Re: What kind of security matters

[Steven Schear]

These key storage and recovery issues are a prime focus of SatochiLabs
Trezor series.
https://doc.satoshilabs.com/trezor-faq/overview.html

Warrant Canary creator

On Feb 16, 2017 6:35 PM, "James A. Donald"  wrote:

> On 2/17/2017 11:37 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:47:15AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>>> It is unlikely that Trump would manage his own public keys - and he
>>> cannot
>>> trust the white house staff and government security people to manage them
>>> for him.  It is even more unlikely that Podesta would manage his own
>>> public
>>> keys.
>>>
>>
>
> IPSEC was in principle the right approach in so far as "pre-emptive" or
>> opportunistic "link" encryption (i.e., your communication channel, by
>> default - as you say, zero clicks).
>>
>
> Ipsec is not very secure.  What I was thinking of is a global database
> linking phone numbers, email addresses, etc, to public keys with a witness
> mechanism to ensure that every client gets told the same story as to which
> public key is associated with which phone number.
>
> So if your client looks up its own public key by phone number, it sees a
> hash chain connecting that association to the global witness hash, and
> knows that client it is talking to sees the same public key.  Clients
> upload and download public keys at infrequent intervals without human
> intervention.
>
> This works fine with phones, since people assume one phone number per
> physical phone.  Phone forwarding systems are assumed to forward from one
> phone number/physical device to another phone number physical device. Not
> so fine with email addresses. Just have to give people the option
>
> 'Your emails are currently encrypted so that they can only be read on the
> following physical devices ...
>
> "Add current device to list for future emails?"
>
> "Edit list of devices that are empowered to decrypt your email?"
>
> Which interface is likely to confuse and irritate them.
>
> And if you lose or damage the physical device that currently holds all
> your old emails and you have not backed it up recently, thus losing all
> your old emails and the secret key that can decrypt them - that could be
> very handy if an investigation is coming up.
>

Re: Building a new Tor that can resist next-generation state surveillance

[Steven Schear]

If you must use tor its best to combine it with a good, multi-hop, VPN. I
prefer i2p (there's now a fully C++ version for those who don't trust Java)
and cjdns.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:45:50AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
> > https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/building-a-
> new-tor-that-withstands-next-generation-state-surveillance/
> >
> > Forgot to put the link above.
>
> Anyone here able to evaluate the merits of the proposed new architectures?
> Or do we have to wait for the proof after pudding is served?
>

Re: Waffling On Full Disclosure: Lawrence Lessig, Steven Levy

[Steven Schear]

I think there is good reason to believe Jefferson would have set all his
slaves free (his will only freed some related to Sally Hemings) if he had
not been such a spendthrift and died in massive debt.

Warrant Canary creator

On Oct 27, 2016 3:40 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:19:58 -0700
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
> > without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not
> > hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
> >
> > Thomas Jefferson
>
>
> Sure sure. But there's one thing he was pretty sure about. The
> brown subhumans had to remain in his plantations, and in the
> plantations of the rest of the the 'founding' fuckers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <http://mobile.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html>
> >
> > Warrant Canary creator
> >
> > On Oct 24, 2016 10:55 AM, "jim bell" <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/22/0417250/should-
> > > journalists-ignore-some-leaked-emails
> > > http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-
> > > ed-emails-between-tanden-and
> > > <http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-
> wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and?soc_src=mail_trk=ma>
> > > https://backchannel.com/when-is-it-ok-to-mine-hacked-
> emails-1f2081122915
> > >
> > > >Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which
> > > >showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign
> > > >staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest...
> > > >But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like
> > > >this..."
> > >
> > > Proving that Lessig is dumber, and even more solidly entrenched in
> > > THE ESTABLISHMENT, than we previously believed.  These people are
> > > crazy and biased.
> > >   Jim Bell
> > >
>
>

Re: Recent Numbers Station Activity COLLAPSE (GnuRadio SDR)

[Steven Schear]

If things escalate w/Russia & go "live" SKYKING may carry nuclear GO/NO GO
codes or target orders. Hopefully giving you & others that know about this
system a few extra hours or minutes for preparations. Also 16 new Russian
Buzzer number stations have come back online after being silent for decades
within the past week.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:14 PM, grarpamp  wrote:

> https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3oswdt/
> unusual_happenings_with_inactive_radio_stations/
>
> On SKYKING (8992 or 11175 kHz USB) a call sign called "COLLAPSE" which
> has not been heard since 2001 has just broadcasted 4 messages to
> numbered stations/units in the last few minutes.
>
> "FUXEBOX" and "Reykjavik," have also broadcast in the last few days
> and they haven't been heard since 1991 (collapse of the Soviet Union).
>
> "COLLAPSE" has sent 3 messages in the last few minutes.
>
> COLLAPSE message one: http://vocaroo.com/i/s1hGyA2GR6HI
>
> Collapse message Two: http://vocaroo.com/i/s1ETZ3l9fp0G
>
> Collapse message Three: http://vocaroo.com/i/s03ZI6ui70LY
>
> Message Four from "FLATTOP!" (ANOTHER STATION NOT HEARD IN YEARS!):
> http://vocaroo.com/i/s01smhgkyNDL
>
> We do not know what these codes mean, but it considered
>
> These are alerts to "All Stations" before the codes are sent. I did my
> best to record all these but missed recording "the alert phrase" where
> they said "All stations, all stations." This has all happened in the
> last half hour (0230-0304 EST). I didn't record these or write this up
> btw, this was a thread from 4chan that popped up on /pol/ Edit: Go
> here for updates
> http://www.defconwarningsystem.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=22=
> 3269=30
>

Re: Waffling On Full Disclosure: Lawrence Lessig, Steven Levy

[Steven Schear]

Welcome to Brinn's open society, bitches.

Warrant Canary creator

On Oct 24, 2016 9:53 AM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 10/24/2016 12:12 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> > https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/10/22/0417250/should-journalists-ign
> ore-some-leaked-emails
> >
> >
> http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-bet
> ween-tanden-and
> > https://backchannel.com/when-is-it-ok-to-mine-hacked-emails-1f20811229
> 15
> >
> >  Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email
> > which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign
> > staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest...
> > But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like
> > this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist
> > Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty
> > work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts." This
> > is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing
> > themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves
> > expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available
> > to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a
> > moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly
> > or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly,
> > participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our
> > election...
> >
> > As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the
> > availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that
> > these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of
> > public good... He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from
> > campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as
> > usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled
> > colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters,
> > rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our
> > democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything
> > that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are
> > lawbreakers with an agenda?"
>
> 1)  Shoot the messenger.
>
> 2)  Question the motives of the reporter.
>
> 3)  Misrepresent and mock the reports.
>
> Do we need a whole 'nother list for media criticism a.k.a. propaganda
> studies?
>
> :o/
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYDjxsAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqNPcH/jIsq7c2twk9kefPnxiGNToN
> dAcaevbSzGZrt7V++1qP4HyD4Pey+K+r69N8uoetb9jL4YHV1p5tpEZI1DwOLwQt
> oHbvui0cfKxOH6pD578LXUpoBGaFEYvbakHFkVT8ZzGCbnHB6CuyN2//ef7hrbgz
> lyYIL+MfILaTPLgPhsSGUbpkTApYv6c7gFKY3CQ3EBNw0d4EZ1T7Gt9uvIYY9vN+
> UznY5QrBC1vDFNB2J3/SQPcQlCkIXE51A28S2BRhxDYFmtSjq2uSCThCuHjCVxaH
> SHeMO2AkUYRMZuH5znhYynw1FZATJxVmesjrYaMP4zhD/tXNK2aAZi3ARQ1kXPE=
> =oR9y
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: Bitcoin Unable To Provide Privacy, Attracts FED and IRS Heat, FinServices Cave Demands

[Steven Schear]

http://bitcoin-brokers.org/, if its still operating, can be an important
element in a thorough trade-craft of financial privacy. They act as brokers
to enable non-AML/KYC purchase of bitcoin. Sellers escrow their bitcoin
with the broker. Buyers deposit cash into seller's bank account at a branch
teller, acquire and present proof of payment, via broker, to the seller.
Assuming no dispute, broker releases bitcoins to buyer minus a reasonable
commission. Because broker never touches any fiat they aren't technically
an exchanger. Seller pays no commission (last time I checked) but is not
anon to buyer (and of course broker).

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 11:54 PM, grarpamp  wrote:

> https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/18/2146221/irs-
> demands-identities-of-all-us-coinbase-traders-over-three-year-period
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/irs-demands-identities-
> of-all-coinbase-traders-over-two-year-period
> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3222198-Petition-
> for-Coinbase-Trader-Identities.html
> https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/799401350824132608
> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3222199-Memorandum-
> in-Support-of-Petition-for-Coinbase.html
>
> In bitcoin-related investigations, authorities will often follow the
> digital trail of an illegal transaction or suspicious user back to a
> specific account at a bitcoin trading company. From here,
> investigators will likely subpoena the company for records about that
> particular user, so they can then properly identify the person
> suspected of a crime. The Internal Revenue Service, however, has taken
> a different approach. Instead of asking for data relating to specific
> individuals suspected of a crime, it has demanded bitcoin trading site
> Coinbase to provide the identities of all of the firm's U.S. customers
> who made transactions over a three year period, because there is a
> chance they are avoiding paying taxes on their bitcoin reserves.
> Coinbase has a total of millions of customers. According to court
> filings, which were first flagged by financial blogger Zerohedge on
> Twitter, the IRS has launched an investigation to determine the
> correct amount of tax that those who use virtual currencies such as
> bitcoin are obligated to pay. But according to the documents, the IRS
> is asking for the identities of any U.S. Coinbase customer who
> transferred crypto-currency with the service between 2013 and 2015.
> "The John Does whose identities are sought by the summons are United
> States persons who, at any time during the period January 1, 2013,
> through December 31, 2015, conducted transactions in a convertible
> virtual currency," reads a memorandum written by Department of Justice
> attorneys and filed on Thursday, November 17.
>

Re: What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[Steven Schear]

The U.S. founders were quite clear in prohibiting income-like distributive
taxes. The saw the peril for what it was: a means to use to pit one
group/clsss against another.

Warrant Canary creator

On Nov 21, 2016 8:38 AM, "jim bell"  wrote:



*From:* Razer 
On 11/20/2016 09:49 PM, jim bell wrote:

>>Oh!  I see you are justifying robbing people based on the mere assertion
that they can 'afford' it.

>No. I justify it on the fact that they're the criminals and taxes
appropriately applied are really a form of restitution. If they don't like
it they can hire an army. They can afford it. After all that's how they
robbed the rest of us in the first place.

You have not qualified the term, "they".  Are you saying that all income
must necessarily be theft?  I would have thought people like you would have
taken the position, something like "All income over $100,000 per year is
theft".  Or, you know, limit the number of people who are called thieves
to, perhaps, the famous "1%".


>Thing is taxes aren't appropriately applied. That 50% tax on the wealthy
you speak of doesn't really exist after deductions and writedowns nd
donations of high-heeled shoes to the Haiti relief fund. Right? Some
wealthy people pay less taxes than that guy living in a box in a field.
Actually most wealthy people pay almost nothing percentage-wise after all
the bennies their plutocrat friends write into tax codes compared to their
UNEARNED (as in they didn't actually work or produce anything useful to
society) income.

Do you have specific statistics to back up your claims?
I have read, elsewhere, that the total Federal government expenditures, as
a portion of GDP, tends to remain relatively constant at approximately
20%.  Why should there be any tax rate dramatically greater than that?


>And then there's sales tax, which rips workers off way out of proportion
to the wealthy.

What's wrong with what amounts to a flat tax based on what you spend?
 (arguendo; I'm a libertarian, but I can still argue these issues).
A person who makes $1 million per year doesn't use 100x the food,
transportation, housing, manufactured goods as a person who makes $10K per
year.  It sure sounds like you are, at least, assuming that taxes should be
proportional to income.  Why?

Also, you still haven't addressed the issue about the specific person cited
in the article, the guy who claimed to have been a libertarian. After all,
the thread is titled, "What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain
ol' libertarians before?"

 The entire relevance of your reference is based on what so far is
unprovable:  Was that guy actually ever a "libertarian" as most other
libertarians would recognize.  Now, I can't prove that he wasn't a
libertarian, but I find your focus on libertarians here to be misleading.
The way I see it, "alt-right" (what does that actually mean?!?) people
probably 'came from' a lot of different political philosophies.  Why do you
point solely to libertarians?

I should also add that this guy may STILL be libertarian:  He may not
believe in the "initiation of force or fraud" against his fellow person,
the "non-initiation of force or fraud principle".  (NIOFF).  That he may
have other identifiable beliefs might be interesting, but at the same time
wouldn't have to be damning of him.  For instance, hypothetically an
"alt-right" person might believe that American government has been used,
for many years, to allow certain groups to sponge off the rest of the
population.  Merely  believing that, or saying that out loud, doesn't make
him non-libertarian, does it?  In fact, he is objecting to the way the
government itself has initiated force, threatening people into paying
"taxes", and them disbursing those taxes in order to obtain political
advantage.  (votes.)   If anything, his making this argument would make him
a consistent libertarian.

Now, you may object to libertarians for precisely this reason:  You may
believe that it's okey-dokey for government to threaten people to pay
"taxes", so the government can use that money for political-benefit
reasons.  But taking that position merely identifies you as being
non-libertarian.

Jim Bell

Re: FYI: 10 Surprising Upsides To Colonialism

[Steven Schear]

Reminds me of the "What have the Roman's ever done for us?" skit in Monty
Python's "Life of Brian"
https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DExWfh6sGyso

Warrant Canary creator

On Dec 5, 2016 8:15 PM, "Razer"  wrote:

> I think I've found the worst article of 2016...
>
> Illustrated: https://listverse.com/2016/12/03/10-surprising-upsides-to-
> colonialism/
>
> "Colonialism gets a bad rep these days, often with good reason. You’d have
> to be a madman to look at King Leopold’s adventures in the Congo, for
> example, and conclude that the Belgians were awesome imperial overlords.
> Same deal with the slave-trading powers.
>
> But that’s not the whole story of colonialism. Move beyond the headline
> atrocities, and a more nuanced picture begins to emerge. Far from being a
> nonstop cavalcade of horrors, colonialism often resulted in some seriously
> awesome, surprising stuff.
>
>
> 10 Spreading Good Government
>
> Most of us kind of take democracy and functioning government for granted.
> But a largely democratic world was by no means inevitable. For most of
> human history, “government” meant a military dictator or crazy king telling
> you precisely where to live, what to wear, and when to die in battle for
> some pointless cause.
>
> So why does most of the world now at least pay lip service to democratic
> norms? For that, you can thank the European colonial powers. Wherever the
> British went, they instituted governments that looked like their own. That
> meant parliaments, an efficient civil service, and a basic package of
> democracy. The French, meanwhile, folded their conquered territories into
> France itself, promoting Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.
>
> When decolonization finally rolled around, many of those democratic
> institutions remained in place.
>
>
> 9 Creating Modern Medicine
>
> For colonial powers, tropical diseases were a constant pain in the
> derriere. Asia, Africa, and South America were swimming in bugs that had a
> nasty tendency to kill colonists and subjects alike. That meant unnecessary
> expenditure, time and men lost, and a problem extracting that sweet, sweet
> natural wealth.
>
> The solution? Throw everything modern medicine had at the problem.
>
> Europe was at the vanguard of modern medicine in the 19th century. The
> British discovered the antimalarial properties of quinine, which is still
> our only effective antimalarial. The French became specialists in tropical
> medicine thanks to their North African holdings. Public health in general
> received a massive boost thanks to techniques learned in the chaos of the
> colonies.
>
> Even conquered natives benefited from this, in the form of hospitals and
> new treatments pioneered in Europe. It’s no stretch to say modern medicine
> is a by-product of imperialism.
>
>
> 8 Economic Booms
>
> Of course, colonialism isn’t something that exists only in that fairy tale
> land we call “the past.” Welcome to Africa, where the Chinese are engaging
> in a massive exercise in 21st-century colonialism. According to Zambian
> economist Dambisa Moyo, the resulting economic boom has been the best thing
> to happen to the continent in decades.
>
> Her data shows that this new colonialism has created jobs for millions of
> Africans and lifted many out of poverty. The boon from Chinese investment
> has massively benefited the poor in Africa and China alike.
>
> That’s not to say all colonial adventures improve people’s lives. Spanish
> dalliances in the New World memorably crashed Spain’s economy. But it does
> show that imperialism can be handled well, in a way that benefits the many
> rather than the few.
>
>
> 7 Global Languages
>
> Remember the story of the Tower of Babel? Humans were getting all uppity
> with their engineering prowess, so God scrambled their languages so they
> could no longer cooperate. Well, colonialism was sort of like that in
> reverse. From hundreds of thousands of different tongues, the age of
> empires whittled humanity down to just a handful of big ones.
>
> Seriously. There are currently 106 countries where English is spoken, many
> of them former colonies. Spanish is spoken in 31, modern standard Arabic in
> 58, and French in 53. Taken together, pretty much the entire world speaks
> at least a smattering of English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Russian, or
> Mandarin—all languages associated with imperial nations. And that has
> massive advantages.
>
> The ability to communicate breaks down barriers to trade and
> understanding. It allows wildly different countries to find common ground.
> While it’s not a prerequisite, it’s certainly helpful in uniting people.
>
>
> 6 The Creation Of Modern Art
>
> Who likes Picasso? What about Art Deco architecture? Or modern sculpture?
> We’re betting that at least half of you said yes to one of those. In that
> case, you should probably be thankful for French and British colonization
> of Africa. It was the display of African tribal art in Paris and London at
> the 

Re: Are there crypto discussions on this forum

[Steven Schear]

I'd consider volunteering once there are escrowed Bitcoin subscriptions,
using BIOR7, so list miscreants have something to loose.

