seemingly-random data would > be hard to hold legally responsible for that forbidden content, since nobody > expects him to know how to convert it into plaintext. And/or, the data can > be output into two streams, which would be XOR'd with each other only by the > intended recipient to find the data. > > And, this network could also run different anonymization algorithms, > simultaneously. Onion-routing may have its own limitations. Somebody might > have a good idea for an alternative system. Why shouldn't it be possible to > serve two algorithms? Or dozens? How about Bittorrent as well? Imagine > 1000 nodes, each equipped with a 10-terabyte hard drive? > > Jim Bell Hi, I am preparing a draft of a draft for a spec of what I think would be the ideal complimentary anonymization overlay that fits on the already running distributed system I am working on, which is USPS and is very good. It would be great if many ideas arise in this list so we can start focusing a conversation. My personal interes is to achieve a system that can provide Sybil protection for voting systems. Which is the reason Tor cannot be used with USPS, since one could create millions of colluding evil nodes and ditch the system. I limit it using IPv4 because it is very easy to enforce an homogeneously distributed network controlling the maximum number of nodes/votes per IP. This limit will grow as the IPs are filled with voting power. I already have the Sysbil protection implemented and the network of nodes running exchanging encrypted traffic about consensus. The only thing I have left are two things: onion routing (or a faster alternative that doesn't exist but I am researching), chaff traffic. ...and probably more considerations. I am not expert in anon overlays, but perhaps we can brainstorm so I can become one : ) Thanks for reading OA
Re: Cryptocurrency: USPS
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:25 AM, Karl wrote: > Hi OA, > > I was thinking about how there are a lot of ongoing projects working hard to > solve these various problems of replacing existing network infrastructure > with an improvement, keeping users safe and empowering them, etc etc. > > There are a _lot_ of experienced software developers on these lists and many > of us are kind of working in bubbles on our projects, often duplicating each > others' work. > > Would you be at all interested in moving towards sharing effort and > interoperability with others, even merging codebases if a roughly identical > project were going on? Yes I am interested on the idea. I like the bubble style because i think it is more efficient many times. A head, a codebase. Working on multiple products, (as many as devs), is the recipe for avoiding conflicts and byzantine discussions, and generating an army of competitive products. It is great to exchange help, work, pieces of code, etc in a "I work for your project and you work for my project" or something alike I'll be around : ) A really major current effort is gnunet https://gnunet.org/ which modularizes p2p networking functions for reuse, as local services that provide them I believe. It's very powerful but very few projects are using it; setup and a verbose learning curve might be an entry barrier, unsure. > K > > On Mon, May 11, 2020, 6:40 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, May 11, 2020 9:56 AM, grarpamp wrote: >> >>> > I am not afraid of IP4, the resource is already scarce and their cost >>> > provides a good measure against attackers that are not The Man. >>> >>> They have almost zero cost. Any retard can botnet hundred thousand >>> of computers IP and proxy them ports all back to farm of pi's / emulators. >>> Any govt can use all its thousands of worldwide residents >>> embassy and military staffs to get worldwide IP's pools without even >>> any sneaky attacks like abusing secret FVEY++ peers to give them >>> IP proxy of unused addresses from networks too. >>> >>> But no, USPS cannot give user ability to overlay network exit for >>> help ensure their privacy, because only IPv4 is "safe" for USPS. >>> >>> Bitcoin have many many privacy overlay users, even full mining nodes on >>> overlay for their privacy, do you see it be not "safe" for Bitcoin network, >>> any real incident of that, from even day one to now. >> >> This project is about solving the system: >> A) without PoW, which consumes too much energy and induce to >> centralization (network shrink) and territorial segregation forces >> B) without PoS, or any other Po* I've considered during my design (e.g. >> biased cryptoeconomy, e.g. PoS allows mining to those who have more wealth) >> >> I encourage you to find another available scarce resource that meets the >> criteria of being unbiased and I'll consider it to be used instead of taking >> advantage of the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. >> >> Additionally, all criticism towards USPS related to anonymity goes to a >> proper overlay layer compatible with such rule. >> Tor is not valid because is unable to apply the limiting rule. >> I'll either propose a patch to Tor or develop an anonymity layer in the >> future, near or far, depending on the priorities of every stage of the >> project. >> >> Hope it serves. >> >>> >>> > I am not scares about Govs too, since they haven't moved a finger yet >>> > against bitcoin, even though they can. >>> >>> And if they do this network blocking of BTC and USPS, which will going >>> to still be transact... only those on the overlays... which means BTC win >>> USPS die, because USPS not allow user to use privacy overlay. >>> >>> > The public protocol do not need to be encrypted neither in Bitcoin not in >>> > USPS. USPS is running encrypted today though. The fact that Tx or >>> > consensus >>> > protocol goes in clear doesn't affect the pseudaanonymity nor the privacy. >>> >>> ??? Move to Thailand / China / wherever / everywhere that spies your >>> network wire, builds nice big databases of everything you do on it, use >>> Bitcoin to pay a cleartext tx from your photo ID IPv4 node physical address >>> and Bitcoin address, to cleartext to some online market known Bitcoin >>> address for some weed, or tx/rx a hello Tiananmen 1989 65 in blockchain >>> message data field. Your ass is going to jail, be in database, for long >>> time. >>> >>> In general, all coins should be encrypted and network overlay-able.
Re: (No Subject)
Agree, full privacy (including anonymity) is (should be) a foundational Right. Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:31 PM, Bill Roffmann wrote: > The consequences of invention are that some totalitarian will not like it. > They don't want change. > > The side effect of posting is that one might get doxxed. > > I think that's why people need cryptography. Because otherwise our privacy > would be violated, and we would become easy victims for totalitarians.
Re: diff gurus? - howto alternate src/dst lines (do not aggregate) for pairwise line review of text document files?