Warrant Canary creator

On Nov 30, 2016 2:57 AM, "Eugen Leitl"  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:45:47AM +0100, Tom wrote:
>
> > However, such rumblings are one of the causes why this list became
> > yet another spam list.
>
> Indeed. Anyone care to volunteer for moderation duty?
>

Re: Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[Steven Schear]

With advancing commercial tech, open hardware and software, the
practicality of effective, open, smart weapon and dual-use becomes
eminently more likely.

Warrant Canary creator

On Jul 7, 2017 7:40 PM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:



On 07/07/2017 09:52 PM, juan wrote:

>>> On a related note, I see that the japanese are 'partners' or
>>> forcibibly buy that kind of stuff. I assume that any weapon
>>> that americunts sell is fully backdoored so I kinda wonder
>>> what kind of retard can buy stuff from them...Well, the japanese and
>>> many other seem to be just that kind of retard.

>> 

>   Are you? One obvious thing here is that what the russians
>   produce is also backdoored. Another obvious thing is that you
>   can trust the russians as much as you can trust americunts.

I would not be so sure.  In the case of weapons earmarked for U.S. use,
I would bet heavily that there are no (deliberately installed) back
doors in their C systems:Our military leaders may be passionately
ignorant and profoundly neurotic, that they are not actually stupid.
Lockout functions that take significant time and effort to defeat (when
enabled) I take for granted, even though for decades the unlock code for
all U.S. nuclear warhead firing circuits was a string of zeros.

In the case of weapons eligible for export, I would only be a /little/
less confident that back doors are not included:  One wants one's
allies' weapons to work as advertised, and the blowback from discovered
back doors would be very costly.

As is done with proprietary trade secret operating systems etc., these
back doors would be called "bugs" or "design flaws" when discovered, and
this hard to disprove canard would be widely accepted as fact.  But when
(not if) back doors weapons systems are discovered, that would be Bad
For Business:  Quality really counts when defending the interests of
one's own billionaires from the servants of hostile overseas
billionaires.  The consequences of back doors discovered /and/ exploited
could include personal reprisals against parties considered responsible
and major realignments of global power dynamics.

Re: HAHAHAHA! Bitcoin will totally change EVERYTHING!

[Steven Schear]

Bitcoincash future difficulty forecast http://bch.xbt.it/

Johoe's Mempool Statistics https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#24h


On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Its not mainly a money thing (unless they directly buy off the miners). If
> a large amount of the mining power quickly moves to BCC and the BTC
> difficulty factor remains at its last setting (till the next scheduled
> reset) then the BTC mempool will explode as the combination of 1MB blocks
> and massively increased block times make BTC useless.
>
> Warrant Canary creator
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 10:40 AM, "Razer" <g...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/08/2017 08:12 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>
> I"m expecting a "flippening" between Bitcoin Core and the recently forked
> Bitcoin Cash followed by a crash in Core's value due to an exodus of
> miners.
>
> Warrant Canary creator
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 10:08 AM, "Razer" <g...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> Not.
>>
>> 'Not nothin', as they say in Peoria...
>>
>>
>>
>> https://quitter.im/notice/1986031
>>
>> Rr
>>
>>
>>
>
> Goldman has really really REALLY deep pockets. So do their friends. They
> can make market, be the competition, and bury any other aspiring markets.
>
> That's assuming the people who migrate are GAMBLING AND INVESTING, and
> don't really give fucks about alternate, anonymous, society-changing,
> 'money'. Goldman and their friends will waste them. I speculate(sic) It
> won't affect those who create 'closed systems' of exchange as badly.
>
> Rr
>
>
>

Re: HAHAHAHA! Bitcoin will totally change EVERYTHING!

[Steven Schear]

Its not mainly a money thing (unless they directly buy off the miners). If
a large amount of the mining power quickly moves to BCC and the BTC
difficulty factor remains at its last setting (till the next scheduled
reset) then the BTC mempool will explode as the combination of 1MB blocks
and massively increased block times make BTC useless.

Warrant Canary creator

On Aug 8, 2017 10:40 AM, "Razer" <g...@riseup.net> wrote:



On 08/08/2017 08:12 AM, Steven Schear wrote:

I"m expecting a "flippening" between Bitcoin Core and the recently forked
Bitcoin Cash followed by a crash in Core's value due to an exodus of
miners.

Warrant Canary creator

On Aug 8, 2017 10:08 AM, "Razer" <g...@riseup.net> wrote:

> Not.
>
> 'Not nothin', as they say in Peoria...
>
>
>
> https://quitter.im/notice/1986031
>
> Rr
>
>
>

Goldman has really really REALLY deep pockets. So do their friends. They
can make market, be the competition, and bury any other aspiring markets.

That's assuming the people who migrate are GAMBLING AND INVESTING, and
don't really give fucks about alternate, anonymous, society-changing,
'money'. Goldman and their friends will waste them. I speculate(sic) It
won't affect those who create 'closed systems' of exchange as badly.

Rr

Re: HAHAHAHA! Bitcoin will totally change EVERYTHING!

[Steven Schear]

Because under the circumstances I mentioned mining BCC becomes more
profitable than BTC.

Warrant Canary creator

On Aug 8, 2017 2:37 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:36:50 -0500
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Its not mainly a money thing (unless they directly buy off the
> > miners). If a large amount of the mining power quickly moves to BCC
>
> why would that happen?
>
>
>
> > and the BTC difficulty factor remains at its last setting (till the
> > next scheduled reset) then the BTC mempool will explode as the
> > combination of 1MB blocks and massively increased block times make
> > BTC useless.
> >
> > Warrant Canary creator
> >
> >
>

Re: HAHAHAHA! Bitcoin will totally change EVERYTHING!

[Steven Schear]

I"m expecting a "flippening" between Bitcoin Core and the recently forked
Bitcoin Cash followed by a crash in Core's value due to an exodus of miners.

Warrant Canary creator

On Aug 8, 2017 10:08 AM, "Razer"  wrote:

> Not.
>
> 'Not nothin', as they say in Peoria...
>
>
>
> https://quitter.im/notice/1986031
>
> Rr
>
>
>

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

They may be separate but they are not unrelated. There is only so much
mining power and its distribution affects both (actually all) chains.

Speaking of which BCC has reach the price (0.153 BTC), calculated on reddit
by Jonathan Vaage, at which mining on BCC (including all costs and rewards)
is better. This has become a rallying and resistance level and the battle
has been joined between these armies of miners, traders, whales, etc.

The next scheduled (not 20% emergency) difficulty adjustment comes in just
a few days for BCC (could be this weekend). After that, BTC also adjusts in
a few days. If a flippening is in the offing I think it would come shortly
after the BTC adjustment. If the miners in a major cartel then flee to BCC,
it will leave BTC bereft of hash power and block intervals could explode
preventing any practical use of the blockchain (a Chain Death Spiral). If
so, Core supporters will probably be forced into using similar "emergency"
difficult adjustments (even though they tried to humiliate Cash advocates
about this methodology before the fork).


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:

> On 08/18/2017 05:55 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Steven Schear wrote:
> >> original) and Cash. When the fork happened those holding BTC (in their
> own
> >> wallets) were also able to claim an equal amount of BCC (for free). This
> >> created a huge supply of BCC. However, many or most people rarely keep
> >
> > Isn't this setting a very dangerous precedent of doubling bitcoin +
> > derivatives? One of the things I liked most in the btc design was its
> > resemblance of the gold standard -- the maximum amount of btc was known
> > and fixed. Now they are violating this by creating "derivatives" out of
> > nothing like the fucked up real world financial system. Hypothetically
> > if in the future they fork $n$ times, they will increase the amount of
> > btc + derivatives by factor of $2^n$.
> >
> > Currently I recommend to the btc overlords in future forks to keep the
> > amount of btc + derivatives fixed, possibly by choose ``old XOR new
> > btc''.
>
> I'm not sure how else a fork could work. I mean, it's a fork in the
> blockchain. Initially, it's an exact duplicate. And thereafter, the
> blockchains are entirely separate and unrelated. So there's no way to
> enforce an XOR choice.
>



-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

And now some politics...

*Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin*

*It is the original bitcoin*
It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back (back
in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital cash-related
projects) with his Sidechain

proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of
Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was completed. We,
the original community, have finally regained control of the Bitcoin
project, except that we have lost control of the name. This position is
about to be redressed.

*It does not have Segwit.*
If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being the
data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a hash and the
original signature is discarded after it is verified. So if your
"fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the signatures are
discarded after being checked, and only the "fingerprint" is kept. This is
in effect what Segwit does.

The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain. Some
nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some will
discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the transaction to
check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The fingerprint".
Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken record of signatures
is violated.

*It allows for unlimited on-chain scaling*.
A clear example of the disastrous effect of limiting the blocksize is the
state of BTC now. The mempool is huge and getting bigger, fees are "over
the top". Their intention is to push low fee transactions to side chains
and the lightning network. These solutions don't exist yet.

The Core developers bought themselves over 2 years delaying and obfuscating
on chain scaling, and yet have no working solutions. Meanwhile the user
experience gets so bad that many users have sought other alternatives to
transact. BCH in the meantime have mined an 8MB block
.

*It has more client implementations*
BCH will have Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC
and more. Each with their own development team but all operating on the
same chain. This diversity increases security, innovation and development
of the whole ecosystem.

Steve

-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

A snapshot from a few minutes ago. Notice how pricing became a hockey stick
when BCC approached 0.153 BTC.

[image: Inline image 2]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> They may be separate but they are not unrelated. There is only so much
> mining power and its distribution affects both (actually all) chains.
>
> Speaking of which BCC has reach the price (0.153 BTC), calculated on
> reddit by Jonathan Vaage, at which mining on BCC (including all costs and
> rewards) is better. This has become a rallying and resistance level and the
> battle has been joined between these armies of miners, traders, whales, etc.
>
> The next scheduled (not 20% emergency) difficulty adjustment comes in just
> a few days for BCC (could be this weekend). After that, BTC also adjusts in
> a few days. If a flippening is in the offing I think it would come shortly
> after the BTC adjustment. If the miners in a major cartel then flee to BCC,
> it will leave BTC bereft of hash power and block intervals could explode
> preventing any practical use of the blockchain (a Chain Death Spiral). If
> so, Core supporters will probably be forced into using similar "emergency"
> difficult adjustments (even though they tried to humiliate Cash advocates
> about this methodology before the fork).
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> On 08/18/2017 05:55 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Steven Schear wrote:
>> >> original) and Cash. When the fork happened those holding BTC (in their
>> own
>> >> wallets) were also able to claim an equal amount of BCC (for free).
>> This
>> >> created a huge supply of BCC. However, many or most people rarely keep
>> >
>> > Isn't this setting a very dangerous precedent of doubling bitcoin +
>> > derivatives? One of the things I liked most in the btc design was its
>> > resemblance of the gold standard -- the maximum amount of btc was known
>> > and fixed. Now they are violating this by creating "derivatives" out of
>> > nothing like the fucked up real world financial system. Hypothetically
>> > if in the future they fork $n$ times, they will increase the amount of
>> > btc + derivatives by factor of $2^n$.
>> >
>> > Currently I recommend to the btc overlords in future forks to keep the
>> > amount of btc + derivatives fixed, possibly by choose ``old XOR new
>> > btc''.
>>
>> I'm not sure how else a fork could work. I mean, it's a fork in the
>> blockchain. Initially, it's an exact duplicate. And thereafter, the
>> blockchains are entirely separate and unrelated. So there's no way to
>> enforce an XOR choice.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
> standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
> MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.
>
> Shameless self-promoter :)
>



-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, juan <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:29:54 -0500
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling)
> > occurring before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening
> > Network, etc.) is attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly
> > examined not only for technical flaws but for possible misuses
>
>
> misuses such as? And who is going to do the examination?
>

For example, Lightning Networks, due to the methods of "channel" controls,
can enable fractional reserve of the blockchain assets.

Members of the community with the technical chops do the exams. However,
politics and self-interest being what they are I have little doubt the
debates will be 'lively' and degenerate into the usual ad hominem as
occurred in the lead up to the current fork.


>
> 
>
>
> >
> > By far the main driver for miners is revenue. In general they will go
> > to whatever blockchain they earn the most. Analysis of the hash power
> > being expended on both chains versus the difficulties and value of
> > each coin showed that the two were converging insofar as mining
> > profitability. There is also an anomalous aspect to the sources of
> > the BCC mining power. Unlike that of BTC, where most of the hashing
> > power is associated with known large mining cartels, the majority of
> > BCC mining is by unknown parties.
>
>
> lol - there's a different version of that story :
>
> BCH was created by the monopolistic producer of bitcoin asics
> - bitmain -  in order to keep using a patented algo. You should
>   know as much...
>

That's one story that has made the rounds. I fully expect that major
cartels and mining rig/ASIV mfg.s are playing every card and pulling out
all the stops in their efforts to maximize profits short- and long-term and
influence the future of cryptocurrencies.


>
>
>
>
> > There has been significant variation
> > of mining power over relatively short intervals on both blockchains.
> > The timing of this variation very much indicates that the miners were
> > attempting to beneficially manipulate both the value of BCC vs. BTC
> > and quickly decrease the mining effort for BCC.
> >
> >   BTC  BCH   TOTBTC BCH
> > BTC   BCH BTC
> >( Hash Power )
> > ( Difficulty) ( Block Time )(mempool)
> >
> > 11 August6600  338   6938 923115
> > 10.00 2155
> > 12 August6199  416   6615 923115
> > 10.66 2015
> > 13 August6808  440   7248 923115
> >   9.73 18.46   27
> > 14 August5951  522   6473 923115
> >  11.0715.82   47
> > 15 August6966  647   7591 923115
> >9.4712.85   53
> > 16 August5984  484   6468 923115
> >  11.0717.14   50
> >
> >
> >- Since 11 August Hash Power on the BCH chain has increased daily.
> >- Hash power on BTC chain on the other hand fluctuates from day to
> > day, by up to 1000 PH and the mempool continues to grow.
> >
> >
> > The table above are snapshots taken at a point in time each day. Their
> > individual states can be monitored in real time here
> > <https://bitinfocharts.com/>*.  Scroll down to the hash rate. BTC
> > hash rate is down to 4853 PH. This is more than 2000 PH below the
> > table above and the mempool <https://blockchain.info/charts> has now
> > exceeded 65MB. A Death Chain Spiral may have set in but is being
> > "managed".
> >
> > This large fluctuation of BTC hash rate could be the miners preventing
> > difficulty from adjusting downwards, and at the same time growing the
> > mempool. It is also possible that with over 1000 blocks to the next
> > difficulty recalculation, we may not see another difficulty
> > adjustment on BTC anytime soon.
> >
> > It is uncanny that we see very little discussion and debate at the
> > very top. It is as though the NYA agreement have settled everything.
> > However make no mistake. What seem calm belies what is happening in
> > the background. Like a duck on the water paddling furiously
> > underneath.
> >
> > Over at r/bitcoin talk seems to center around price and technology.
> >

Re: Russian banks, Moscow exchange, to spearhead crypto currencies/ DCs race

[Steven Schear]

Unless its a permissionless blockchain its just hype.

Warrant Canary creator

On Aug 17, 2017 8:23 PM, "Zenaan Harkness"  wrote:

Well, well, well :)

I remember when I was a youngish child hearing my significant elders
using the phrase "how about those clever Japanese!" in relation to
some new SONY Walkman or whatnot.

Perhaps the phrase for for our 3rd millennium shall be "how about
those rational Russians!"

(BTW, since it's a thousand years, not a million years, surely it
should be called a thillenium, not a millenium?)