Yoy can try the program 'meld' https://meldmerge.org/ Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:30 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Any diff (or git diff) gurus around? > > I often review one text document file against an updated file, and wish to > view each pair of lines for differences, so are there some combo of options > to diff or git diff, to show the diffs in a repeated pair-wise fashion - > i.e., just a single old line, followed by its modified new line, then repeat > (and never group old lines, or new lines)? > > Default diff and git diff behaviour is to aggregate as many 'old' lines as > have been changed in localised group of lines (the "-" minus lines), followed > by an aggregate of the correspondingly changed 'new' lines in a group (the > "+" plus lines). > > When groups of lines are aggregated like this, it is hard to do a pairwise > review of each of pair of lines (old line, immediately followed by new line). > > Sometimes this would even be beneficial when reviewing code, but mostly for > reviewing text documents. > > TIA,
Re: Cryptocurrency: USPS
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, May 11, 2020 9:56 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > I am not afraid of IP4, the resource is already scarce and their cost > > provides a good measure against attackers that are not The Man. > > They have almost zero cost. Any retard can botnet hundred thousand > of computers IP and proxy them ports all back to farm of pi's / emulators. > Any govt can use all its thousands of worldwide residents > embassy and military staffs to get worldwide IP's pools without even > any sneaky attacks like abusing secret FVEY++ peers to give them > IP proxy of unused addresses from networks too. > > But no, USPS cannot give user ability to overlay network exit for > help ensure their privacy, because only IPv4 is "safe" for USPS. > > Bitcoin have many many privacy overlay users, even full mining nodes on > overlay for their privacy, do you see it be not "safe" for Bitcoin network, > any real incident of that, from even day one to now. This project is about solving the system: A) without PoW, which consumes too much energy and induce to centralization (network shrink) and territorial segregation forces B) without PoS, or any other Po* I've considered during my design (e.g. biased cryptoeconomy, e.g. PoS allows mining to those who have more wealth) I encourage you to find another available scarce resource that meets the criteria of being unbiased and I'll consider it to be used instead of taking advantage of the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. Additionally, all criticism towards USPS related to anonymity goes to a proper overlay layer compatible with such rule. Tor is not valid because is unable to apply the limiting rule. I'll either propose a patch to Tor or develop an anonymity layer in the future, near or far, depending on the priorities of every stage of the project. Hope it serves. > > > I am not scares about Govs too, since they haven't moved a finger yet > > against bitcoin, even though they can. > > And if they do this network blocking of BTC and USPS, which will going > to still be transact... only those on the overlays... which means BTC win > USPS die, because USPS not allow user to use privacy overlay. > > > The public protocol do not need to be encrypted neither in Bitcoin not in > > USPS. USPS is running encrypted today though. The fact that Tx or consensus > > protocol goes in clear doesn't affect the pseudaanonymity nor the privacy. > > ??? Move to Thailand / China / wherever / everywhere that spies your > network wire, builds nice big databases of everything you do on it, use > Bitcoin to pay a cleartext tx from your photo ID IPv4 node physical address > and Bitcoin address, to cleartext to some online market known Bitcoin > address for some weed, or tx/rx a hello Tiananmen 1989 65 in blockchain > message data field. Your ass is going to jail, be in database, for long time. > > In general, all coins should be encrypted and network overlay-able.
Re: Cryptocurrency: USPS
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, May 11, 2020 4:40 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > arkitech: > > The fact that you know the IP of the > > nodes does not reveal anything else about the node behind > > Is the network traffic any way identifiable as being USPS traffic, > some nice patterns and deep inspection signs, port number, > the list of all other nodes it is connecting to... > in some countries running that node is enough to > get users jailed or killed, internet connection shut off, > questions asked, etc. > First I have too state that I have not implemented anything related to the anonymization layer that is under the responsibility to the Tor project (or others) or the potential new one I could implement in the future to complete the project (The anonymization layer). Today's implementation of USPS is the cryptoplatform providing pseudoanonymity. The layer of anonymity that can be implemented with the same nodes that run the cryptocurrency can be used as anonymization layer. In this network the traffic as is today could be wrapped into a pattern of traffic that hides the real pattern. All these concerns belong to the onion layer and will be tackled at the right time in the USPS project. > > not who is the > > source of information on any transaction, not the recipient, not the > > message. > > The only think that reveal that there is a node behind exchanging encrypted > > traffic with other nodes. > > Which node decrypts that info packets? > Does that node know what IP that came from? > > When user A clicks mouse send money to B, can NSA > or ISP or Sybil nodes trace that impulse back through > the network? > What other application and chaff traffic is going through > the net to hide it? > > Are the transaction addresses and amounts encrypted? > No timestamps too. > > Can big numbers of Sybil nodes opensource hack the > system to defeat such things, to trace coin network back. > > Remember, IPv4 and rooms full of Pi's are totally free resource > for govt, corp and soldier groups. And govts definitely do not > like monetary freedom, unless the freedom gets to the > politician pocket first. I am not afraid of IP4, the resource is already scarce and their cost provides a good measure against attackers that are not The Man. I am not scares about Govs too, since they haven't moved a finger yet against bitcoin, even though they can. By the time USPS reach the volume of Bitcoin it would have much many more nodes spreaded across all the IPv4 pools, which means that the algorithm can be improved to pick only votes from a unbiased distribution of IP4 across pools. If a powerful Gov decides to use a big pool of IP4 to attack the network, and the IP4 pools are spread across the worls, the voters will be evenly distributed across the world, it will be very hard for a single Gov to shut it down. It would have to collude with other Big govs, increasing the difficulty for them. They would need to collude up to the point to make 51% of the surface of the Earth to agree on that. That's not gonna happen. > > But users are not permitted to use i2p, onion, etc to help defend? > > Even non privacy coin Bitcoin-BTC can use overlay networks. > > Even BTC protocol over wire is still not encrypted with modern crypto, lol. The public protocol do not need to be encrypted neither in Bitcoin not in USPS. USPS is running encrypted today though. The fact that Tx or consensus protocol goes in clear doesn't affect the pseudaanonymity nor the privacy. cheers
Re: Cryptocurrency: DEX - Distributed Exchanges
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, May 11, 2020 3:41 AM, grarpamp wrote: > On 5/10/20, other.arkitech other.arkit...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > I am working on prototyping a DEX (both D-Ex and De-X), I agree on the > > criteria mentioned in this post, thx. > > The crypto world will have some questions, if, like USPS, > those cannot be used over anonymous overlay networks. This is wrong assumption about UPSP. The fact that you know the IP of the nodes does not reveal anything else about the node behind, not who is the source of information on any transaction, not the recipient, not the message. The only think that reveal that there is a node behind exchanging encrypted traffic with other nodes. That's pretty good privacy. > Coins and DEX that are not privacy and anonymous including > location, just like cash and metals are, are now facing outspoken > adoption problems in the crypto community due to that. They are > recognizing those problems as loss of necessary and useful feature > set of cash and metals. > > Perhaps some of the first currencies they would trade > away in DEX would be some that have elements of premined > and or ongoing founder tax. Many have distaste for > such startup getrich exit, when reset and mine are more > fair and just as profitably exitable to "investors" who start > fairly mining a quality coin project at that instant of public > reset over the decade of emission curve. They maybe trade > away non privacy ones too. And closed source ones. > > Still early days to see. Have fun.
Re: Cryptocurrency: DEX - Distributed Exchanges
I am working on prototyping a DEX (both D-Ex and De-X), I agree on the criteria mentioned in this post, thx. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, May 11, 2020 12:30 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/DEXes > > DEX is distributed exchange, think D-Ex. > Decentralized exchange is not, think De-X. > > Visualize, but consider also a DEX execution net more a > distributed-state-of-swap-tx-db or messaging-like to which trades > all plug and tx into, not necessarily a p2p routing network per se... > https://static1.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2018/2/1/389729-15174980652034152.png > > Most so called "DEX" today are spamvertised corporate startup lies, > worthless garbage infested with some things that make them > not a true DEX... > a) Centralized or "De-X" not truly distributed in some p2p or chain net sense. > b) Works only with one particular token family or blockchain network. > c) Have arbitration, escrow, insurance, brokerage, custody, entry fee'd, > governed, staked, taxed, trades fiat, keeps a record, has support desk, etc. > > Binance style central exchanges running on onions are not DEX. > OpenBazaar markets are not DEX. > XMR, ZEC, JoinMarket, CashShuffle, CashFusion are not DEX. > McAfee DEX (OEM'd @switchdex switch.ag) is not really a true DEX. > ERC20, SLP, etc families only... must be made cross-chain DEX compatible. > > BlockDX is more like a true distributed atomic cross-chain DEX. > Others coming soon. > > A true DEX will be a cross-chain fully distributed non-custodial > uncensorable exchange protocol, its own atomic execution network, > blockchain-ish, messaging or transaction advertisement > meta layer API running over some privacy overlay network in free space. > Generally requires each participant coin to have set of atomic exchange > and cryptographic API functions into the DEX such that any market pair > among the coins can be composed and executed free of counterparty risk. > ccDEX - emphasizing cross-chain to eliminate all the > ETH and other token only DEXs from consideration. > Atomic - emphasizing committal of nominal values in key > form to the exchange protocol net for proofed agreement, > execute or return. Both sides either have the privkeys > and safely swap over the protocol in time, or they don't. > Some DEX use intermediate mechanisms. > > Some early DEX protocol research and operational nets > are out there, for which further searches will return even > newer more advanced work... > > bitshares etherdelta bisq 0x nvo-safenetwork > blockdx.co/blocknet.co avalanche tao method language > > Standardized DEX protocol API's will emerge and be adopted. > > If you can sue it, shoot it, shut it down, get censored, premined, > gov / founder taxed, kyc'd, deanon'd, lose money to the protocol or humans, > not be opensource, not be privacy, waste disk space, vote governance > stake force over free networks etc... then 10+ years past Genesis, > considering today's available and forthcoming crypto tech, > it's not a DEX, and it's not a cryptocurrency... it's just central fiat.
USPS - Cryptoplatform. Information.
FYI I have renewed the landing page including more information about the USPS cryptoplatform I've designed. http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ If you find it more convenient I have attached a pdf document with its content. You are always welcome. Enjoy. Thanks -- Other Arkitech Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. usps.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document
Re: USPS - Cryptoplatform
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, May 7, 2020 1:24 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:39:47PM +0000, other.arkitech wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > Just touching base with the cypherpunk lists. > > Indeed I am quite frustrated with the list, but who cares, > > Well, various questions have been asked of you, and pathways for conversation > suggested, by a few folks on the list, and only a few of these you have > pursued. > > That is OK of course, it is your choice in which way you engage in > communication with anyone. > Thanks for recalling. I am not aware of what I missed to answer or pursue. AFAIK I answered to many questions, if I missed any was not intentinal. Other thing is whether or not it goes somewhere. > But when serious questions, suggestions and the like are put to you, and it > looks like you don't answer, or don't attempt to answer deeply, then normal > humans make natural assumptions e.g. "he is evasive" or "he is superficial". I've never been evasive, why would I have transmitted that? And one can never be deep enough in regular talk. It is psychology I guess, you shoot me a deep question and I correspond with a deep answer. Similarly for a superficial question I guess. > > > I think this project deserves interest (like many other out there this is > > true), but at least I'd like to say I am alive and still evolving the > > project. > > Last time I surfaced I was anpha-11, now I am compiling alpha-22; it's a > > long way to the top if you wanna rock'n roll. > > I've post this in reddit, calling for alpha testers. > > https://www.reddit.com/r/US_Public_System/comments/gev3g7/looking_for_alpha_testers/ > > If you know about crypto and have explorer soul and you're so kind, please > > help me constructively to make this tech mainstream. It could pay off. > > This is your "value proposition", which sounds (at least superficially) like > an attempt to appeal to greed. There are more possible interpretations. My main motivation is to make the greener, more efficient, fairer or less-biased and the most distributed crypto platform in the market, that can be used mainstream for managing the world wide society in a flat way, progressively approaching to a substitution of old governments based on hierarchical accumulation of power. > > > On other matters, how are you doing?, anyway, Thanks for your feedback, no > > matter negative or positive. > > Best wishes and regards, > > -- > > Other Arkitech > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > One suggestion you seem to have not properly tackled is your deep > foundational motivations - so far, the best some of us could gather is "move > government taxation to the blockchain" along with some vague notion that > "there's a slightly better way to do taxation, and my project will facilitate > that". I explained taxation. Which I understand as voluntary pay for service. Then I see that's a blocker idea and a mistake I made speaking first about it, because has been completely misunderstood. This project is not meant to be used as a tool for govs. It is a mean to substitute govs. > > That's a bit flimsy though. > > And it may have nothing to do with what you're about - but that would be > whose job to clarify? my job I guess. So I suggest to forget about taxation because it is taken in the wrong direction. It was my fault to have started describing a 'paying pattern' with the same word just because the money would be used to fund shared interests. > > Good luck, Thanks
USPS - Cryptoplatform
Hi everyone, Just touching base with the cypherpunk lists. Indeed I am quite frustrated with the list, but who cares, I think this project deserves interest (like many other out there this is true), but at least I'd like to say I am alive and still evolving the project. Last time I surfaced I was anpha-11, now I am compiling alpha-22; it's a long way to the top if you wanna rock'n roll. I've post this in reddit, calling for alpha testers. https://www.reddit.com/r/US_Public_System/comments/gev3g7/looking_for_alpha_testers/ If you know about crypto and have explorer soul and you're so kind, please help me constructively to make this tech mainstream. It could pay off. On other matters, how are you doing?, anyway, Thanks for your feedback, no matter negative or positive. Best wishes and regards, -- Other Arkitech Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