** Russia Turns to Cryptocurrencies to Counter US Sanctions
http://russia-insider.us9.list-manage1.com/track/click?
u=fa2faf7034c3c3c413cb3652f=bd3d211491=5110f4b440
https://tomluongo.me/2017/08/13/russia-embrace-blockchain-counter-sanctions/

by Tom Luongo on Wed, Aug 16, 2017
The central depository for the Moscow Exchange, National Settlement
Depository (NSD), announced that it is developing a platform to
provide accounting services for digital assets like cryptocurrencies.
The platform looks to be build a unit of account, very important in
the volatile crypto-space, for people to value their assets in and
have access to through a wallet platform. In short, the Moscow
Exchange is taking a page out of Dan Larimer’s BitShares and its
OpenLedger exchange to provide trading and accounting and banking
services all validated and accessible through the blockchain.

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

Right, as long as you either exported your Bitcoin to your own wallet or
your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that assured its customers that
they would not claim the BCC themselves but hold it for users, then you are
fine. If, OTOH, your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that alerted its
users to withdraw their Bitcoin to their own wallets of they wanted it, and
you did not withdraw in before the fork then you are probably SoL.

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:

> On 08/18/2017 03:29 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>
> 
>
> > Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain
> its
> > more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash,
> BCH
> > or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core.
> The
> > effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for
> those
> > holding Bitcoin Core.
> >
> > Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the
> > original) and Cash. When the fork happened those holding BTC (in their
> own
> > wallets) were also able to claim an equal amount of BCC (for free).
>
> There's no need to claim BCH. It's there, and will be there until spent.
> Me, I won't until the price goes up. It's "flippening" insurance.
>
> 
>



-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

[Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling) occurring
before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening Network, etc.) is
attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly examined not only for
technical flaws but for possible misuses that affects the value and utility
of the underlying blockchain assets.]

Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain its
more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash, BCH
or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core. The
effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for those
holding Bitcoin Core.

Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the
original) and Cash. When the fork happened those holding BTC (in their own
wallets) were also able to claim an equal amount of BCC (for free). This
created a huge supply of BCC. However, many or most people rarely keep
their BTC in their wallets, preferring instead to keep them in online
exchange accounts. As a result, even though the exchanges warned people
they needed to withdraw their BTC to claim the BCC, most of those people
will never get that BCC. Instead it became a windfall for the exchanges.

When the fork occurred the Cash chain inherited the then current difficulty
factor of the original. When operating nominally both chains should have
new blocks discovered by miners about every 10 minutes. Because at the
outset the mining effort for Cash was only a small fraction of the Core's.
the rate new blocks were found (and therefore the transaction capacity)
initially was hobbled. This was anticipated and the developers included a
means to detect when the hashing power on this Cash chain was too low and
to quickly adjust, in 20% increments, the difficulty factor.

By far the main driver for miners is revenue. In general they will go to
whatever blockchain they earn the most. Analysis of the hash power being
expended on both chains versus the difficulties and value of each coin
showed that the two were converging insofar as mining profitability. There
is also an anomalous aspect to the sources of the BCC mining power. Unlike
that of BTC, where most of the hashing power is associated with known large
mining cartels, the majority of BCC mining is by unknown parties.There has
been significant variation of mining power over relatively short intervals
on both blockchains. The timing of this variation very much indicates that
the miners were attempting to beneficially manipulate both the value of BCC
vs. BTC and quickly decrease the mining effort for BCC.

  BTC  BCH   TOTBTC BCH
BTC   BCH BTC
   ( Hash Power )   ( Difficulty)
( Block Time )(mempool)

11 August6600  338   6938 923115
10.00 2155
12 August6199  416   6615 923115
10.66 2015
13 August6808  440   7248 923115
  9.73 18.46   27
14 August5951  522   6473 923115
 11.0715.82   47
15 August6966  647   7591 923115
   9.4712.85   53
16 August5984  484   6468 923115
 11.0717.14   50


   - Since 11 August Hash Power on the BCH chain has increased daily.
   - Hash power on BTC chain on the other hand fluctuates from day to day,
   by up to 1000 PH and the mempool continues to grow.


The table above are snapshots taken at a point in time each day. Their
individual states can be monitored in real time here
*.  Scroll down to the hash rate. BTC hash rate
is down to 4853 PH. This is more than 2000 PH below the table above and the
mempool  has now exceeded 65MB. A Death
Chain Spiral may have set in but is being "managed".

This large fluctuation of BTC hash rate could be the miners preventing
difficulty from adjusting downwards, and at the same time growing the
mempool. It is also possible that with over 1000 blocks to the next
difficulty recalculation, we may not see another difficulty adjustment on
BTC anytime soon.

It is uncanny that we see very little discussion and debate at the very
top. It is as though the NYA agreement have settled everything. However
make no mistake. What seem calm belies what is happening in the background.
Like a duck on the water paddling furiously underneath.

Over at r/bitcoin talk seems to center around price and technology. Nothing
about any negativity, usability or the growing mempool. Censorship of
robust discussions is just downright deceitful. Especially if it is the de
facto forum. It must quit being a propaganda organ. There will be
consequences.

The people around Segwit may be frantically on the phone, fax and email
arguing and pleading with 

Re: Do you have predictions about 2017?

[Steven Schear]

I predict Bitcoin Core (what most people are calling Bitcoin since the
recent fork) will crash and Bitcoin Cash, the new fork, will take over its
mantle as Bitcoin.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Georgi Guninski 
wrote:

> Niels Bohr allegedly said "Predictions are difficult, especially about
> the future".
>
> Do you have predictions about 2017?
>
> Being certified optimist, I predict fuckups, fuckups and more fuckups.
>



-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: Do you have predictions about 2017?

[Steven Schear]

I predict a coup, perhaps using a major false flag or the 25th Amendment,
to unseat Trump before the end of the year.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Georgi Guninski 
wrote:

> Niels Bohr allegedly said "Predictions are difficult, especially about
> the future".
>
> Do you have predictions about 2017?
>
> Being certified optimist, I predict fuckups, fuckups and more fuckups.
>



-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

A few of the interesting sites to monitor in real-time BTC/BCC blockchain
activities in this space:

https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#8h
http://bch.xbt.it/?interval=0
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks (although somewhat delayed form real-time,
its "mining profitability" reading is probably a good predictor of an
approaching "flippening")
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:

> On 08/18/2017 03:55 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
> > Right, as long as you either exported your Bitcoin to your own wallet or
> > your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that assured its customers that
> > they would not claim the BCC themselves but hold it for users, then you
> are
> > fine. If, OTOH, your Bitcoin was deposited in an exchange that alerted
> its
> > users to withdraw their Bitcoin to their own wallets of they wanted it,
> and
> > you did not withdraw in before the fork then you are probably SoL.
>
> Right. I neglected to mention that I use Electrum wallets. To use BCH,
> I'll need to get a suitable wallet, and import the keys. The BCH price
> crashed before I got around to it. I guess that I'll do it soon :)
>
>

Re: What is the value of the State?

[Steven Schear]

The Scientific Method requires that experiments with controlled initial
conditions be conducted. If a field of science is such , as in cosmology or
climatology, that such experiments cannot be conducted then this is a
"soft" science whose "truth" can never exceed opinion, which is politics.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 11, 2017 4:10 PM, "\0xDynamite"  wrote:

> > Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK,
> ever
> > admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not
> > independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for
> > science.
>
> You're talking in circles.  What do you suppose the scientific method
> is, genius?
>
> \0x
>

Re: Angry Good Germans demand reinstatement of Gestapo chief

[Steven Schear]

If these manipulated and quasi-radicalized Muslims were smarter they would
plan a lethal surprise for their handlers as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
suggested for the Soviet security people.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 11, 2017 9:10 AM, "Razer"  wrote:

> Angry "Good Germans" demand reinstatement of Gestapo chief James Comey
> at a "James Comey Is Fired Party" outside The White House.
>
> https://twitter.com/AuntieImperial/status/862651365801074688
>
> The FBI is a Clear and Present Danger to 'American Democracy' (if such a
> thing exists at all) no matter which murderous creep runs it. They
> completely fabricate Terror Plots, including the planning, and logistics
> of supplying weapons and explosives, to frame innocent Muslims who would
> have never done such a thing without intense pressure from their
> operatives, and spy on US citizens for the NSA via their Data Intercept
> Technology Unit. They are the sole organization that investigates their
> own agent's murder of civilians. The FBI IS the American Gestapo, and
> 'Mericans are ANGRY their operations have been disturbed.
>
> Rr
>
>
>

Re: The Zen White Paper

[Steven Schear]

Government regulation of cryptocurrencies (and Bitcoin in particular) will
have a similar result to regulatory capture.

A major missing element to thwart this is a well-conceived, widely adopted,
and open technology that offers trust without government. I propose
Open-Transactions.

The other missing leg to the cryptocurrency chair are independently issued
but verifiable and trusted fiat tokens. Once widely adopted exchangers need
not have bank accounts nor operate as licensed corporations.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 11, 2017 1:30 AM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

> The only real gamble is estimating regulation.
> The rest can be routed around through markets, diversify, distributed.
> Regulation in most sane places comes with public notice.
> Even therein, or even as a game, there is money to be had.
> Players know this, and their chips are often leisure money.
> But it is money... $53B of it in the top100 market cap.
> That will not sit quietly when faced with a $0'ing regulation proposition.
>
> Whatever you believe, and whether or not you're in,
> the history to date makes people seem a bit foolish
> to *not* redirect their next pointless discretionary
> purchase worth into it... cable tv, pizza, beer, cigs,
> weed, high brand products, whatever crap. Worst
> case it's another pointless buy down the drain.
> Best case... moon, adoption even.
>

Re: Snowden defends Comey

[Steven Schear]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/05/no_author/blaming-russia-rather-saudi-arabia-israel/

Warrant Canary creator

On May 11, 2017 6:40 AM, "John Newman"  wrote:

> https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/862069019301601281
>
> "This FBI Director has sought for years to jail me on account of
> my political activities. If I can oppose his firing, so can you."
>
>
>
> John
>

Re: What is the value of the State?

[Steven Schear]

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman <j...@synfin.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs.
> science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this
> topic.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_
> Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the
> >> past,
> >
> > You highlight Crichton's point perfectly - that shitty science from
> > the past that he spoke of is not, was not, and never shall be
> > science, it was merely "science", political social movements dressed
> > up as "concensus science".
> >
> > And here you are, once again, smack bang in the trap this has set for
> > your weak mind - calling past "science" as science, instead of the
> > politics it is.
> >
> > And anyway, what the hell has Michael Crichton's novel writing
> > ability got to do with the clear, succinct and slightly humorous
> > facts he raises in his essay/talk??
> >
>
>
> Hey, you replied to one of my emails!
> I guess it's easier to jump on this bandwagon than try to defend any of
> your other countless (and disgusting) hypocritical views.
>
> Maybe we can send some death squads out to the science departments at any
> institution doing climate research? Especially if they're (((jewish))) -
> sounds right up your alley, you bad boy ;)
>
> In any case, Chrichton selectively chose a few things which, as i said, no
> one ever claimed was a known science. Like the drake equation.  Then he
> further selected a bunch of stuff that has been discredited, thanks to
> further scientific work, over time. In effect, he showed that science, over
> time, works.
>

What he showed is that it works VERY poorly when those in scientific
"authority", and who often have reputation and/or financial attachments to
the prevailing Consensus, use their influence (politics) to suppress
conflicting views (and often the careers of those holding them). Yes, over
time it "works" but the lengths of these "erroneous consensus" epochs can
stretch to lifetimes and during these periods the public can be denied the
advantages of the later "proven" science (for example, saving lives due to
effective medical treatments) or forced to pay (for example, through
unwarranted taxation, misguided public policies and regulations).


>
> And naturally he stayed away from all the wonderful things that have been
> wrought by scientific innovation, and that are in fact a CONSENSUS, once
> they have been accepted by the scientific community. That these consensuses
> can change is obvious, or he wouldn't have had so much crap science to pick
> from (and doctors would still be following Galen and bleeding you to get
> your humors in order when you went to hospital)
>

The crux of Crichton's arguments are that all too often Consensus is
presented publicly as Settled Science instead of what is really is:
politics. This is especially troubling when dealing with areas of science
(e.g., climatology) in which the application of the Scientific Method (not
just collected data or models) is impossible/impractical given current
technologies. I have yet to see those pushing the anthropomorphic climate
change models openly admit this.


>
> The fact that science advances is not a legitimate attack on any
> particular piece of current science. If that's all you got... you got
> nothing.
>
> And i called him a shitty novelist because he is just that - a shitty
> novelist. Actually i rather enjoyed a travel memoir he wrote, but basically
> he's a hack. It's an opinion, you aren't obliged to share it (i doubt you
> have the capacity to share it - somehow i don't envision you as a big
> reader. maybe mein kampf before bed? ;)
>
>
> >
> >> that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations
> >> are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course,
> >> everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from
> >
> > Did you even read the whole thing?
> >
> > The problem is that previously 'revered' rags like "Scientific
> > American" have become the Popes of "concensus science", destroying
> > actual scientific take 

Re: Fwd: [Webinar] Decrypting the WannaCry ransomware: Why is it happening and (how) is it going to end?

[Steven Schear]

Any bets on whether ending cryptocurrency (esp. bitcoin) privacy &
fungibility will be near the top of the discussions?

Warrant Canary creator

On May 17, 2017 11:48 AM, "Cecilia Tanaka"  wrote:

Forwarding with tenderness and lots of kisses from Brazil !  <3

Ceci

#  May 17, International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and
Biphobia - http://dayagainsthomophobia.org  #LoveIsLove  <3
---
"Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or
your curiosity.  It's your place in the world; it's your life.  Go on
and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live."  -
 Mae Jemison


-- Forwarded message --
From:  
Date: Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:17 PM
Subject: [Webinar] Decrypting the WannaCry ransomware: Why is it
happening and (how) is it going to end?
To: cecilia.tan...@gmail.com


Dear members ,

As a result of last cyber attack that hit many countries worldwide,
our partners from DiploFoundation and the Geneva Internet Platform
have organised an open webinar for the community to provide an
analysis of the main technological, geopolitical, legal, and economic
aspects of the ransomware. Experts from different fields will discuss
why ransomware has become a major issue: Can such attacks be prevented
by technological measures alone? Is there a need for a legal response,
such as Microsoft’s proposal for the Digital Geneva Convention? Is
raising more awareness among users the ultimate solution?

The webinar will discuss whether it is possible to put a stop to
malicious software, or whether they should be considered the price we
have to pay for the many advantages of the Internet. Choices on policy
will have to be made sooner rather than later. The aim of the
discussion is to explore and help make informed policy choices.

How to participate?

Date: Tomorrow - Thursday, 18th May, at 11:00 UTC (13:00 CEST).

The virtual event is open for everyone , just register under this link
: https://www.diplomacy.edu/registrations/wannacry-webinar

Register to book your seat. The webinar link will be e-mailed to
registrants one hour before the start.

Regards ,
--
Nancy Quirós
Development Manager LAC Chapters
Email: qui...@isoc.org
Skype: nancy_quiros
Web: www.isoc.org

Re: "All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years..."

[Steven Schear]

Alternatively, bio-engineering will make practical the efficient creation
of liquid fuels from sunlight, water and CO2. No carbon footprint. No
massive upgrades to utility grids, recharge vs. refueling time tradeoffs or
distribution changes.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 17, 2017 11:25 AM, "John Newman"  wrote:

> Kinda off-topic, but interesting.
>
> https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/16/1942252/all-
> fossil-fuel-vehicles-will-vanish-in-8-years-says-stanford-study
>
> http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/
> fossil-fuel-vehicles-will-vanish-in-8-years-in-twin-
> death-spiral-for-big-oil-and-big-autos-says-study-that-
> shocking-the-industry
>
> Stanford University economist Tony Seba forecasts in his new report that
> petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold anywhere
> in the world within the next eight years. As a result, the
> transportation market will transition and switch entirely to
> electrification, "leading to a collapse of oil prices and the demise of
> the petroleum industry as we have known it for a century," reports
> Financial Post. From the report:
> Seba's premise is that people will stop driving altogether. They will
> switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times
> cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of
> fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles. Only nostalgics will
> cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles
> on demand. It will become harder to find a petrol station, spares, or
> anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts that bedevil the internal
> combustion engine. Dealers will disappear by 2024. Cities will ban human
> drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel.
> This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond. There will be a "mass
> stranding of existing vehicles." The value of second-hard cars will
> plunge. You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle. It is a
> twin "death spiral" for big oil and big autos, with ugly implications
> for some big companies on the London Stock Exchange unless they adapt in
> time. The long-term price of crude will fall to $25 a barrel. Most forms
> of shale and deep-water drilling will no longer be viable. Assets will
> be stranded. Scotland will forfeit any North Sea bonanza. Russia, Saudi
> Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela will be in trouble.
>
> --
> John
>

Re: Fwd: [Webinar] Decrypting the WannaCry ransomware: Why is it happening and (how) is it going to end?

[Steven Schear]

With the exception of Jim Bell, I consider myself one of the more
significant cryptoanarchists.  I brought this up as there many statists in
the blockchain community and they largely seek to hobble bitcoin (and other
public blockchain currencies) to advantage their investments or achieve
political ends.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 17, 2017 1:03 PM, "Mirimir" <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:

> On 05/17/2017 08:43 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:
> >> On 05/17/2017 08:15 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Any bets on whether ending cryptocurrency (esp. bitcoin) privacy &
> >>>> fungibility will be near the top of the discussions?
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, Steven, I don't know, but already asked them.  Sincerely hope
> so.
> >>
> >> You _hope so_?
> >>
> >> Seriously?
> >>
> >> That's a horrible idea.
> >
> > I said " I hope so" because it's important discussing these subjects
> > too.  The privacy is being attacked in the whole world, unfortunately.
> > :(
>
> I suppose that it's good to discuss the issue.
>
> Still, saying "ending cryptocurrency (esp. bitcoin) privacy &
> fungibility" is an extremely offensive thing to say on this list. What
> we need is to discuss how to _protect_ cryptocurrency privacy and
> fungibility.
>
> > Hmm...  Did I understand wrongly Steven's question, Mirimir?  Remember
> > my English is pretty limited yet and I don't want to attack the
> > privacy, only to discuss it.  :P
>
> Sorry, Cecilia. I'm just touchy about this stuff.
>

Re: "All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years..."

[Steven Schear]

Quite likely self-driving cars will be a red herring to massively chip away
at personal liberties.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-01/it-wont-be-jetsons

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:09 PM, oshwm  wrote:

> On 17 May 2017 21:50:36 BST, juan  wrote:
> >On Wed, 17 May 2017 14:25:10 -0400
> >John Newman  wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Stanford University economist
> >
> >   so an 'economist' (LMAO) from the 'intellectual' core of
> >   american 'progressive' fascism ('ivy league' universities) is
> >   making a completely laughable prediction about...engineering?
> >
> >   wow, stanford 'economists' seem almost as omniscient as jesus =)
> >
> >   Oh, and like a good progressive american he's fully convinced
> >   that the whole world will be subjected to his 'utopia'
> >
> >   "petrol carsno longer  sold anywhere in the world"
> >
> >   and
> >
> >   "Cities will ban human drivers"
> >
> >   Yeah! Land of the free and home of the brave!
> >
> >
> >   So what is this apart from crass propaganda? Sorry John, don't
> >   take it personally.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Tony Seba forecasts in his new report
> >> that petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold
> >> anywhere in the world within the next eight years. As a result, the
> >> transportation market will transition and switch entirely to
> >> electrification, "leading to a collapse of oil prices and the demise
> >> of the petroleum industry as we have known it for a century," reports
> >> Financial Post. From the report:
> >> Seba's premise is that people will stop driving altogether. They will
> >> switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten
> >> times cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero
> >> marginal cost of fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles.
> >> Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership. The
> >> rest will adapt to vehicles on demand. It will become harder to find
> >> a petrol station, spares, or anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts
> >> that bedevil the internal combustion engine. Dealers will disappear
> >> by 2024. Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how
> >> dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs,
> >> and then beyond. There will be a "mass stranding of existing
> >> vehicles." The value of second-hard cars will plunge. You will have
> >> to pay to dispose of your old vehicle. It is a twin "death spiral"
> >> for big oil and big autos, with ugly implications for some big
> >> companies on the London Stock Exchange unless they adapt in time. The
> >> long-term price of crude will fall to $25 a barrel. Most forms of
> >> shale and deep-water drilling will no longer be viable. Assets will
> >> be stranded. Scotland will forfeit any North Sea bonanza. Russia,
> >> Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela will be in trouble.
> >>
>
> Personally I could believe that, in the UK at least, given 5-10 years that
> EVs will be sold in significant numbers and occupying the place in car
> sales that diesels currently occupy with total sales dominance over all car
> sales in about 20 years.
> Self-Drivers will grow to share a significant amount of market share in
> that 20 year timescale.
>
> Of course, I have no qualifications to back up my guesswork so we'll have
> to wait 20 years to see if my guesswork beats Ivy League economists
> guesswork lol.
>
> cheers,
> oshwm.
>
>

Re: "All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years..."

[Steven Schear]

If you want to see what many large cities will look like once driverless
cars become available to the upper 10% consider how traffic is often jammed
in Mumbai around popular entertainment and shopping areas as massive
numbers of cars of the wealthy continuously circle, driven by low-paid
chauffeurs. Why wait for your car to pick you up from a possibly distant
lot when it can be there much sooner from circling school of driverless
cars?

Warrant Canary creator

On May 17, 2017 4:47 PM, "Razer"  wrote:

>
> On 05/17/2017 11:25 AM, John Newman wrote:
>
> Kinda off-topic, but interesting.
> https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/16/1942252/all-fossil-fuel-vehicles-will-vanish-in-8-years-says-stanford-study
> http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/fossil-fuel-vehicles-will-vanish-in-8-years-in-twin-death-spiral-for-big-oil-and-big-autos-says-study-that-shocking-the-industry
>
> Stanford University economist Tony Seba forecasts in his new report that
> petrol or diesel cars, buses, or trucks will no longer be sold anywhere
> in the world within the next eight years. As a result, the
> transportation market will transition and switch entirely to
> electrification, "leading to a collapse of oil prices and the demise of
> the petroleum industry as we have known it for a century," reports
> Financial Post. From the report:
> Seba's premise is that people will stop driving altogether. They will
> switch en masse to self-drive electric vehicles (EVs) that are ten times
> cheaper to run than fossil-based cars, with a near-zero marginal cost of
> fuel and an expected lifespan of 1 million miles. Only nostalgics will
> cling to the old habit of car ownership. The rest will adapt to vehicles
> on demand. It will become harder to find a petrol station, spares, or
> anybody to fix the 2,000 moving parts that bedevil the internal
> combustion engine. Dealers will disappear by 2024. Cities will ban human
> drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel.
> This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond. There will be a "mass
> stranding of existing vehicles." The value of second-hard cars will
> plunge. You will have to pay to dispose of your old vehicle. It is a
> twin "death spiral" for big oil and big autos, with ugly implications
> for some big companies on the London Stock Exchange unless they adapt in
> time. The long-term price of crude will fall to $25 a barrel. Most forms
> of shale and deep-water drilling will no longer be viable. Assets will
> be stranded. Scotland will forfeit any North Sea bonanza. Russia, Saudi
> Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela will be in trouble.
>
>
>
> In eight years?
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Gasp! Hack COUGH CHOKE (regains composure)
>
> No.
>
> Not gonna happen.
>
> THere's massive capital and infrastructure tied up in the shitstem just
> the way it is, and thye people who profit from it like it just the way it
> is and they own the police, and the army and your government... Literally.
>
> http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/85720026694 (Gilens and Page;
> Northwestern/Princeton)
>
> WTF paid for this? The same consultant my city paid to tell them to put
> the main branch of the public library at the city's bus station? (really...)
>
> But it begs the question; If driving is inevitable on any near horizon,
> what are people going to drive?
>
> Electric cars.
>
> Indirectly and less efficiently powered than simply burning oil as
> gasoline in cars.
>
> How are they going to get the electricity?
>
> Coal.
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/as-
> appetite-for-electricity-soars-the-world-keeps-turning-to-coal/1842/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/electric-cars-and-
> the-coal-that-runs-them/2015/11/23/74869240-734b-11e5-ba14-
> 318f8e87a2fc_story.html
> If you want the cush lifestyle consumer crapitalism garners, lie to
> yourself as you say, in a prozac induced haze allowing for rationalization
> and denial ... "Buh bye planet." And your children should kill you while
> you sleep.
>
>
> ROTTERDAM — In this traffic-packed Dutch city, electric cars jostle for
> space at charging ­stations. The oldest exhaust-spewing vehicles will soon
> be banned from the city center. Thanks to generous tax incentives, the
> share of electric vehicles has grown faster in the Netherlands than in
> nearly any other country in the world.
>
> But behind the green growth is a filthy secret: In a nation famous for its
> windmills, electricity is coming from a far dirtier source. Three new
> coal-fired power plants, including two here on the Rotterdam harbor, are
> supplying much of the power to fuel the Netherlands’ electric-car boom.
>
> As the world tries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and combat climate
> change, policymakers have pinned hopes on electric cars, whose range and
> convenience are quickly improving. Alongside the boom has come a surging
> demand for power to charge the vehicles, which can consume as much
> 

Re: Scanning through walls using WiFi drones.

[Steven Schear]

If you home walls and attic are insulated with, common, aluminized
fiberglass batting you're probably already protected.

Warrant Canary creator

On Jun 21, 2017 1:10 PM, "juan"  wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:00:19 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

> http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/x-ray-drones-can-see-through-walls
>
>

So Jim how would one go about jamming those motherfuckers?
Shooting down the drones seems like a good solution, but
jamming is more 'subtle'...

Re: [Cryptography] 1984! US Senate Doesn't Launch Forfeiture and Crypto / Cash / Assets / Prepaid War

[Steven Schear]

A recent and brief introduction to the subject of money especially as it
relates to cryptocurrencies:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2259328-bitcoin-is-money-3/

Steve

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:40 AM, grarpamp  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:46 AM, John Levine  wrote:
> >>Posted on Jun 15, 2017 by Caleb Chen
> >>
> >>These are the 4 Senators that want to create a way to track your
> >>digital currencies at the US border ...
> >
> > I'm getting the impression that nobody here but me has actually read
> > the bill.
> >
> > It's really about prepaid debit cards.
>
> With your eye on the microscope, yes, but DC's are included too.
> With a big picture regarding new philosophies, absolutely not.
>
> > The US and many other
> > countries have for a long time required you to...
>
> Before the NWO controls of the 1930s and beyond, which is
> hardly 85 of 245 years of US "money" existance, other than
> controlling the physical printing / minting of it, the US didn't
> really give a shit what you did with it, nor care much what you
> called "money".
> The philosophy of "money" was more "freedom" oriented
> and decentralized and having some of Bitcoin's (DC's) fundamental, even
> "alternative / libertarian / anarchism / independant / multiple"
> principles.
>
> Find some history and things...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
> http://www.zerohedge.com/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
>
> > adding them to the list of cash-like things.
> > all it does is make them subject to the same rules
>
> Status quo apologist copout from those unable to
> consider working, cohabitant, symbiotic, even better,
> innovation, empowerment, and alternatives.
>
> The point, from many creators, proponents, adopters, users,
> is that DC's... like the crypto internet so far to free / freedom of
> communications... are not about seeking "more like".
>
> > If I thought bitcoin were important (I don't) I'd be thrilled that the
> > law was changing to treat it more like real money.
>
> So what exactly is *real money*?
> Do you really think it is compressing only into what some
> bureaucrats arbitrarily call "cash-like things"?
> And that arbitrary rule[rs] define the only possible scope of validity?
> Your ability to use it?
>
> Get "real" and dig yourselves and minds out of todays
> "legal" / political / philosophical strictures.
>
> If not you'll soon be forced to report and tax that plate of
> chicken you grilled for your neighbor who helped you
> build your patio. "Legally" you probably already are,
> and are subject to jailing and forfeiture for it.
>

Re: "All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years..."

[Steven Schear]

Warrant Canary creator

On May 18, 2017 8:06 AM, "Razer"  wrote:



On 05/18/2017 12:27 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> Can't abandon current average lifespan of most recently sold
> gasoline vehicle, so definitely not 8 years, more like 25.

In the US, after 10 years you can no longer get many parts for you car
from the dealer. They intentionally obsolete them, ostensibly to get
allegedly 'cleaner ones' on the road, but really, force-obsoleting cars
after 10 years instead of having ones that could run indefinitely (My IH
Travelall had 40 years on it when I passed it on) is the ONLY THING that
keeps the auto industry from 'vanishing from the pages of time'.


With the maturation of additive manufacture (for more structural plastics
and metals using laser sintering and electron beam melting) parts for autos
(and other appliances) will become practical and economic. I predict the
rebirth of a "Volkswagen Beetle"-like car which will be simple mechanically
(esp. due to simplicity of electric drivetrains), generic and open battery
(probably sodium salt vs. lithium) and electronics tech, and modular design
that enables affordable interior and exterior upgrades w/o need to replace
the frame.

Re: "All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years..."

[Steven Schear]

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Razer <g...@riseup.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 05/18/2017 08:56 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
> > With the maturation of additive manufacture (for more structural
> > plastics and metals using laser sintering and electron beam melting)
> > parts for autos (and other appliances) will become practical and
> > economic.
>
> Yeah, and absolutely non-recyclable ... from the HUGE TOXIC BATTERIES to
>

You obviously ignored my mention of Sodium replacing toxic Lithium

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/opinion/sunday/to-be-a-genius-think-like-a-94-year-old.html

This guy, who co-invented the Lithium-Ion battery, is again re-inventing
the field.

the ALLOY METALS AND COMPOSITE PLASTICS that these shiny pieces of JUNK
> are made from, unlike my Travelall that became a 2 ton cube of reusable
> steel.
>

You also ignored my mention of additive metal metal manufacture (was a
topic thread here a year or so back) which is already maturing and
routinely used to create medical implants and for aerospace. if you have
$500k - $750 you can have one delivered to your business and installed. The
metal from these "printers" can deliver parts with up to 90%+ of the grain
structure and strength of those machined from "bar stock".

If enough people demand cars made primarily from steel and aluminum they
will undoubtedly be provided.

Newer additive plastic printers can fabricate using plastics that are
largely recyclable and environmentally friendly.


>
>
> Rr
>

UK/EU terrorism: a simple fix

[Steven Schear]

The reason citizens are exposed to these dangers is that the people who
decide to go to war, remove heads of state, etc. are not exposed to the
same dangers. Citizens should insist, even at the risk of insurrection,
that politicians and their immrdiate families cannot have any special
security, private or governmental (except, perhaps when traveling abroad)
including staying at the homes of others with such security.  I'll bet
within 6 months an effective solution is somehow found.

Warrant Canary creator

Re: Torrenting The Darknets

[Steven Schear]

Warrant Canary creator

On May 20, 2017 9:34 PM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

Rewards seem nice, yet not everyone who wants to play
can pay, or the math overhead is crushing, or it becomes
centralized. Definitely worth trying, especially if it fits some
usage model.

Another form is to just let the network use whatever
CPU, RAM, DISK, NET that you're not currently
using, or give it whatever limits you want. In short,
set it and forget it. Let the network figure out how
to best use your node to support the network.
Maybe it's a strictly filesharing network,
or a general purpose network.
That's on the "Hey I just want to donate
this because it's cool like Seti@Home, etc.


Mojo's internal currency was based on the resources offered, shared or
consumed. We even patented it (apparently unknown to MaidSafe; hell they
never even heard about us :)


Users actual use of the network would
be through different apps... be it submitting
infohashes, or compute jobs, etc.

Does eliminating all the reward tracking overhead
provide substantial resources back to support
free use.


Probably not.


ie: Most people and their computer resources sit idle,
probably more than enough to provide back whatever
multimedia they want to consume.
If true, all balances out, no need to bother track accounting
with "pay to play" style system?

I like "pay to play" as it offers at least some
firm guarantee to the consumer offeror.

But an accounting free system is more fun as in free beer :)

Hybrids might work too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabyte
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettabyte
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yottabyte
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(data)

100M users donating 10GiB slack space is about 0.93 EiB
of non redundant storage, excluding overhead.

Example, at 4x redundancy, that probably easily covers
lossless versions of all movies (at least 1080p)
and all audio (FLAC), all wikipedia, all OS and apps.

Approaching mini-NSA scale... not a bad start.

Re: Torrenting The Darknets

[Steven Schear]

Warrant Canary creator

On May 20, 2017 10:46 PM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:



On 05/21/2017 12:32 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> Rewards seem nice, yet not everyone who wants to play
> can pay, or the math overhead is crushing, or it becomes
> centralized. Definitely worth trying, especially if it fits some
> usage model.
>
> Another form is to just let the network use whatever
> CPU, RAM, DISK, NET that you're not currently
> using, or give it whatever limits you want. In short,
> set it and forget it. Let the network figure out how
> to best use your node to support the network.
> Maybe it's a strictly filesharing network,
> or a general purpose network.
> That's on the "Hey I just want to donate
> this because it's cool like Seti@Home, etc."

Now I think you're describing Freenet.  How doth Freenet suck, let me
count the ways... massive computational overhead was the main thing,
last time I tried it which was ages ago.  It really needed its own
dedicated box to "just work."  But it does distribute files, increase
the availability of more popular ones (via increased redundancy of
storage), and is censorship resistant due to distributed storage of data
which itself is encrypted and anonymized.

I think a project that aims to improve on the implementation of the
basic ideas in Freenet could be a big winner.

:o)

Mojo was being developed contemporanously with Freenet and shares some of
its distributed features. It was sort of like Freenet + a resource based
currency. You do not want a filesharing system as it removes any hope of
plausible deniability for content.