Re: Geokeys for private key recovery
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, March 5, 2020 10:57 PM, Philipp Angele wrote: > I created this alternative for seed phrases that allow you to memorize, > verbally transfer and recover a private ECDSA key for Bitcoin and Ethereum. Even though it would be hard to guess a secret key, this technique reduces the security provided by a secret key made of pure random bits. true? > Please try the POC and share your thoughts: > https://github.com/oscar-davids/geokeytool > > Geokeys for Bitcoin and Ether and other killer apps like pgp, ssh > > Introduction > > Today it is hard for anyone to recover a private key from memory. Brainkey > implementations usually require the user to memorize a set of words. Most > implementations want the user to remember a set of 12-24 words. While it is > possible to memorize those seed phrases it is also very likely to forget them > and highly unlikely that a user can quickly transfer them to another user > without revealing the secret to unwanted listeners. Other key recovery > methods have dependencies on either a trusted party or a decentralized > application. Those leave the user at risk of losing access to their keys by > either the trusted party removing your access or a bug in a dApp can lock > your access as well. > > In this paper, we propose a private key recovery system that allows people to > remember/recover it without any accessories or aids. The system needs just a > location and a password to recover a key. We prove that neither the key nor > the encryption are weakened by this system. The simplicity of the > implementation allows us to get rid of: > > - > > a middleman > > - > > a smart contract > > - > > a centralized recovery system > > - > > an online connection > > As we will see further below, this empowers users to: > > - > > create and memorize a key with very low chances of forgetting it > > - > > quickly transfer a key verbally to another person > > - > > recover their key at a low cost > > all without revealing the entropy in clear text. > > Abstract > > This paper proposes a key recovery method that uses a known and a partially > known secret that forces the recovery to use a brute force mechanism to get > to the full secret of the partial secret and that validates the results with > the existence of the key on a blockchain, ledger, database... . > > A ECDSA or other cryptographic key pair might be built using one or many > known secrets and one or many partially known secrets. Once this key has > interacted with a blockchain, ledger... it is possible to recover it by > creating all possible keys with the known and the partial known secret(s) by > guessing the missing part(s) of the partial secret(s). To identify which was > the original key to recover all created keys need to be looked up on a > blockchain or ledger as only the one which has interacted with it will be > traceable there. > > Working principle > > A user generating a private key picks a precise location from a map and a > password. > > A key generator uses the password and the location's geo coordinates as salt > and digests everything with a high computational cost (in our PoC BCrypt) to > create a ECDSA key-pair. The precision of the geo location needs to be known > down to a meter level but the key generator will add a random and unknown > decimal degree up to 1 millimeter depending on the targeted security of the > key. > > As we will see, we generate entropy by having every square centimeter on > Earth in combination with an infinite number of possible passwords. > > To recover the key the user will have to brute force all coordinates around > the location on a scale of square meters with the known password. The > location is quite vague since the user never knew which centimeter he chose > from the map when he generated the key but only roughly the position. He will > have to try through all possible square centimeter around the location he > set. This will take a bit of time to recover the key but the chance for the > user who knows the location and the password is high. For state of the art > technology this will be on the scale of 1 computational day or 1$. For an > attacker, the chance to guess both location and password is negligible. Even > for a known password and an approximate guess of the location (i.e. to know > which city) does not significantly speed up the brute force process. > > Since every generated key is valid, both the attacker and the user have to > check all created keys to have a balance on the blockchain in order to > identify the one they wanted to recover. > > Conjecture > > Emotions are the best incorporeal storage in meatspace. > > The emotional connection to locations make them an easy thing to remember. > One can transfer the key easily to someone without revealing the information > in clear text and thus without reducing the entropy. An example: "The place > where we kissed the first
Re: Blockchain: RFC
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 6, 2020 11:34 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:55:20PM +0000, other.arkitech wrote: > > > Dear friends, > > Request For Criticism about what I've written: > > Current blockchains are all genesis-block based, which means they are > > ever-growing structures. Aside of being under the effects of an elastic-gum > > force that complicates their scalability in size, there exist problems > > scaling on addresses or scaling on bandwith. What touches to cryptography > > comes straight when dealing of ever-growing structures. Such a buried pile > > of layers of information requires consideration because it contains > > cryptography of past times. There are two problems with that. 1.- can > > expire secrets. 2.- The runtime software must be equiped with all > > cypher-suites used in the past, including those too old to rely on who were > > already cracked, broken. > > A challenge is the to design a platform that does not depend on > > cypher-suites that were needed in the past. Once a new encryption > > technology deprecates another, the platform must be able to replace the > > cypher-suite and forget about the previous one. > > After the Git (ongoing) fiasco around the SHA hash transition, for > anyone who missed the memo a base requirement to any sane solution > is a protocol version number at the very beginning of your comms. > > If that version number increases, future versions can decide what to > do, regardless of $TODAYS assumptions being right or wrong. > > But (as with Git), when even a version # does not exist, you have the > mess of deep protocol diving to determine some arcane corner case > which implies the old vs some new, version, or perhaps a massive > global flag day to simply drop the old (i.e. current) protocol > altogether. > > In other words, don't build in such pain - begin all communications > with a version number. > A minimal solution is to mechanize protocol versioning is to have only 2 version implementations of the protocol, same concept of double-buffer applied to algorithms instead of data. Having only to maintain the 'current version' and the 'previous version'. This scheme only works in systems that are automatically updated because nodes that require human intervention will easily lose sync with the network. > You are not smart enough to know all > the future proto/crypto/etc-o changes that might be required, should > your software - or even just your protocol - prove to become popular > one day. I don't know the future of crypto all I bet is they will provide hasing, signing, verifying and encryption capabilities using public key infrastructure. With this abstraction, and a systematic way of evolving the version of the protocol that can discard previously-used cyber-suites is what a platform needs from cryptography to enforce privacy.