> Users actual use of the network would
> be through different apps... be it submitting
> infohashes, or compute jobs, etc.
>
> Does eliminating all the reward tracking overhead
> provide substantial resources back to support
> free use.
>
> ie: Most people and their computer resources sit idle,
> probably more than enough to provide back whatever
> multimedia they want to consume.
> If true, all balances out, no need to bother track accounting
> with "pay to play" style system?
>
> I like "pay to play" as it offers at least some
> firm guarantee to the consumer offeror.
>
> But an accounting free system is more fun as in free beer :)
>
> Hybrids might work too.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabyte
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettabyte
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yottabyte
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(data)
>
> 100M users donating 10GiB slack space is about 0.93 EiB
> of non redundant storage, excluding overhead.
>
> Example, at 4x redundancy, that probably easily covers
> lossless versions of all movies (at least 1080p)
> and all audio (FLAC), all wikipedia, all OS and apps.
>
> Approaching mini-NSA scale... not a bad start.
>

Re: Torrenting The Darknets

[Steven Schear]

One of the great weaknesses of torrents (and filesharing systems in general
) is the lack of mechanisms to promote persistence. That's why a group of
us (including Bram Cohen, BitTorrent and Bryce Wilcox-O'Hearn (Zooko),
Tahoe-LAFS, MNET, ZCash) created Mojo Nation. Unfortunately, Mojo failed to
get follow-on funding due to Napster. Fortunately, the idea of a publishing
model (vs. filesharing), with an internal reward system for persistence,
was independently re-discovered by MaidSafe, IPFS and ZeroNet. I hope at
least one succeeds.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 20, 2017 7:22 PM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:

>
>
> On 05/20/2017 08:42 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Razer  wrote:
> >>> Indie films on darknets mate.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_President's_Analyst
> >> http://torrentking.eu/movie-1967/the-president-s-analyst-torrents/
> >> http://www.demonoid.click/files/details/3552579/
> >> http://www.demonoid.click/files/download/3552579/
> >> udp://inferno.demonoid.pw:3391/announce
> >
> >> I never had much luck uploading torrents myself.
> >
> > A functional darknet "torrent" system would have at least
> > just one "tracker"... the darknet internal DHT itself.
> > You'd publish the InfoHash to whatever darknet indexes you like.
> > In this case,
> > the "infohash" is 33fc6b8baa0d74e0c0c96d33a29d11dbbce9edc1
> > and the "index" for at least this message is the cpunks list,
> > while someone might "seed" it on I2P I2PSnark, I2PRufus,
> > I2P-Transmission... which utilize certain backend "trackers"
> > mechanisms not necessarily all distributed yet.
>
> i2p can be called "a functional darknet torrent system," in that the
> large majority of traffic crossing that network is torrents.  The i2p
> package includes the router, a browser based torrent client and a simple
> web server.  The two biggest trackers on i2p are Postman and
> Difftracker, both are stable with good uptimes.  I was pleased to note
> on my last visit that some files I seeded and promoted there about five
> years ago are still available.
>
> I got my copy of The President's Analyst ages ago, I would seed it but
> alas, my poor overworked computer can't afford the cycles to run i2p
> alongside all the other crap I am using it for:  Graphics and video
> editing, etc.  A more "normal" user won't see a performance hit from i2p
> unless the system they run it on is already overstressed.
>
> :o)
>
>
>
> > But there still desperately needs to be a distributed storage layer
> > that long term automagically backs up the explicit "seeders"
> > which tend to be volatile. At which point the original "OP seeder's"
> > best role is then to just inserting into the storage layer and
> > walking away.
> > "Elective non OP seeders of specific torrent sets" such as with
> > all torrents in Vuze / Transmission seed list, needs to transition
> > to offering darknet storage blocks for all insertions that may happen.
> >
>
>

Re: Manchester explosion

[Steven Schear]

That and the 'ol carbide cannons.
Warrant Canary creator

On May 22, 2017 4:35 PM, "jim bell"  wrote:

> I am reminded of some experiments I did around 40-45 years ago, filling
> relatively small  (1 foot diameter) balloons with stoichiometric
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry mixtures of hydrogen and
> oxygen (or another fuel gas and oxygen, example propane), if ignited they
> produce remarkably loud-sounding, and yet low-pitched "booms":  Sounded
> like a huge explosion done a long distance away.  Yet, there was no
> possibility of shrapnel, other than a thin rubber membrane.This could
> easily scare people in a crowded venue, causing panic and crushing crowds.
>
> Perhaps this explains what is being reported as happening in the
> Manchester arena.
>
>   Jim Bell
>
>

Re: What is the value of the State?

[Steven Schear]

One of the best answers to this oft asked question can be found in Frank
Chudorov's, The Rise and Fall of Society. Free .pdf and .epub unavailable
at Mises.org

https://mises.org/files/rise-and-fall-society

Steve

Warrant Canary creator

On May 2, 2017 5:40 PM, "jim bell"  wrote:

>
>
> --
> *From:* \0xDynamite 
>
> >That's some good bit o' history.
>
> It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have
> electronics?  Radio?"
>
> I proceeded to answer that question, and others.  You asked the history
> question, I thought the answer was obviousl.
>
> >  I was really referring to the level
> of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order.
>
> That sounds like gobbledygook to me.What do you mean by this?  What is
> a "level of order"?  And why do you (apparently) think that government is
> somehow necessary (or even desireable) to act as a driver of technology.
> I think the opposite is true.
>
> > I don't
> think it's possible to argue with that.
>
> Until we actually UNDERSTAND what you meant, how can someone argue?
>
>
> >But I like the sentiment.  I think the problem is more than the State.
>
> What problem?  I think "the State" is the problem.
>
> >It's the pathetic infrastructure that would be an eyesore for
> centuries.
>
> States have been a "pathetic infrastructure" that has been "an eyesore for
> centuries.
>
> Jim Bell
>
>
>
> On 5/2/17, jim bell  wrote:
> > From: \0xDynamite 
> >
> >>Without a State, would we have electronics?  Radio?
> > That's a question which displays a lack of knowledge of technical
> history.
> >  Radio transmission was known as a consequence of Maxwell's equations,
> > Maxwell's equations  .Heinrich HertzElectronics can be
> traced to
> > the "Fleming Valve",  Fleming valve   the rectifying diode implemented
> using
> > the Edison effect, which was actually discovered by Frederick Guthrie.
> >  Frederick GuthrieShortly afterwards, Lee DeForest  Lee de Forest
> > added a grid, which made it possible for the "vacuum tube" to oscillate
> and
> > amplify, leading to radio communications.   Radio broadcasting occurred
> > BEFORE government regulation:  Arguably, the need to allow many stations
> to
> > share a limited spectrum made such regulation necessary.
> >
> >>Computers?Computers existed before IC's; I used one, the DEC PDP-7, in
> >> 1976-80.   But at about $50,000 in 1964 dollars (about $500,000 in
> >> today's), the average individual wasn't going to buy one. What we know
> >> today as "computers" was primarily the product of the invention of the
> >> integrated circuit (IC) by MOSFET - Wikipedia   various scientists and
> >> engineers. Once the concept of the  Integrated circuit existed, and was
> >> seen to follow the scaling described by Moore's law   (initially, in the
> >> 1960's, a doubling of transistors on a chip every 12 months; later in
> the
> >> 70's and 80's the doubling period lengthened to 18 months, then to 2
> years
> >> in the 1990's and later), if one transistor was possible in, say, 1961,
> 13
> >> years later 2**13 transistors (8192) was possible, in 1974.  So, the
> >> development of early microprocessors such as Intel's 8080, 6502, and
> 6800
> >> was virtually assured.  This was definitely NOT the product of
> government!
> >>  And it would have happened regardless of the "space race" of the 1960's
> >> and 70's.
> > Also, you didn't mention The Internet.  Statists are fond of suggesting
> that
> > the United States government made the Internet possible.  Well, no, it
> > didn't.  During a time in which that government was financing research,
> some
> > money was spent to develop network interface controllers Network
> interface
> > controller, which at the time typically fit into a single RETMA 19" rack.
> >  Not long afterwards, the same thing could have been (and was)
> implemented
> > by means of more modern IC's.  But at that point, "the Internet" (as we
> know
> > it, or at least knew it in 1995), was still impossible.
> > If you still doubt this, consider:  Why didn't the Internet as we know it
> > today exist in 1980?  To me, the answer is simple.  The fastest modem in
> > common use by consumers at that time was a 300 bits-per-second, Bell 103
> > (different Bell!) compatible.  Great improvements followed:  1200 bps in
> > about 1981; 2400 bps in 1983, 9800 bps in the early 1990's. ModemI'd
> say
> > it was the latter, 9600 bps, which really made the modern Internet
> plausible
> > for the vast majority of the population.  So, it was the people who
> > developed and built 9600+bps modems that made the Internet (as we knew
> it,
> > in 1995) possible.
> >
> >>  MassTransit?
> > I think most of the New York subway systems were originally privately
> > financed and built.  Similarly, most railroads.  Similarly bus lines.
> And
> > airlines.
> >
> >> Bikes?
> >

Re: What is the value of the State?

[Steven Schear]

>From that reply I will assume you have nit read the book.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 8, 2017 4:12 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:59:11 -0700
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Mises.org
>
> conservative fascists posing as 'libertarian'
>
>

Re: What is the value of the State?

[Steven Schear]

Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never, AFAIK, ever
admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data and models) but not
independently verifiable via the Scientific Method, the gold standard for
science.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 8, 2017 5:22 PM, "\0xDynamite"  wrote:

>> except for very token
>> gestures.
>
>   I don't think that the tens of billions of dollars that go to
>   special interests including of course the 'scientific' mafia
>   are a token gesture.

There's aren't "tens of billions" of dollars spent to prove global
warming except to counter-act the deniers.

\x

Re: Torrenting The Darknets

[Steven Schear]

What I meant,  if you are holding and sharing an entire file of some really
sensitive content and depend on networking technologies known or assumed to
have flaws which can expose your IP address you have relinquished ability
to deny it.
Whereas is this content has been published, using something like Freenet,
so no single user of the content distribution system has more than a
fragment of that content and what they each have is not only encrypted (and
you don't have the key) but its bit interleaved and your software has no
idea what part(s) of the content you hold nor where those other parts
reside (for that your software must possess the file's "treasure map" which
can be closely held). This offers good plausible deniability.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 21, 2017 2:24 PM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

> Mojo was being developed contemporanously with Freenet and shares some of
> its distributed features. It was sort of like Freenet + a resource based
> currency.

True.

> You do not want a filesharing system as it removes any hope of
> plausible deniability for content.

Huh?

If it's encrypted and anonymous it's deniable by all, and even billed
for "filesharing" is fine, at least currently, due to legal free speech
uses riding within. Though if you bill it for "illegal copyright
infringement',
you yourself might take heat for "incitement", but the network itself would
still be safe. Such network nodes themselves, like I2P / Tor / Freenet,
operate freely because of that principle, and it's been proven out
successfully so far for maybe 15-20 years. Strongly encrypted + strongly
anonymous + decentralized works in this space. Unfortunately, few qualify...

Napster, gnutella, limewire, kazaa, bittorrent, whatever... when run over
clearnet... of course they all get shutdown. Due to some combination
of centralized, not encrypted, not anonymous no deniability there.

Wikipedia is a bit scattered, but here's some references...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P

Re: Torrenting The Darknets

[Steven Schear]

These trackers need to adopt distributed hosting tech, like IPFS or
NetZero, so there are no single points of pressure/failure and the operator
IP and identity have a reasonable chance of staying private from technical
snooping.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 21, 2017 4:09 PM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

> https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/05/17/1830228/popular-torrent-site-
> extratorrent-permanently-shuts-down
> https://torrentfreak.com/extratorrent-shuts-down-for-good-170517/
>
> ExtraTorrent is the latest in a series of BitTorrent giants to fall in
> recent months. Previously, sites including KickassTorrents,
> Torrentz.eu, TorrentHound and What.cd went offline.
> Clearnet = Fail.
>

Re: Why I can't sleep soundly with blockchain, being the cypherpunk

[Steven Schear]

I am not at all surprised that CPunks did not kick off the revolution many
of us desired.

One reason was that, despite Tim C May's mantra that, "cypherpunks write
code", not many of us were capable or did. Many who hung out on the list
and were technically competent weren't true believers and/or were still
more focused on their careers. When times were poor for our employment
there would be a significant surge in doing coding but as soon as the good
times returned these people were no where to be found.

Another reason is our lack of understanding of the importance of UIs and
network effects for widespread take-up (Why Johnny Still, Still Can't
Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client
).

Steve

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:16 AM, \0xDynamite 
wrote:

> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:36:54AM +0300, Sergey Matveev wrote:
> >> Everything is right here. Anyway you *will* depend on people, society,
> >> its behaviour and huge quantity of empirical factors and assumptions. It
> >> is not cypherpunk's reliable and risks-predictable world -- it has
> >> nothing in common. Replacing the need to trust the human, with the need
> >> to trust the algorithm and technology -- that *is* the exact reason why
> >> I am interested in crypto. Requiring and depending on society again --
> >> that is the exact reason why I standing aside from blockchains. They do
> >> not offer any guarantees[4], but likelihoods, lottery.
> >
> > But this is the point - exchange of energy between humans, whether
> > money, voluntary labour, crypto money, barter of food or other goods,
> > these things ALWAYS depend on other humans - that is (how ever
> > unfortunate this might be) the nature of involvement with other
> > humans and with interacting with other humans.
>
> I am curious about Sergey's point.  While humanity is generally a
> piece of shit, they are akin to a cancer patient whose every cell has
> been infected -- they themselves are not guilty, they are product of
> external factors that are larger than them.  Ultimately, like all
> mammals, they are organized around the heart (that's what separates
> them from lizards), so that natural force can be harnessed.
>
> This is also why technological solutions have not been affective.  If
> you take my premise that humans are organized around the heart, then
> pure rationalism will fail to lead them because their minds are
> already infected and they distrust it.  So, in a way, the same forces
> of the heart are already working -- too block further memetic codons
> from creating more nucleic load.
>
> > So when it comes to exchange of energy of any form between humans,
> > you will always be involved with other humans, to a greater or lesser
> > degree :)
>
> Yeah, humans are both the cause and the cure.  The major source of
> inadequacy in THIS population (crypto-anarchists) is the failure to
> examine why the 60's failed to produce the revolution it desired.  It
> had love, peace, and an awesome soundtrack -- yet it failed.
>
> The only reason I've found in my analysis is that it was missing
> either truth or justice (in some way they HADN'T recognized) or both.
> Both of these are necessary for peace.  Without truth, people argue.
> Without justice. people continue fighting.
>
> \0xd
>



-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: Bypassing Intel Boot Guard, EdDSA

[Steven Schear]

Why not switch to much more open CPUs (e.g. POWER8/9) which are already
comparable to much of Intel's higher end server chips.

Warrant Canary creator

On Oct 8, 2017 9:24 AM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:14 AM, George Violaris
>  wrote:
> > This is exceptional work, I am looking forward to loading it on Arduino.
> Did
> > you use a specific Arduino image by the way?
>
> Not my work.
> Go to the authors of the paper / project on their page and ask them.
>

Re: Carbon fiber bombs

[Steven Schear]

Certainly a major point to having the option or being off-the-grid.

Warrant Canary creator

On Oct 9, 2017 10:08 AM, "grarpamp"  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:03 AM, John Young  wrote:
> > Carbon fiber bombs from 1999 used by NATO to attack Yugoslavia grids
> >
> > http://cryptome.info/0001/blu114-yu/blu114-yu.htm
> >
> > No doubt more sophisticated now. Drones likely to be used, on US and NATO
> > comms, music concerts, sports, revenuers, golf clubs, VIP transports,
> search
> > and social media, drone controllers. spy kiosks and whatever relies on
> EM.
>
> >> South Korea developing graphite 'blackout bombs' to paralyse North's
> >> electrical grid
> >>
> >> https://www.yahoo.com/newsroom/vibes/south-korea/v-
> 50a3291a-1aa0-3389-b071-c23ae7c7394b_c-629d6357-e0fd-
> 316b-8ace-1c014e1e774f_a-629d6357-e0fd-316b-8ace-1c014e1e774f
>
> Similar fireworks might be just as easily obtained by lobbing
> rebar and oil draining rounds into the substation of your enemy...
>
> https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebar
> https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_substation
> https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil
>
> Though at that point, due to opposing action, infrastructure
> nonredundancy and fragility, lack of spares production...
> you're probably not going to be able to watch your cat
> videos on youtube anymore either.
>

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <fo...@leeclagett.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And now some politics...
> >
> > *Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin*
> >
> > *It is the original bitcoin*
> > It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam Back
> > (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital
> > cash-related projects) with his Sidechain
> > <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3>
> > proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of
> > Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was
> > completed. We, the original community, have finally regained control
> > of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control of the name.
> > This position is about to be redressed.
> >
> > *It does not have Segwit.*
> > If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D being
> > the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is reduced to a
> > hash and the original signature is discarded after it is verified. So
> > if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your signatures, the
> > signatures are discarded after being checked, and only the
> > "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit does.
> >
> > The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main chain.
> > Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial records, some
> > will discard them entirely. If you ever need to refer back to the
> > transaction to check on the signatures all you have is the hash. "The
> > fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of bitcoin being an unbroken
> > record of signatures is violated.
>
> It has been possible to "prune" old transactions from a local copy of
> the blockchain with Bitcoin Core for some time before Segwit was ever
> merged. You cannot realistically force someone to store the entire
> blockchain for you. The ability to prune old signatures while keeping
> the core transaction is actually a benefit - every transaction is
> necessary to verify that no double-spending has occurred or that miners
> did not create more coins than allowed. So even if the entire network
> dumped all segwit information, some critical checks of the system can
> be done by newcomers (but only if at least one person stores the
> entirety of the transaction information).
>

Accessing information from another's blockchain db is a privacy issue.
That's why running your own full, private, node is such a good idea. Its
not practical to do so in your mobile so an appliance is good solution.