Blockchain: RFC
Dear friends, Request For Criticism about what I've written: Current blockchains are all genesis-block based, which means they are ever-growing structures. Aside of being under the effects of an elastic-gum force that complicates their scalability in size, there exist problems scaling on addresses or scaling on bandwith. What touches to cryptography comes straight when dealing of ever-growing structures. Such a buried pile of layers of information requires consideration because it contains cryptography of past times. There are two problems with that. 1.- can expire secrets. 2.- The runtime software must be equiped with all cypher-suites used in the past, including those too old to rely on who were already cracked, broken. A challenge is the to design a platform that does not depend on cypher-suites that were needed in the past. Once a new encryption technology deprecates another, the platform must be able to replace the cypher-suite and forget about the previous one. Thanks, Regards : ) -- OA
Re: A+ Certification
What is A+ cert? congrats ; ) ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 11:47 AM, rooty wrote: > Big shout out to cyberpunks list as I received hundreds if not thousands of > emails and support of encouragement. What a great bunch of punks > > Regards rooty > > Original Message > On Jan 22, 2020, 12:32 PM, rooty < arpsp...@protonmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey just wanted to share with friends that I got my A+ certification >> yesterday. Next up N+ thanks for all the help and support. >> >> Rooty
Re: Cryptocurrencies: alpha-11 US-Public System released
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:22 PM, grarpamp wrote: > On 1/31/20, other.arkitech other.arkit...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > coining the abbreviation USPS > > It seems like a coin, coins have tickers. > It's not much of a good one, sounds too much like > Postal Services, United Parcel, too much USA. > > > Important: SSH only applies to nodes I control because owners voluntarily > > allowed for development. > > > No one else but you enter the box. > > If past is right, it was enabled by default in the image and could login > to all the users machines, and required all users to register their > IP to you before they could run their nodes. > > > There is a reason for using IP4, see below. I have a ssh access to many of the existing nodes, as people who run them, (some I know, some I don't know who is behind), understands I need it for development purposes. This is ok for alpha status and is also low risk while the value is low. > > It's invalidated by both easy and inexpensive attack models. > Especially before masses supercede over Sybil. > So there is not point to this IPv4, early, or later. > Unless there is some whitepaper to show different. > The whitepaper is in the kitchen, but is a slow cook. Remember that this system is in late-development stage. It won't be officially released until the current alpha-11 evolve to 1.0 > > Users have a linux box with root access protecting their wallet. > > No, users have a closed source USPS box that they have > no idea what it is doing with their funds and their interaction > with it. There is zero protection there. Users would be insane > to put funds on closed source remotely accessible box that > some license and mandatory autoupdates further shove > centralized counterparty control risk down users throats. > > > Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories. > > Ask your local FinTech dayjob how scary that is no, no, no. I bet they all have their operating system automatic updates turned on as they ought to do to keep their systems updated. > > > You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, > > TV, Windows. > > All of those closed devices are untrustable surveillance, attack, > and propaganda boxes that should be hit with a hammer. > USPS this node will be trustable and secure on 1.0 because the dev-tools that are present during alpha will be gone, an the software will be released open-source. > > It is not an irrelevant parallelism. USPS box is debian Linux where you can > > login as root. Most routers that run proprietary software inside don't let > > you in as root, but you still run it. > > An opensource BSD/linux router that users can hack > on is an irrelavant nonexample. > > Root access to USPS doesn't matter much when USPS users cannot > hack on and run USPS however they want due to closedsource and > license. That's a relavant distributed fintech security issue, > > > it is a system that cares about your private data. > > not only financial data, everithing fits, medical records, pics, ... > > Security is maxed in this project. > > Needs a whitepaper to evaluate this. This is a project aimed to maximize privacy, the whitepaper will tell the details. > > > The consensus algorithms do not exchange private data. > > redundancy of information makes its potential utility unneccesary, > > man-in-the-middle modifying traffic does not impact in the consensus. > > TLS comes important only in private P2P trades. > > Was a basic analyse the failure modes and breadth of possible attack even > done. > At minimum, every users transaction is spyable... srcIP, dstIP, content, > as it is broadcast across the network. > "Private P2P trades" are probably not private because they > too need to ripple information across the spy network to > register in consensus crunching pools, etc. > All the miners mempools or whatever you call them > will know exactly what IP hops the tx came from. > Using encrypted communication is impossible (provably impossible) to determine the originating node of a transaction. Using clear communication, is a not easy problem to deduce the originating address of a transaction. A transaction contains input and output addresses, which are already anonymized. So it offers pretty good privacy. The most you can know is that a particular IP address operates a node, difficult to breach privacy. Only "The Man" and your Internet Company could transform IP4 into your personna. > > TLS does little for security, > > That's why BTC does not need encryption. > > Also USPS doesn't need it > > Haha, that was the b
Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: Cryptocurrencies: alpha-11 US-Public System released
[OBORONA-SPAM] ? this should be a false positive answer inline.. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, February 2, 2020 12:20 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 10:24:33AM +0000, other.arkitech wrote: > > > > > I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA. > > > > > > NDA? LMAO! Frankly, at this point I should tell you to get lost. > > > > said who? > > There might be something lost in language barrier - or not, not sure > here. > > There are perhaps not many "hard core floss devs" willing to sign an > NDA with you. > > The question folks will want answered is "why should I sign an NDA, > just to look at code or to write some modules?" > > But again, perhaps we are missing something between the language > barriers... > > Knowing the following getting repetitive, I strongly suggest > beginning discussions on the real fundamentals - some are simply not > grasping that your "virtual/ collective/ public ledger taxation" > model is something we want to get on board with. > > It might be - but such a "might be" must live in the minds of those > you want to convince to join you, see? > > Such conversations might best be started with questions. > > Here's one such hypothetical beginning: > > Do we consider roads to be "public infrastructure"? > > In what ways can we pay for roads? > > Do we want more roads? > > What criteria should we use for deciding amongst the different ways > to pay for new roads? > > Good luck, Thanks for changing route Zen, As Punk-Stasi points out the Public System definition is vague at this point. what this USPS proposes is a bottom-up approach to a Public System, starting from the fundamentals. The proposal is to replace current Governments with a low-cost distributed machine that would collect inputs and produce outputs in infinite loop. A system that would have a real view of the 'common interest' because it would not apply filters in people's input. The system would be able to let people decide whether if a 'road' is convenient or not, and how to fund it. Everything is better compared to our current model of participation in the society based on ticking a box every 4 or 5 years.
Re: Cryptocurrencies: alpha-11 US-Public System released
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 1, 2020 10:27 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 06:44:27PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 13:24:02 + > > "other.arkitech" other.arkit...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > > > Software updates are pulled like your OS pulls updates from repositories. > > > You can find a number of devices at your home fitting this model: Router, > > > TV, Windows. > > > > people tolerate that 'model' because they are idiots. Especially idiots who > > buy a retard-TV and run windows. But the 'model' is also pushed on them, so > > they are not completely to blame. Conclusion : the two reasons the 'model' > > is used are stupidity and criminal intent. > > Ok. > > > Also, notice how piece of shit 'developers' can't write decent code so they > > keep updating their garbage to fix the endless stream of bugs they create. > > Useless assholes. And in the process, they end up having complete control > > over, and owning hardware that other idiots, known as 'users', paid for. > > Developing bug free software, is not so easy (and this is of course > no reason to push proprietary software or advocate for broken update > models). > > Analogy: > > Privacy is a sort of solved problem - PGP, TLS, SSL, NACL/ crypto > box. > > Anonymity of any sort on the other hand, is so far from solved it's > not funny, and the current $$$ regime is demanding greater and > greater submission to giving up of private data makes the target > look "sustainable manned base on Mars" levels of difficult. > > This reminds me of some years back, a vehement "defender of > developers" who literarily bashed "those useless furkin USERS!" to an > extreme - until someone gently asked which $EDITOR he used, and did > he not consider himself a -user- of that editor? > > So, bug free software? > > Have at it bro! And you will be showered with accolades in the order > of "shirt, if DJB ain't some kind o' genius, we'll just forgive his > social acerbic-ness and let him code and create in his ivory tower!" > > Of course, when looked at objectively, most of us are indeed idiots. > > Except of course "I, In My Extremely High Opinion". > > If you ain't got bug free software to push, > your "developers are useless bug creating arseholes" cry won't > land all too well with many folks. > > > > I do share the code with devs for specific patches under NDA. > > > > NDA? LMAO! Frankly, at this point I should tell you to get lost. > > The proprietary software horse has left the barn - and that's a good > thing - the consequence being that any thoughtful software developer > will not put his energy into proprietary - aka "someone else's" - > enterprise/ software/ company. > > FLOSS works for "lowly developers" because it is a fundamentally > fairer model than proprietary software. "If I spend years of my life > learning to code improvements/modules to particular software > platform, it might as bloody well be something I can continue to do > if I leave my present corporation" etc. I am between two lands. On one side I joined the Free Software movement mid90's, since then, all I have done require using/producing GPL software. I Fought Micro$oft evil empire of proprietary software and all I want is this model to die. On the other side, this particular project is a seed for something bigger that requires funding. While looking my way through investors I must not disclose the sources because having a 'secret' in my pocket sort of helps in accessing funds. Only when I am at good financial position that allows me continue with the project I'll make 1.- User base; 2.- dev community on GPL/AGPL os any other FOSS. You see. It is not about a war between proprietary/free sw. It is how to getting mainstream. My strategy is: 1st stage: privative - seed the project 2nd stage: Free - grow the fish I apologize to me and to you free software advocates all of us for using a privative model as a continuity solution for the project. I understand your complaints. Cheers OA
Re: Cryptocurrencies: alpha-11 US-Public System released
>> closed sources running in a dedicated environment = no risk regarding >> security. >> For those concerned about running a node behind a firewall there is always >> the option to isolate it >> remote login ... ssh port 16671 >DMZ or not, the box is internet connected, and nobody >knows what it's doing or can do. Even if not connected, >you could be trojaning their flash / firmware / microcode. Yes I potentially could, and I assume you think I am evil. but still the unique point for raising concerns is the network activity, since who cares what is going on in the raspberry pi apart from how much electricity is taking or how much heat is dissipating. Think what do you know about the software running in your router, likely proprietary software, same thing. Regarding network activity all you'd see is around 15 connections to other nodes exchanging around 10kbps of encrypted packets. Particulrly you are able to verify the node is niether scanning the LAN not attempting to connect to any local computer. You can even run it in different vlan to prevent it. So, even when I am firmly an open-source advocate and the whole source code of the system will be released, this won't happen before I have enough user-base to justify the creation of a dev-community. >It's not your box, undisclaimed this would be unethical >positioning, especially for money environments, doubly >when it's not your money either. >If you need logins, run your own nodes, >and ask for $ if you need for buying them. >Sure people can be asked to accept the risks. >But missing the risks is not making crypto optics. >> But this is like disconnecting your OS from automatic updates. >If this is the reason, make sure people know >it's important for development that they pull >down their own updates. Besides, the ongoing >network will have so many old and hacked up attack >versions that now is good time to experience and >deal with that in protocol. Else the network will fall >apart on day one. Updates are pulled by an script on the node that retrieves signed binaries from other nodes. I do not need, as the one who is compiling the binaries, to have access to nodes. If I do during alpha development is only for development purposes and any possibility of anyone accessing your node including me is controlled exclusively by the node-owner. >> It is fully AGPL only of the software is executed on a licenced mainnet >> The restriction is that if you want to run a private system ot generate >> another public genesis you have to be licenced. >A rather anti-fork iron-fist approach :) Indeed, although I support nodes working for different forks, I don't want to lose the mainnet (I call it channel 0) In fact I have running two forks. There are nodes working in both channel 0 and channel 4348 which is a licensed private network, different blockchains. I'd like to see a big number of forks with different ledger structures running different local economies. All nodes securing other blockchain also secure channel 0 blockchain, this is the main licence restriction, it is not about paying money for acquiring licences, to make a big public system. >Real crypto money is by nature anti-statist, and must be >generally anon to survive long term, else just admit fiat >and go use that. And who are you that is going to >stand and sue the planet, with what money (tax?). >And how are you going to sue when users take it on darknet >and screw your license anyway. What about how top-secret >actors and govcorp lawmakers won't care about abusing even >the HESSLA license to abuse users, or try to shut it down. >What about clean reversing and cloning the protocols. >Are you hoping to sell product to govcorp, that will be funny. >A real cryptocurrency should stand on its own >such that forks are not tempting or relavant. I am not enforcing licences. Think microsoft, they dont pursue home piracy, they just make sure big corps are paying for their software. >>Users don't want to sign up (aka: leak info) to >>some central to run their money either. This is anonymous system as far as underlying tech allows (IP4 transport). > And they won't want to be seen hooked to clearnet IP > broadcasting their transactions and traffic patterns into > trivially network analyzed clearnet. They will want TLS and > compatibility with onion / i2p / cjdns / socks5 and whatever > else happens to give at least some cases better than clearnet. Information travels encrypted end2end, aka node2node >> Sybil / IPv4 >Sybil attacks are mostly a human problem with mostly a >human solution, some web of trust. People have no idea how >easy it is for agents to spin up IP nodes worldwide, IPv4 is not >an obstacle for them. >Even Tor can nuke 100 fakeass nodes a month. Roll human >solutions into the node culture, and or pump adoption numbers >so high that Sybil becomes negligible irrelavant ratio, then >Sybil gives up and goes home, to run its own legit node >so it doesn't
Cryptocurrencies: alpha-11 US-Public System released
I've released version alpha-11 of US-PUBLIC SYSTEM network. Feedback, testers, welcome http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ Thank you. -- Other Arkitech
Theft