A few years back some cypherpunks write a paper with controversial
suggestions on improving the Bitcoin blockchain. I think its still worth a
read. Here's the coverage article. There's a link inside to the paper on
scribd.:

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-keep-it-anonymous-and-regulation-free/

Key suggestions:

1. Use forced mixing (like ZeroCoin/ZCash) to improve transaction privacy
2. Enforce a limited, regular-sized, block chain
3. Ability to choose miners of payments

Steve


>
>
> > [...]
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
> Lee
>



-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

Looks like the alt-media are starting to use the "F"-word in regards to
Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Cash

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-19/bitcoin-cash-explodes-record-highs-over-900-heres-why

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> [Disclosure: I am a strong supporter of L1 (Blockchain scaling) occurring
> before any L2 (e.g., Segwit, Blockstream, Lightening Network, etc.) is
> attempted. And even then all L2 must be thoroughly examined not only for
> technical flaws but for possible misuses that affects the value and utility
> of the underlying blockchain assets.]
>
> Due to the economic and technical nature of Bitcoin and its blockchain its
> more than possible that the new fork, widely being called Bitcoin Cash, BCH
> or BCC, will overtake its rival fork now commonly called Bitcoin Core. The
> effect of this "flippening" could be nothing short of disastrous for those
> holding Bitcoin Core.
>
> Since the recent Bitcoin hard fork we now have two Bitcoins: Core (the
> original) and Cash. When the fork happened those holding BTC (in their own
> wallets) were also able to claim an equal amount of BCC (for free). This
> created a huge supply of BCC. However, many or most people rarely keep
> their BTC in their wallets, preferring instead to keep them in online
> exchange accounts. As a result, even though the exchanges warned people
> they needed to withdraw their BTC to claim the BCC, most of those people
> will never get that BCC. Instead it became a windfall for the exchanges.
>
> When the fork occurred the Cash chain inherited the then current
> difficulty factor of the original. When operating nominally both chains
> should have new blocks discovered by miners about every 10 minutes. Because
> at the outset the mining effort for Cash was only a small fraction of the
> Core's. the rate new blocks were found (and therefore the transaction
> capacity) initially was hobbled. This was anticipated and the developers
> included a means to detect when the hashing power on this Cash chain was
> too low and to quickly adjust, in 20% increments, the difficulty factor.
>
> By far the main driver for miners is revenue. In general they will go to
> whatever blockchain they earn the most. Analysis of the hash power being
> expended on both chains versus the difficulties and value of each coin
> showed that the two were converging insofar as mining profitability. There
> is also an anomalous aspect to the sources of the BCC mining power. Unlike
> that of BTC, where most of the hashing power is associated with known large
> mining cartels, the majority of BCC mining is by unknown parties.There has
> been significant variation of mining power over relatively short intervals
> on both blockchains. The timing of this variation very much indicates that
> the miners were attempting to beneficially manipulate both the value of BCC
> vs. BTC and quickly decrease the mining effort for BCC.
>
>   BTC  BCH   TOTBTC BCH
>   BTC   BCH BTC
>( Hash Power )   ( Difficulty)
>   ( Block Time )(mempool)
>
> 11 August6600  338   6938 923115
> 10.00 2155
> 12 August6199  416   6615 923115
> 10.66 2015
> 13 August6808  440   7248 923115
>   9.73 18.46   27
> 14 August5951  522   6473 923115
>  11.0715.82   47
> 15 August6966  647   7591 923115
>9.4712.85   53
> 16 August5984  484   6468 923115
>  11.0717.14   50
>
>
>- Since 11 August Hash Power on the BCH chain has increased daily.
>- Hash power on BTC chain on the other hand fluctuates from day to
>day, by up to 1000 PH and the mempool continues to grow.
>
>
> The table above are snapshots taken at a point in time each day. Their
> individual states can be monitored in real time here
> <https://bitinfocharts.com/>*.  Scroll down to the hash rate. BTC hash
> rate is down to 4853 PH. This is more than 2000 PH below the table above
> and the mempool <https://blockchain.info/charts> has now exceeded 65MB. A
> Death Chain Spiral may have set in but is being "managed".
>
> This large fluctuation of BTC hash rate could be the miners preventing
> difficulty from adjusting downwards, and at the same time growing the
> mempool. It is also possible that with over 1000 blocks to the next
> difficulty recalculation, we may not see another difficu

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

"Legacy Bitcoin is no longer useful as a currency and has been taken over
by the banking corporations in an attempt to kill off Bitcoin as we know
it."
The Final Solution to Legacy Bitcoin.
https://theflippening.github.io/open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-from-another-miner/

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, juan <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:27 -0600
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Flippening, BTC to BCH
>
> so what's your 'libertarian' take on bitmain and their ASICs
> and patents?
>
>
>


-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio.

Shameless self-promoter :)

Re: [WAR] [RWN] Netanyahu quickly distances Israel away from DailyStormer comments

[Steven Schear]

AFAIK, many Jews served in WW II (my dad did) and Korea. However, beginning
with Vietnam I am pretty sure these numbers plummeted. I think this was
largely related to many (including myself) getting informed about the real
reasons for the war and finding ways to opt out.

With the end of conscription and the rise of a professional standing army
the mix changed. Increasingly, people joined the armed services for
financial reasons. Jews, who have, as a group, among the highest incomes
were no longer seeking military service. Increasingly, only those with few
career option did. Just about now the services are scraping the bottom of
the barrel.

Steve

All wars are basically wars between aristocracies.
Only fools fight for their aristocracies.

On Nov 27, 2017 3:15 PM, "Zenaan Harkness"  wrote:

> Well well well, it's a tight nit relationship between Israel and The
> Daily Stormer which Netanyahu is wishing to distance himself from, as
> in literally - who knew that TDS could reach such “heights” as to be
> engaging Israeli media and politicians?
>
> What a world we live in ...
>
>
>
>
> Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Attacked by the Israeli Press for
> Agreeing with the Daily Stormer
> https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/israels-deputy-
> foreign-minister-attacked-by-the-israeli-press-for-
> agreeing-with-the-daily-stormer/
> Lee Rogers
> Daily Stormer
> November 27, 2017
>
>   Last week I wrote an article on Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister
>   Tzipi Hotovely. The piece focused on her statements admitting that
>   few Jews who live in the United States actually serve in the
>   military, a fact that we here at the Daily Stormer have routinely
>   pointed out.
>
>   This is an inconvenient fact for the Jews because the American
>   military has been fighting endless wars to benefit Israel. Jews are
>   largely content to let the goyim fight wars on their behalf while
>   they sit back fat and happy.
>
>   She was roundly criticized by her fellow tribesmen for the remarks.
>   They lashed out at her because she was stating actual truth about
>   the situation. Now the Israeli press is unjustly attacking her
>   because my article thanked her for exposing this truth.
>
>
> See also from the Jerusalem Post:
>   http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Neo-Nazi-site-thanks-deputy-
> FM-for-admitting-US-Jews-dont-serve-515223
>   Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely may have been sharply
>   rebuked by Israeli and Jewish world officials last week for her
>   now-infamous statements disparaging American Jews for “failing to
>   serve in the military,” but her words did win her some fans.
>
>   The neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer on Thursday featured a
>   column by Lee Rogers applauding the Israeli politician for
>   “admitting” to a fact that has long been a stereotype touted by the
>   extreme Right.
>
>   “An Israeli diplomat just admitted a very inconvenient fact,” he
>   wrote on the site. “Few Jews living in the United States have ever
>   served in the American military. Considering that America has been
>   fighting all sorts of insane wars for Jews and Israel, this is not
>   something they want people talking about.”
>
>   “It’s not a surprise to see how Netanyahu quickly distanced Israel
>   away from these remarks. The last thing the Jews want are the
>   American people waking up to the fact that they’re fighting wars
>   for them even though few Jews serve themselves,” Rogers wrote.
>   ...
>
>

Re: Bitcoin theft and the future of cryptocurrencies

[Steven Schear]

On the one hand Satochi pitched Bitcoin as a cash-like system. What can
happen with cash under careless handling and storage? OTOH, Bitcoin's
crypto nature lends itself to novel solutions such as multisig pools that
can be used to prevent this type of fraud and theft. See Stash Pool
explanation at Stashcrypto.com.

On Dec 13, 2017 2:17 AM, "Georgi Guninski"  wrote:

> If your bitcoin wallet is compromised, all your bitcoins are gone
> forever. With a credit card, you have some chance of only minor
> damage. If your computer is owned, your wallet is at risk.
>
> This appears major problem for the widespread adoption of bitcoin
> IMHO.
>
> Fixing it appears to contradict decentralization, which opens another
> can of "worms".
>
> Potential approach is to use "trusted wallet proxy", but this may not
> work in practice.
>
> Are these concerns taken seriously?
>
> Any technical attempts at mitigating cryptocurrency theft?
>
>

Re: Is a BTC - BCC flippening in the offing?

[Steven Schear]

The Flippening, BTC to BCH The Last Mile
Upgraded #BCH <https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/BCH?src=hashtag_click>
#EDA <https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/EDA?src=hashtag_click>. This time,
once the BTC chain come into the orbit, of the death grip, of the Chain
Death Spiral, they will not be "rescued" by a BCH difficulty
adjustment. 
http://bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.ch/2017/11/the-flippening-btc-to-bch-last-mile.html)
bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.ch/2017/11/the-f
<https://t.co/h0ke3Z8BXK?amp=1>

On Nov 13, 2017 9:51 AM, "Lee Clagett" <fo...@leeclagett.com> wrote:

> Sorry for reviving this old thread. Just noticed I replied directly to
> Steven instead of the list, there might be something in here people
> find interesting ... replies inline.
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:26:43 -0700
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Lee Clagett <fo...@leeclagett.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:18:40 -0500
> > > Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And now some politics...
> > > >
> > > > *Here is why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is The Real Bitcoin*
> > > >
> > > > *It is the original bitcoin*
> > > > It was hijacked from Gavin Andresen very surreptitiously by Adam
> > > > Back (back in the day, Adam and I worked on hashcash and digital
> > > > cash-related projects) with his Sidechain
> > > > <http://www.satoshisdeposition.com/podcast/BTCK-169-2015-09-11.mp3>
> > > > proposal. It was a "Trojan Horse" and together with the help of
> > > > Blockstream, Theymos and the Core developers the process was
> > > > completed. We, the original community, have finally regained
> > > > control of the Bitcoin project, except that we have lost control
> > > > of the name. This position is about to be redressed.
> > > >
> > > > *It does not have Segwit.*
> > > > If you look at a Bitcoin file as AD. A being the address and D
> > > > being the data, Segwit removes the address portion A, It is
> > > > reduced to a hash and the original signature is discarded after
> > > > it is verified. So if your "fingerprint" is the hash of all your
> > > > signatures, the signatures are discarded after being checked, and
> > > > only the "fingerprint" is kept. This is in effect what Segwit
> > > > does.
> > > >
> > > > The signatures are stored on another chain, but not the main
> > > > chain. Some nodes will keep signatures, some only keep partial
> > > > records, some will discard them entirely. If you ever need to
> > > > refer back to the transaction to check on the signatures all you
> > > > have is the hash. "The fingerprint". Satoshi's original design of
> > > > bitcoin being an unbroken record of signatures is violated.
> > >
> > > It has been possible to "prune" old transactions from a local copy
> > > of the blockchain with Bitcoin Core for some time before Segwit was
> > > ever merged. You cannot realistically force someone to store the
> > > entire blockchain for you. The ability to prune old signatures
> > > while keeping the core transaction is actually a benefit - every
> > > transaction is necessary to verify that no double-spending has
> > > occurred or that miners did not create more coins than allowed. So
> > > even if the entire network dumped all segwit information, some
> > > critical checks of the system can be done by newcomers (but only if
> > > at least one person stores the entirety of the transaction
> > > information).
> >
> > Accessing information from another's blockchain db is a privacy issue.
> > That's why running your own full, private, node is such a good idea.
> > Its not practical to do so in your mobile so an appliance is good
> > solution.
> >
> > A few years back some cypherpunks write a paper with controversial
> > suggestions on improving the Bitcoin blockchain. I think its still
> > worth a read. Here's the coverage article. There's a link inside to
> > the paper on scribd.:
> >
> > https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-
> hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-keep-it-anonymous-and-regulation-free/
>
> What did this have to do with my post? You seem to be addressing a
> tangential part - yes pruning transaction information in your local
> blockchain may cause information leakage - but my foc

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Steven Schear]

The Bitcoin Core mining can remain profitable using up to at least 24 TWh
annually. That said, as the periodic halvings reduce awards the fees, which
are already to high to make it useful for commerce, may soon make it
problematic for investment.

Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin Unlimited
blockchains could be >> efficient yet.

On Dec 7, 2017 12:05 PM, "g2s"  wrote:

Bitcoin. A gambling game only a capitalist scumbag would play. Tim May was
wrong. Btc IS NOT the future. It's a dead end leading to a dead planet.

The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much electricity as Denmark.
In 18 months, it will use as much as the entire United States.

https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/

Rr

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Steven Schear]

It's going great, actually. Bitcoin Cash uptake is growing dramatically
and, unlike Bitcoin Core, is entirely practical for commerce.

As for the flippening it clearly hasn't happened. While it's price has
appreciated it's not a hockey stick. I'm still hopeful the recent code
changes will, probably after the next price crash of Core, enable it to
close the miner profitably gap.

On Dec 7, 2017 4:42 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:12:41 -0800
Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin
> Unlimited blockchains could be >> efficient yet.


So Steve you were talking about some sort of "flipping" or
something a while back? How's that going?

right now bitcoin is at $18000* while bcash is $1300


*stupid bubble of course.

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Steven Schear]

In #meetoo fashion the flippening is going to happen this week when drudge
news shows a bitcoin core developer get accused of grabbing an interns
breast, and everyone dumps BTC.

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:45 PM, juan <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:12:41 -0800
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin
> > Unlimited blockchains could be >> efficient yet.
>
>
> So Steve you were talking about some sort of "flipping" or
> something a while back? How's that going?
>
> right now bitcoin is at $18000* while bcash is $1300
>
>
> *stupid bubble of course.
>
>
>


-- 
Creator of the Warrant Canary and the Street Performer Protocol. Wi-Fi
standard spec. creation participant and co-developer of eCache. Director at
MojoNation and Cylink. Founding member of IFCA and GNU Radio. Currently, VP
of BusinessTechnology at Stashcrypto.com

Re: From sand to silicon chips, openly

[Steven Schear]

A good example of why totally open chips are problematic in the commercial
world.

Spectre/Meltdown Pits Transparency Against Liability: Which is More
Important to You?
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5127

As always, the devil is in the details.

" You can’t have it both ways: the whole point of transparency is to enable
peer review, so you can find and fix bugs more quickly. But if every time a
bug is found, a manufacturer had to hand $50 to every user of their product
as a concession for the bug, they would quickly go out of business. This
partially answers the question why we don’t see open hardware much beyond
simple breakout boards and embedded controllers: it’s far too risky from a
liability standpoint to openly share the documentation for complex systems
under these circumstances. "

" However, even one of their most ardent open-source advocates pushed back
quite hard when I suggested they should share their pre-boot code. By
pre-boot code, I’m not talking about the little ROM blob that gets run
after reset to set up your peripherals so you can pull your bootloader from
SD card or SSD. That part was a no-brainer to share. I’m talking about the
code that gets run before the architecturally guaranteed “reset vector”. A
number of software developers (and alarmingly, some security experts)
believe that the life of a CPU begins at the reset vector. In fact, there’s
often a significant body of code that gets executed on a CPU to set things
up to meet the architectural guarantees of a hard reset – bringing all the
registers to their reset state, tuning clock generators, gating
peripherals, and so forth. Critically, chip makers heavily rely upon this
pre-boot code to also patch all kinds of embarrassing silicon bugs, and to
enforce binning rules."