It makes a lot of sense to me that tax equals theft. However, my thoughts about tax goes on like when you buy a cup of coffee. It is a self-choice to decide to commit to enter a shop and order one. Once you committed the order on the counter you've entered into voluntary debt. Now you'll run into problems if you decide to run away without pay. Parallelism with public affairs are: replacing "cup of coffee" with roads, education, health or whatever is considered public services. Opting-in into Gov is like ordering the coffee, although Gov don't allow you to opt-out. Tax is theft since the moment they don't allow you to voluntarily opt in or out. If you opt-in the Tax is no longer tax but paying as a consumer. Problem is how do you opt-out without using public resources. The libertarian approach is good. You use public resources and you voluntarily pay whatever you consider, including not paying at all.. 2 extremes: 1.- Nobody pays Public services deprecate, vanish and nobody cares about. Soon people would start donating bits to increase the quality. 2. Everybody contributes to the pot Public services will adjust to the size of the pot. Individually you would 'vote' to make it better or worst by donating more or less to the pot. Reach an equilibrium which is self-adjusting continuously. In my Public System project I called it Tax, but my 'Tax' must not be confused with the notion of theft. It is more like 1.-commit, 2.-pay. Still finding out the right algorithm, all ideas are welcome. Thanks4reading Other Arkitech Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
Re: looking for a word
> steal > pirate > leak > plagiarise > breach > mirror > clone > replicate > image > intercept > disseminate > breach > transgress > microfilm > xerox > exfiltrate > decrypt > expose > disclose > compromise > extract > copy > pinch > crib > abstract > would 'to pry' work?
Re: On Linux's /dev/random, /dev/urandom, getrandom()
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, December 20, 2019 9:07 PM, coderman wrote: > tldr; > > Just use /dev/urandom! I think urandom is secure as long as its output pass the Marsaglia die hard tests (provide a fair unbiased unpredictable stream of bits)
Re: us - public system
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:14 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > I am largely DC illiterate, so I shall only respond to 1 or 2 points. > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:53:09PM +, other.arkitech wrote: > > > > Let's take example public health: > > > Public implies a system applied to everybody. > > > Libertarians/ voluntarists/ anarchists, usually say nothing should be > > > compulsory, all should be voluntary. > > > So public health means "many people contributing to a money pool, so > > > those people who get sick and do not have money, can get medical > > > care". > > > OK, so compulsory taxation is a mechanism. > > > Voluntary donations is another mechanism. > > > When we have a "universal" system - e.g. every txn is taxed, and tax > > > goes into a pool, then we must think about how to allocate the money > > > from that pool - public medical care, national defence, etc, and who > > > gets to make those decisions - and these sound like really > > > fundamental questions which we should probably think about, before > > > jumping into a particular technical proposal. > > > > The top level main loop can be: (executed every consensus cycle (1 minute)) > > 1.- all accounts are seen by the consensus public algorithm, who is in > > charge of modifying balances upon cryptographical evidence (transactions). > > 2.- Fees are accumulating as tx are being settled. > > Even step 2 is beyond my ability to comprehend - sorry, I really am a > DC newbie. I don't understand "fees are accumulating". > > My limited understanding of BTC is that nodes are computers, which do > the BTC tx calculations, and they get a fee for doing these > calculations. My understanding might be wrong. when a transaction arrives to validating nodes (which know all balances of all accounts and have the capacity
Re: us - public system
> > > > Q: Why do you think crypto anarchists would be interested in 'automating' > > taxation (theft) and 'public budgets' > > (distribution of stolen goods) > > A: It forms part of a fight against centralized governments which are > > expensive and do not respect privacy and > > financial freedom. > > This is a good foundation intention. > > > Let's say there exist a real need to have roads, or public health or, more > > close to cryptoeconomy, a need to have > > financial services, any fundamental need that is potentially subject to > > mass consumption. > > OK. > > To help the discussion, please list some of the "financial services" > you are thinking of, because with more detail, we can get to the > heart of the things that are needed to discuss to think about your > system. > I think of concepts like loans or investment, like money transfers these are services a public platform should provide as these are basic financial services. In a way like if I want a loan for something I may push the request and given my credit history people acting as investors can have the choice of taking some calculated risk and contribute to fulfill such loan. If someone gets away with the money they kill their credit history and have to start it over again asking for small loans. > > This is run by what we call a public system, this is understood. > > Actually, need to be very cautious - may be some understand, may be > some don't. > > We should probably take smaller steps in the conversation, so people > like me can follow along - I get lost if too many assumptions are > assumed, sorry... so I have no option but to slow the conversation > down if I want to participate. > I am happy with it, I like slow cook as well. > I think the easy solution, is to take one "system" at a time, e.g. > roads, or "public health" etc, and discuss just that one system for a > little bit, and how DC and crypto tech might apply for that system. > > > I felt the need to try solve the problem using computers. > > The feeling and intention and actions to solve real problems, is an > honourable thing. On behalf of all humans, thank you for your > intentions and actions :) > > > I saw how a system not specifically crafted to that particular purpose > > doubles as low-cost public system. > > You might be right, but I am struggling to understand your concepts > at the moment - sorry. > I see a 'machine' able to remove gov-in-the-middle. My personal challenge is to design such a machine, hopefully in agreement with this honorable list > > It is all about improving or replacing the establishment with technological > > alternatives. > > This is a good idea in principle. > > One thing we should be careful about is thinking in the context of > current system, and thinking that just replacing it, but without > overhead of "democratic government" would be better - truth is that > probably would be better, and it might be a good transition strategy, > and we might even end up with something that looks like that. > A transition of where the truth is. From govs made of some humans who concentrate the power, to a distributed mostly automated gov where humans retain their power. > But, there might be similar or different pathways, and may be end > goals which look quite different. > > Let's take example public health: > > Public implies a system applied to everybody. > > Libertarians/ voluntarists/ anarchists, usually say nothing should be > compulsory, all should be voluntary. > > So public health means "many people contributing to a money pool, so > those people who get sick and do not have money, can get medical > care". > > OK, so compulsory taxation is a mechanism. > > Voluntary donations is another mechanism. > > When we have a "universal" system - e.g. every txn is taxed, and tax > goes into a pool, then we must think about how to allocate the money > from that pool - public medical care, national defence, etc, and who > gets to make those decisions - and these sound like really > fundamental questions which we should probably think about, before > jumping into a particular technical proposal. > The top level main loop can be: (executed every consensus cycle (1 minute)) 1.- all accounts are seen by the consensus public algorithm, who is in charge of modifying balances upon cryptographical evidence (transactions). 2.- Fees are accumulating as tx are being settled. 3.- Accumulated Fees are used to pay public services. They are fed into a structure of public budgets which are defined via [to be discussed further (dont want to mess the simplicity of this loop)] If not enough money is available to pay public services then the money is taken from the accounts (taxing). 4.- Remainder are distributed across nodes. 5.- go to 1. The big complexity comes in step 3, or how to distribute profits to pay public service, or the bourocratic pipeline (sorry for the horrific word). This is something to discuss, I have some ideas but my
Re: Questions about Other Crypto Discussion Forums
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 15, 2019 12:24 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > If you want genuine traffic mixing > > Sorry, does not exist. That was unfortunate and problematic wording. > > Do not trust Tor, if you need privacy against the USA gov and its > entities (MIC, NSA, CIA, etc). I might be missing something here, provided you dont leak information in your message, isn't it Tor secure even if many exit nodes belong to NSA?