If, OTOH, there were ways to manufacture arbitrarily complex chips on the
desktop for reasonable costs and in reasonable time, and so eliminate the
commercial issues, this conundrum could vanish.



On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> http://parallel.princeton.edu/openpiton/open_source_processors.php
>

Subverting backdoored encryption

[Steven Schear]

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/subverting_back.html

Re: Quantum radar?

[Steven Schear]

Even if not, well designed (UWB) passive/multiphasic will.

On Sat, May 12, 2018, 1:32 AM jim bell  wrote:

> Quantum Radars Could Unstealth the F-22, F-35 and J-20 (Or 
> Not)https://www.yahoo.com/newsroom/vibes/us-military/v-6f4ee341-6205-3949-8a2e-43a9c5d8ab6f_c-5701a826-de83-3a65-8dc8-71d0bdb067c5_a-5701a826-de83-3a65-8dc8-71d0bdb067c5
>
>
>

Re: Immutable Recording

[Steven Schear]

Freenet might be an option. There's a built-in option for versioning so
changes or additions/extension to the original upload can be searched while
still remaining in control of the original uploader. As for being immutable
just program a client to query the content on a regular basis and it should
stay cached.

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:28:44PM -0400, Karl wrote:
> > Hi cpunks,
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out how to produce lengthy recordings that cannot be
> > reasonably removed or altered even by a very powerful entity.
>
>
> Your sole option is distribution of the recording (presumably in real
> time) to multiple jurisdictions, at least one of which will be
> supportive of "not deleting/ suppressing" your recording.
>
> I imagine Wikileaks would like to know if you come up with something
> better than the Tor NSA CIA mafia.
>
>

Re: Speaking of Ashkenazis...

[Steven Schear]

Can't wait for the emergence of effective A.I. based list moderation
without any opportunity for ad hominem rebuttals.

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 7:45 PM Mirimir  wrote:

> On 06/10/2018 03:16 PM, Steven Schear wrote:
> > Little if anything at all but this "off topic" chatter had been,
> > unfortunately the bane of the list almost from the genesis post.
>
> List spamming and trolling is clearly on-topic for this list. It's been
> so since the 90s. But stuff was funnier, back in the day ;)
>
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 7:13 PM Shawn K. Quinn 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/10/2018 02:54 PM, Darius the Great wrote:
> >>>> juan juan@spookmail.com
> >>>> Sat Jun 9 16:02:55 PDT 2018
> >>>>
> >>>> Oy vey a Sun Rune.
> >>>
> >>> Pic related.
> >>> [followed by a huge honking 400+ KB JPEG]
> >>
> >> What the hell does this have to do with cypherpunks? Enlighten me.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Shawn K. Quinn 
> >> http://www.rantroulette.com
> >> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
> >>
> >
>

$1.1 Bln in Crypto Has Been Stolen This Year

[Steven Schear]

The magnitude of such thefts could only happen because so many hodlers are
lazy and keep their crypto booty in custodial exchangers instead of in
their own wallets (especially hardware).

https://cointelegraph.com/news/report-1-1-bln-in-crypto-has-been-stolen-this-year

Your devices are not safe. If your devices are not safe, no amount of crypto matters:

[Steven Schear]

http://www.loper-os.org/?p=2433

Re: Speaking of Ashkenazis...

[Steven Schear]

Little if anything at all but this "off topic" chatter had been,
unfortunately the bane of the list almost from the genesis post.

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 7:13 PM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

> On 06/10/2018 02:54 PM, Darius the Great wrote:
> >> juan juan@spookmail.com
> >> Sat Jun 9 16:02:55 PDT 2018
> >>
> >> Oy vey a Sun Rune.
> >
> > Pic related.
> > [followed by a huge honking 400+ KB JPEG]
>
> What the hell does this have to do with cypherpunks? Enlighten me.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
>

Re: $1.1 Bln in Crypto Has Been Stolen This Year

[Steven Schear]

Good point. Would love to see a fair comparison.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 4:01 AM Georgi Guninski  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 07:22:51PM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
> >
> https://cointelegraph.com/news/report-1-1-bln-in-crypto-has-been-stolen-this-year
>
> How does this compare with stolen traditional money?
>
> Instead of absolute values probably the ratio "stolen/total" is more
> interesting.
>
>

Re: Cryptocurrency: Rise of Bitcoin Cash BCH

[Steven Schear]

In 2013, a paper I contributed to offered a solution to the ever growing
blockchain delema: a finite epoch. The solution is similar the one Chaum
used on Digicash. It would fix, temporally,  the blockchain to include only
transactions for the past 2 years, for example, thus creating a blockchain
of tractable and predictable size for affordable full nodes.

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-keep-it-anonymous-and-regulation-free/

More recently, I've co-written a paper proposing a distributed service
solution that could solve thin wallet privacy and security issues without
needing to trust individual full nodes under the control of others.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 11:09 PM juan  wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 00:22:03 -0400
> grarpamp  wrote:
>
>
> as you know grarpamp (or maybe you dont know?) the size of
> bitcoins ledger is ~200 gbytes at the moment.  So one wonders how big it
> would get if bitcoin was used for small payments by many people (let alone
> so called micropayments). Seems like very few people would be able to run a
> validating node then?
>
> oh and yes, 'satoshi' himself dismissed the problem saying
> something like "put a few servers in a (NSA) datacenter"  - but even though
> 'satoshi' said that it remains a bad solution no?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: BBC News: The $300 system in the fight against illegal images

[Steven Schear]

I'm sure the tech he cobbled together has lots of other uses. For example,
astronomers might use it to search images for anomalies or interesting
objects.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 7:55 PM jim bell  wrote:

> I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:
>
> The $300 system in the fight against illegal images - 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44525358
>
> * Disclaimer *
>
> The BBC is not responsible for the content of this email, and anything 
> written in this email does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or 
> opinions. Please note that neither the email address nor name of the sender 
> have been verified.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
>

Re: Cryptocurrency: Rise of Bitcoin Cash BCH

[Steven Schear]

A rolling epoch,  as suggested in the paper, not only helps keep the
blockchain length tractable it also prevents "submarining" from assets
which haven't moved since the early days of a blockchain (e.g.,
Satochi/Finney and new blockchain pre-mining).

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 1:30 PM juan  wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 06:49:04 -0700
> Steven Schear  wrote:
>
> > In 2013, a paper I contributed to offered a solution to the ever growing
> > blockchain delema: a finite epoch. The solution is similar the one Chaum
> > used on Digicash. It would fix, temporally,  the blockchain to include
> only
> > transactions for the past 2 years,
>
> and what happens to funds older than 2 years?
>
> "Any money still held from transactions in these blocks would be
> freed up, and released back to the network in the form of a lottery."
>
> lolwut - that's trolling, right? =)
>
>
>
>
> > for example, thus creating a blockchain
> > of tractable and predictable size for affordable full nodes.
> >
> >
> https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-activists-suggest-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-to-keep-it-anonymous-and-regulation-free/
> >
> > More recently, I've co-written a paper proposing a distributed service
> > solution that could solve thin wallet privacy and security issues without
> > needing to trust individual full nodes under the control of others.
> >
>

Re: Cryptocurrency: Rise of Bitcoin Cash BCH

[Steven Schear]

I guess for you the article is a TL;DR. There was NOT a suggestion of
simple confiscation. All one had to do, to prevent "reclamation", is to
periodically move assets on the blockchain.

On Jul 2, 2018 5:19 PM, "juan"  wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:37:15 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, July 1, 2018, 11:09:34 PM PDT, juan 
wrote:
>
>  On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 00:22:03 -0400
> grarpamp  wrote:
>
>
>  "   as you know grarpamp (or maybe you dont know?) the size of bitcoins
ledger is ~200 gbytes at the moment. "
>
>
> On Amazon, I see a 200 GB micro SD card being sold for $71.  A 256 GB
micro SD card is sold for $120.  Rather spendy, but within the realm of
possibility.


And? You can buy a 2 terabytes HD for $50 or so(or less?). I
suggest you do that if you want to store the blockchain, SD cards aren't
reliable - HDs are cheaper and better. But guess what? Storage isn't the
problem anyway.

The problem is that peers have to transmit and process the whole
ledger.

And the answer "so called moore's law will magically solve
everything" isn't too convincing.





>
> About "a Gigabyte::  In my college days, 1978, we had a comedic,
fictional dormitory organization called "TWePOE"  ("Third West Power
Elite").   I, the only one with a functional personal computer on my
hallway (my own homebrew "Bellyache I", a comedic take on the famous
"ILLIAC 4), my room became the "GBDSC", short for "Gigabyte Data Storage
Center", a subsidiary of the organization "MOIA", short for "Ministry of
Information Abuse", whose ominous motto was, "We've got a file on YOU!"
>
> I chose "Gigabyte" because, at that time, it was such an inconceivably
fantasticly large amount of data storage so as to be awe-inspiring.  (An 8
inch SSSD floppy disk stored a grand 240 kilobytes of data, so it would
have taken more than 4100 of them to house a full gigabyte.)
> Today, the idea that I could buy 1 million times the storage of one of
those 240 kilobyte floppies, held in a wafer smaller than my
pinky-fingernail, remains amazing to me.
> Jim Bell
>
>

Re: Chicago Deploying Police State Drones, NSA

[Steven Schear]

Spark gap transmitters are probably difficult/impossible to operate at
2.4/5.7 GHz and even if you could are probably too broadband to have
sufficient power/Hz, unless the transmitters have KWs of output power, to
jam WiFi-type signals. (It would probably also jam lots of other services
in nearby bands.) For that you need an intelligent jammer (e.g., using Gnu
Radio) of only modest power.

On Wed, May 2, 2018, 9:27 PM Steve Kinney  wrote:

>
>
> On 05/02/2018 10:38 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> >
> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/aclu-sounds-the-alarm-about-bill-allowing-use-of-drones-to-monitor-protesters/
>
> I wonder how good the drones in question will be at dodging cast nets?
>
> And how resilient their radios will be against spark gap transmitters...
>
> :o)
>
>
>
>

Re: Makers: Open Simple LIDAR

[Steven Schear]

Without having open hardware designs and trusted fabs about the best you
can do is use as many discrete components as possible and FPGAs (whose
designs greatly minimize places to hide backdoors). Definitely avoid SoCs.

These guys appear to be using some of the best ideas:
https://puri.sm/

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 9:11 PM grarpamp  wrote:

> > "we are working on encrypting the entire ledger using Intel
> > SGX, such that no human has access to the raw unencrypted data
> > "
>
> "SGX isn't perfect - life is full of tradeoffs, and I'd love to move
> to zero knowledge proofs once the technology has developed further"
>
> "Intel ME isn't a backdoor - it's just a secondary computer"
>
> "it's treated as part of the chipset so the tools for doing so were
> given to computer manufacturers, not end users."
>
> Right, a computer you have no fucking idea what it does,
> what's inside it, what it's software is, or how to own it.
> And you want to put money and secrets on it
> and connect it to the internet? Lol.
>
> Not that it matters since the entire planet runs
> on completely closed and thus untrustable
> hardware, and software, connected to the internet.
>
> Sane people would rather trust opensource math
> than closed hardware, or at least call out that
> their worshipped hardware is in fact... closed.
>
> There's just no excuse for not publicly loudly calling out
> closed shit and demanding #OpenFabs , #OpenHW .
>
> Instead of doing that, seems like everyone bought
> the "security is number one" kool-aid Intel spun out
> during Meltdown / Spectre / etc. Fools.
>

Goodbye BlueDrive and fuel injection. Hello carborators and Kettering ignition.

[Steven Schear]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-28/pentagons-ray-gun-can-stall-cars-trucks-radiation-blast

Assange may soon be leaving the embassy

[Steven Schear]

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/04/future-uncertain-for-assange-in-wake-of-us-ecuador-military-deal/

The Army of the 12 Monkeys

[Steven Schear]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-27/bill-gates-warns-millions-could-die-if-us-doesnt-prepare-next-pandemic

Re: Fwd: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain

[Steven Schear]

The ability for clients to create individualized miner blocklists could
help diminish cartels and centralization
 The escheat could help prevent future "submarining" of coins thought lost
or abandoned (and their economic impact) and re-cycle those coins.

On Dec 30, 2017 4:01 PM, "Steven Schear" <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined
> miner selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 paper
> I've mentioned here. Heartening, Garzik & Company's decision their
> upcoming  Bitcoin United fork appears to implement some form of our
> suggested block escheat.
>
> On Dec 30, 2017 3:28 PM, "John Newman" <j...@synfin.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From:* byfield <tbyfi...@panix.com>
>> *Date:* December 29, 2017 at 12:05:02 PM EST
>> *To:* "Florian Cramer" <flrnc...@gmail.com>, "Morlock Elloi" <
>> morlockel...@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* nettim...@mx.kein.org
>> *Subject:* *Re:  Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use
>> for blockchain*
>>
>> On 29 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Florian Cramer wrote:
>>
>> The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment
>>
>> system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two
>>
>> willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for
>> a
>>
>> trusted third party.' So when the author of this avid-reader essay
>>
>> complains 'but Visa... but FDIC... but NASDAQ,' one reasonable response
>> is:
>>
>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The point of Bitcoin wasn't to succeed to the degree that it
>>
>> has, or in the way that it has.
>>
>>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>>
>> If that had been Bitcoin's only goal, then it would have sufficed to
>> create
>>
>> a crypographic peer-to-peer payment system based on/supporting existing
>>
>> currencies and their exchange rates.
>>
>>
>> Things got politically murky with the introduction of Bitcoin as its own
>>
>> currency based on Hayek's and Mises' economic theory, i.e. with built-in
>>
>> deflation and absence of political control except through owners.
>>
>>
>> Well, the difference is your addition of 'only,' as in it's 'only goal.'
>> If I say I love you, Florian, that would be special, wouldn't it? But if I
>> say I love *only* you, Florian, that's a different kettle of fish. 'Only'
>> is one of those tricky words that serves as a mule for smuggling entire
>> ideological apparatuses. 'Still' is another one: 'You *still* believe that?
>>
>> As someone who's thought a lot about design, you probably understand
>> better than many what a proof of concept is: an implementation — or we'd
>> maybe we should think of it in more anthropological terms, as an *artifact*
>> — that, more or less, tests a specific proposal. How that test is
>> constructed, and the context in which it's conducted, involve a lot of
>> artifice. Many of the assumptions that shape that artifice go unstated. The
>> questions we're left with, in the case of Bitcoin, are what those
>> assumptions were, and what they might mean.
>>
>> If I'd said that goal was Bitcoin's *only* goal, then I'd agree with your
>> objection, but I didn't: instead, I talked about the explicit ideological
>> beliefs that dominated the cypherpunks milieu, including their implacable
>> hostility to the state, their all but explicit aim of attacking models of
>> trust anchored in ~public institutions, the ambiguity of their use of the
>> idea of honesty, and — crucially — their interest in Vernor Vinge's novella
>> _True Names_. It didn't seem worth the effort to say they were libertarian
>> free-market extremists, because that's widely discussed. So your point is
>> right on, but it seems like more of an elaboration ('and') than an
>> objection ('but'). They didn't think talking about Hayek or Mises in the
>> original Bitcoin paper, but as you say those ideas were baked into it from
>> the beginning.
>>
>> Whoever designed Bitcoin assumed that 'currency' and 'an electronic
>> payment system' were interchangeable or even identical. They (and I'm
>> pretty sure it was a group, not an individual) didn't set out to design
>> better banknotes *or* to develop a better PayPal, they set out to create
>> something entirely new that could function as either/both but wasn't *only*
>> limited to meeting those specifications.
>>
>> That brings us to Morlock's point about whether Bitcoin succeeded o

Re: Fwd: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain

[Steven Schear]

I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined miner
selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 paper I've
mentioned here. Heartening, Garzik & Company's decision their upcoming
Bitcoin United fork appears to implement some form of our suggested block
escheat.