Re: us - public system
Zenaan, you said: > Your communications on this list so far, seem to suggest that: > > - you have not spent sufficient time to understand the basic > "security" issues which all humans presently face when > interacting on the Internet > > - security, vs privacy, vs authentication, vs transparency > - why would people on this cypherpunks list want taxation? > > Most fundamentally, to be taken seriously with any supposed > "advance", you might need to present that you properly understand the > current shortcomings with current systems. > > It's all very well to have a public chat about something that > inspires you, but you have made certain proclamations (we can call > them "challenges" or "assertions"), and the lack of background might, > to some people, come across as though you are being a bit lazy, > wanting us to do all the work of educating you about all the above > things, and plenty more besides. > > If you want to be taken seriously, you need to spend some serious > time understanding current problems. > > We use certain phrases to highlight things which appear as > "flippant", such as the phrase "hand waving" - so e.g. when you > replied with the following phrase: > > "typical reaction to this is nah, you choose tax or anonymity, > not both. Well, that's it, it can be done" > > those words you chose to use, come across as flippant, or hand > waving (imagine the Queen waving her hand), or not serious. > > The words you used might make it seem "obvious" to some people that > you don't really understand what you are talking about. > > Words which demonstrate a little humility, might be good for you to > start using, if you want more relevant responses to the things you > say, e.g.: instead of "it can be done", you could have asked a > question, e.g.: > > Person ABC has claimed in the past that anonymous > taxation collection is not possible - see this link: > http://example.url/anonymous-taxation-is-not-possible.html > > Based on my current understanding, anonymous taxation collection > should be easy, just using an Ethereum algorithm which collects a > little 'gas' on each transaction - am I missing something, or is > it really this easy? > > Then people can hopefully start to see your thinking, and you might > get more relevant responses. > I'll extend my answer to anonymous taxation in more detail if that is what you claim. These hand waving words are in the question, (they wasnt said by me), I agree the response might seem lazy and lacking of signs of humility, but there is actually a response on this: - Q: Why do you think crypto anarchists would be interested in 'automating' taxation (theft) and 'public budgets' (distribution of stolen goods) A: It forms part of a fight against centralized governments which are expensive and do not respect privacy and financial freedom. Let's say there exist a real need to have roads, or public health or, more close to cryptoeconomy, a need to have financial services, any fundamental need that is potentially subject to mass consumption. This is run by what we call a public system, this is understood. I felt the need to try solve the problem using computers. I saw how a system not specifically crafted to that particular purpose doubles as low-cost public system. It is all about improving or replacing the establishment with technological alternatives. > Next, you should get an idea of what the intentions for this > cypherpunks list are - for example, a place to discuss anarchy or > anarchism, as well as (actual) libertarianism. > > So, in the context of this expectation, why do you say we should care > or be interested in a system which will collect tax? > Your question can be answered with the paragraph above which was located just below the one you commented. you've not understood my approach to libertarianism and to anarchy, which I am akin with. You're confused with my use of the word taxation, which for you it might sort of tabu, but for me is something that deserves to be discussed more in a way of how bad current Govs are collecting them paying common services, and how new approaches could work respecting privacy and anonymity. Anyway this is only one of the features that can improve the status quo of the society, which compared to the main one, the electronic cash system with renewed tech, which I also try to write about, is perhaps the most interesting one. I am not lazy, I work hard, I surface little. > Finally, you really should try to understand about anonymity on the > Internet (it's --really-- hard); and also about human motivations - > if you think people will start using your anonymous taxation system, It is not a taxation system, this is a misunderstanding.
Re: Cryptocurrency: Snowden on Privacy, CoinJoin Wasabi CashShuffle Samourai, War on Cash, Global WiFi Surveillance Systems
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, December 13, 2019 11:54 PM, grarpamp wrote: > Privacy, non-history UTXO state db's, much higher tx rates, > low fees, distributed, minimal features, no premine, founders, tax, > stakes, or governance... and cross chain DEX (CCDEX)... as > before, all likely to be among a list of elements needed for > a crypto"currency" to survive long term. I feel much identified with these requirements which fulfilled by usps, specially 'non-history UTXO state db's', DEX, tax, privacy and maximum distribution: http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion
us - public system
I post all answers to raised questions so far. I'd like to receive more feedback about my new crypto platform, it is helpful to me, as they help me to write english rather than C++ , : ) http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/misc/downloads/answers_to_questions.txt Thanks for the help All invited to evaluate it. Other Arkitech
US - PUBLIC SYSTEM
Hello, I have updated iso-images and added more information and screenshots. from the feedback of previous post. This is a new multi crypto currency platform I've developed from scratch for the past ~3 years, it is run on raspberry pi. I am looking for more testers and/or expert opinion. Happy to answer questions. Please have a look at: http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/ Thank you. Other Arkitech Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