On Dec 30, 2017 3:28 PM, "John Newman"  wrote:

>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* byfield 
> *Date:* December 29, 2017 at 12:05:02 PM EST
> *To:* "Florian Cramer" , "Morlock Elloi" <
> morlockel...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* nettim...@mx.kein.org
> *Subject:* *Re:  Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for
> blockchain*
>
> On 29 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Florian Cramer wrote:
>
> The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment
>
> system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two
>
> willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a
>
> trusted third party.' So when the author of this avid-reader essay
>
> complains 'but Visa... but FDIC... but NASDAQ,' one reasonable response is:
>
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The point of Bitcoin wasn't to succeed to the degree that it
>
> has, or in the way that it has.
>
>
> Hi Ted,
>
>
> If that had been Bitcoin's only goal, then it would have sufficed to create
>
> a crypographic peer-to-peer payment system based on/supporting existing
>
> currencies and their exchange rates.
>
>
> Things got politically murky with the introduction of Bitcoin as its own
>
> currency based on Hayek's and Mises' economic theory, i.e. with built-in
>
> deflation and absence of political control except through owners.
>
>
> Well, the difference is your addition of 'only,' as in it's 'only goal.'
> If I say I love you, Florian, that would be special, wouldn't it? But if I
> say I love *only* you, Florian, that's a different kettle of fish. 'Only'
> is one of those tricky words that serves as a mule for smuggling entire
> ideological apparatuses. 'Still' is another one: 'You *still* believe that?
>
> As someone who's thought a lot about design, you probably understand
> better than many what a proof of concept is: an implementation — or we'd
> maybe we should think of it in more anthropological terms, as an *artifact*
> — that, more or less, tests a specific proposal. How that test is
> constructed, and the context in which it's conducted, involve a lot of
> artifice. Many of the assumptions that shape that artifice go unstated. The
> questions we're left with, in the case of Bitcoin, are what those
> assumptions were, and what they might mean.
>
> If I'd said that goal was Bitcoin's *only* goal, then I'd agree with your
> objection, but I didn't: instead, I talked about the explicit ideological
> beliefs that dominated the cypherpunks milieu, including their implacable
> hostility to the state, their all but explicit aim of attacking models of
> trust anchored in ~public institutions, the ambiguity of their use of the
> idea of honesty, and — crucially — their interest in Vernor Vinge's novella
> _True Names_. It didn't seem worth the effort to say they were libertarian
> free-market extremists, because that's widely discussed. So your point is
> right on, but it seems like more of an elaboration ('and') than an
> objection ('but'). They didn't think talking about Hayek or Mises in the
> original Bitcoin paper, but as you say those ideas were baked into it from
> the beginning.
>
> Whoever designed Bitcoin assumed that 'currency' and 'an electronic
> payment system' were interchangeable or even identical. They (and I'm
> pretty sure it was a group, not an individual) didn't set out to design
> better banknotes *or* to develop a better PayPal, they set out to create
> something entirely new that could function as either/both but wasn't *only*
> limited to meeting those specifications.
>
> That brings us to Morlock's point about whether Bitcoin succeeded or
> failed. Two responses, one good, one bad. \_(ツ)_/¯.
>
> This reminds me of discourses on theory and practice of communism. One
> good, the other bad.
>
>
> Bitcoin failed for practical/mundane reason: it ceased to be distributed
> long time ago (today 4 Chinese mints control 50+% of hash power), while
> talking heads deceivingly ignored this, and continued to proselytize the
> initial but long extinct 'distributed' meme. It's more centralized than US
> dollar.
>
>
> PoW concentration is mandated by its technological nature and there are no
> signs that anything will change any time soon. Every other 'proof'
> introduces either benevolent coordinating authority (which is utter bs), or
> switches CPU for something that has not been demonstrated as
> concentrate-able yet because no one bothered (such as proof of space - big
> disks are naturally distributed ... right.)
>
>
> There is little more to say. Bitcoin is a big lie, for many too big to be
> acknowledged.
>
>
> Possible futures and promises will continue to be built on the 

Re: 2018 Clusterfuck Forecast

[Steven Schear]

Bitcoin Cash's 8 MBPS blocks offers has on-chain chain scaling sufficient
to enable substantial growth. 64 MB  blocks could handle as many txs/sec as
PayPal. Off-chain, once solid tech that isn't a backdoor for CBs and WS (as
LN appears to be), should easily compete with VISA.

On Jan 7, 2018 4:11 PM, <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:

> On 1/8/2018 8:48 AM, Steven Schear wrote:
>
>> In the medium-sized to long-term I've written off all crypto that serve
>> no useful function except, perhaps, as "digital gold" for asset safety.
>> Comparing BTC to national monies, how many would use a currency whose fee
>> "friction" made it impractical to use except as a replacement for Wire
>> transfers?
>>
>
>
> The intolerable fees reflect scaling limits.  If scaling not fixed,
> bitcoin will die.  If scaling fixed, bitcoin will likely replace national
> currencies.
>

Re: 2018 Clusterfuck Forecast

[Steven Schear]

In the medium-sized to long-term I've written off all crypto that serve no
useful function except, perhaps, as "digital gold" for asset safety.
Comparing BTC to national monies, how many would use a currency whose fee
"friction" made it impractical to use except as a replacement for Wire
transfers?

On Jan 7, 2018 2:40 PM, "g2s"  wrote:

> James Kunstler's cynical forecast includes BTC
>
> "Bitcoin and other cryptos have a superficial appeal as a wealth safe
> haven supposedly out-of-reach of avaricious governments — if you don’t
> consider everything else that’s wrong with it. (Yesterday, Dec 31,
> Australia’s biggest banks froze the accounts of Bitcoin investors.) I think
> the safe haven idea will prove fallacious. Governments are already finding
> ways to interfere, using taxation schemes and shutting down exchanges.
> Bitcoin’s other claims on “moneyness” look bogus as well. It’s too unstable
> to be a medium of exchange, and too difficult to even access when need to
> sell, and you certainly can’t price anything in it as it shoots up and
> crashes every day. Bitcoin went way up because people — or maybe just
> algorithms — saw it going way up, so they hitched a ride. The rush to the
> exits will be brutal. Its final resting place will be zero, but perhaps not
> without a trip or two to nosebleed levels in 2018, especially as other
> markets wobble in the first half of the year. Bitcoin $50-K wouldn’t
> surprise me. But I’m not among the buyers. Enjoy the show...:
>
> In full http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/forecast-2018-go-wrong/
>

Re: 2018 Clusterfuck Forecast

[Steven Schear]

Yes, it's a rather open secret that LN channel abuse, esp. using Hub
architecture,  can do FR just link banks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_lightning_network/

By never closing channels it difficult to detect what's going on.

On Jan 7, 2018 6:41 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:32:19 -0800
> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The way payment channels can be reasonably used enables fractional
> > reserve abuses.
>
>
> Are you sure? As far as I know,  one of the main selling points
> of the LN is that it uses...bitcoins. So it's impossible to
> open a channel/make a payment except by starting with an on
> chain transaction. In other words, LN transactions are backed
> 1:1 with real bitcoins.
>
>
>
> >
> > On Jan 7, 2018 6:24 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:38:02 -0800
> > > Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Off-chain, once solid tech that isn't a
> > > > backdoor for CBs and WS (as LN appears to be), should easily
> > > > compete with VISA.
> > >
> > >
> > > how is lightning network a backdoor for central banks?
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

Re: 2018 Clusterfuck Forecast

[Steven Schear]

Also, it's been shown, by the Tether USD caper, that most cryptocoin users
could care less if there is no proven backing for the fiat they use at
exchanges.

On Jan 7, 2018 7:27 PM, "Steven Schear" <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, it's a rather open secret that LN channel abuse, esp. using Hub
> architecture,  can do FR just link banks.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/56ehi1/fractional_reserve_on_
> lightning_network/
>
> By never closing channels it difficult to detect what's going on.
>
> On Jan 7, 2018 6:41 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:32:19 -0800
>> Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The way payment channels can be reasonably used enables fractional
>> > reserve abuses.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure? As far as I know,  one of the main selling points
>> of the LN is that it uses...bitcoins. So it's impossible to
>> open a channel/make a payment except by starting with an on
>> chain transaction. In other words, LN transactions are backed
>> 1:1 with real bitcoins.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Jan 7, 2018 6:24 PM, "juan" <juan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 17:38:02 -0800
>> > > Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Off-chain, once solid tech that isn't a
>> > > > backdoor for CBs and WS (as LN appears to be), should easily
>> > > > compete with VISA.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > how is lightning network a backdoor for central banks?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>

Re: Hawaii missile false positive

[Steven Schear]

Fat finger ---> Fat Ass

On Jan 14, 2018 1:26 AM, "Georgi Guninski"  wrote:

> This is how nuclear wars inadvertently start:
>
> http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37259684/ballistic-
> missile-threat-alert-sent-to-hawaii-phones-was-a-mistake
>
> A false ballistic missile threat alert went out to all cell phones in
> Hawaii on Saturday morning, sending the state's 1.4 million residents
> and hundreds of thousands of visitors into a state of panic for more
> than 30 minutes until emergency officials confirmed the message was sent
> in error.
>
> A state emergency management employee apparently pushed the wrong button
>

Peek-a-Boo

[Steven Schear]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-29/fitness-tracking-app-accidentally-
reveals-secret-us-military-bases-cia-black-sites

An interactive online fitness tracking map published in November of 2017
which compiles a running history of the location and routes of 27 million
fitness-device users has unwittingly revealed the location, staffing,
patrol routes and layout of U.S. and foreign military bases around the
world.

FBI Warns Republican Memo Could Undermine Faith In Massive, Unaccountable Government Secret Agencies

[Steven Schear]

https://politics.theonion.com/fbi-warns-republican-memo-could-undermine-faith-in-mass-1822639681

It's all shits and giggles until the condom comes off

[Steven Schear]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-28/nsa-deletes-honesty-and-openness-core-values

Re: "democracy" vs Monarchy - the Russian conversation

[Steven Schear]

or https://mises.org/library/rise-and-fall-society

On Feb 25, 2018 5:35 PM, "Steven Schear" <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems humanity, historically,  has always sought to replace
> freedom/anarchy with a series of increasingly specialized social functions
> to provide services few if any wished to perform themselves. Over time
> these specialists become governments and then The State. Eventually
> corruption, environmental damage or other factors lead to a chaotic
> collapse and, after a time, the process repeats.
>
> A great treatise on this is Frank Chodorov's "The Rise and Fall of Society"
> https://mises.org/files/rise-and-fall-society5pdf/download
>
> On Feb 25, 2018 4:15 PM, "Zenaan Harkness" <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
>
>> Modern "democracy" makes its own extremely strong case against
>> itself.
>>
>> "Monarchy" is just one form "benevolent dictatorship", when it works,
>> but is anything but benevolent when it doesn't work.
>>
>> Hereditary monarchy consistently descends into something as bad as
>> "democracy" is today.
>>
>> Personality cult worship is also a societal pathology.
>>
>> Putin actually did save Russia from total disintegration (to the
>> great chagrin of Harvard's "economic shock therapy" oligarch
>> creators) - and a significant percentage of the Russian population
>> bemoans that Putin "did not go far enough" (in putting unethical
>> oligarchs in jail for instance).
>>
>>
>> Although the lie we've been fed for decades that "democracy is the
>> worst form of government, except for all the rest" has lead many away
>> from the path of critical thinking about our Western system and how
>> it is used to dominate us, the truth is that this quotable quote
>> contains an assumption at its core underlying that lie, which also
>> leads people astray, "that government is something important,
>> necessary".
>>
>> Mechanisms of conflict resolution are what's needed.
>>
>> Government is one form of conflict resolution, notwithstanding the
>> tyranny of the majority/ the mob, the tyranny of the minority, and
>> the usurpation of not only government, but any and every form of
>> shared common delusion or collective concensus agreement - there are
>> always problems to solve.
>>
>> And yes, we've never had a real anarchy, or a real libertarian or
>> direct democracy.
>>
>> BUT, we have had "relatively benevolent" benevolent dictators - in
>> the modern floss world, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and others,
>> and throughout history, some of the rulers have been, from the point
>> of view of their citizens, generally, and genuinely, benevolent - not
>> the majority I presume, but certainly some.
>>
>> So benevolent dictatorship - if you truly have an actually benevolent
>> dictator at the top - is one of the most constructive and functional
>> societal arrangements, as long as the various forms of descent into
>> tyranny are successfully guarded against - hereditary right does not
>> make logical sense and history shows us it readily descends into
>> tyranny (old Roman empire, many Monarchies).
>>
>> One could be cautiously hopeful that Russia will carry through with
>> its excellent "democratic" threat of Etherium based public ledger,
>> publicly auditable national voting, and even more to eventually put
>> everything to the vote - a true direct democracy (as Malcolm always
>> says, at least the people would have only their collective selves to
>> blame, for every law and clause).
>>
>>
>> Now although we in The West are supremely enlightened since 400 years
>> and view the world eminently objectively from unassailable glass
>> towers << COUGH >>  << COUGH >>, with our deeply nuanced
>> understanding and abiding and unconditional empathy for our Russian
>> brothers <<...>>, we immediately understand not only why they
>> (rightly I would say) view Putin as a benevolent dictator and
>> somewhat of a saviour of all Russia and Christendom, but carry some
>> not insignificant concern for the day, roughly 6.5 years from now,
>> when Putin steps down from his benevolent dictator role.
>>
>> Our Russkie brethren have a significantly more vibrant public
>> discussion (a bit unbalanced in some ways, and very different to
>> what we see in the pathological Western MSM), and one which is
>> naturally drawn from their very rich (as in interesting) past, 

Re: "democracy" vs Monarchy - the Russian conversation

[Steven Schear]

It seems humanity, historically,  has always sought to replace
freedom/anarchy with a series of increasingly specialized social functions
to provide services few if any wished to perform themselves. Over time
these specialists become governments and then The State. Eventually
corruption, environmental damage or other factors lead to a chaotic
collapse and, after a time, the process repeats.

A great treatise on this is Frank Chodorov's "The Rise and Fall of Society"
https://mises.org/files/rise-and-fall-society5pdf/download

On Feb 25, 2018 4:15 PM, "Zenaan Harkness"  wrote:

> Modern "democracy" makes its own extremely strong case against
> itself.
>
> "Monarchy" is just one form "benevolent dictatorship", when it works,
> but is anything but benevolent when it doesn't work.
>
> Hereditary monarchy consistently descends into something as bad as
> "democracy" is today.
>
> Personality cult worship is also a societal pathology.
>
> Putin actually did save Russia from total disintegration (to the
> great chagrin of Harvard's "economic shock therapy" oligarch
> creators) - and a significant percentage of the Russian population
> bemoans that Putin "did not go far enough" (in putting unethical
> oligarchs in jail for instance).
>
>
> Although the lie we've been fed for decades that "democracy is the
> worst form of government, except for all the rest" has lead many away
> from the path of critical thinking about our Western system and how
> it is used to dominate us, the truth is that this quotable quote
> contains an assumption at its core underlying that lie, which also
> leads people astray, "that government is something important,
> necessary".
>
> Mechanisms of conflict resolution are what's needed.
>
> Government is one form of conflict resolution, notwithstanding the
> tyranny of the majority/ the mob, the tyranny of the minority, and
> the usurpation of not only government, but any and every form of
> shared common delusion or collective concensus agreement - there are
> always problems to solve.
>
> And yes, we've never had a real anarchy, or a real libertarian or
> direct democracy.
>
> BUT, we have had "relatively benevolent" benevolent dictators - in
> the modern floss world, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and others,
> and throughout history, some of the rulers have been, from the point
> of view of their citizens, generally, and genuinely, benevolent - not
> the majority I presume, but certainly some.
>
> So benevolent dictatorship - if you truly have an actually benevolent
> dictator at the top - is one of the most constructive and functional
> societal arrangements, as long as the various forms of descent into
> tyranny are successfully guarded against - hereditary right does not
> make logical sense and history shows us it readily descends into
> tyranny (old Roman empire, many Monarchies).
>
> One could be cautiously hopeful that Russia will carry through with
> its excellent "democratic" threat of Etherium based public ledger,
> publicly auditable national voting, and even more to eventually put
> everything to the vote - a true direct democracy (as Malcolm always
> says, at least the people would have only their collective selves to
> blame, for every law and clause).
>
>
> Now although we in The West are supremely enlightened since 400 years
> and view the world eminently objectively from unassailable glass
> towers << COUGH >>  << COUGH >>, with our deeply nuanced
> understanding and abiding and unconditional empathy for our Russian
> brothers <<...>>, we immediately understand not only why they
> (rightly I would say) view Putin as a benevolent dictator and
> somewhat of a saviour of all Russia and Christendom, but carry some
> not insignificant concern for the day, roughly 6.5 years from now,
> when Putin steps down from his benevolent dictator role.
>
> Our Russkie brethren have a significantly more vibrant public
> discussion (a bit unbalanced in some ways, and very different to
> what we see in the pathological Western MSM), and one which is
> naturally drawn from their very rich (as in interesting) past, thus
> the real and significant desire of a portion of the Russian
> population to return to Monarchy (see below).
>
> In a very real sense this shift is unstoppable, just as the Christian
> revival is unstoppable in Russia (they are STILL opening on average 3
> new churches a day, day in, day out, and have for a few years now) -
> since as some (Razer) have utterly failed to grasp,
> that which you try to (or temporarily successfully) suppress, be it
> the Huwaite Nazis or the Russian Orthodox Churches, you do nothing
> but strengthen the backlash when it comes.
>
> The cycle (the resolution of the existential crisis sweeping the
> globe, both Eurasian and Western) is likely not back to Monarchy, as
> the path of the awareness and realisation of sovereignty in this
> reality has gone thusly:
>
>
>   God/Creator -> Monarchs -> Man (the individual) -> _ _ _ _
>

Re: Are cryptocurrencies ready to handle large number of transactions?

[Steven Schear]

Clearly they are not, yet. The problems are somewhat multi-dimensional and
the way forward isn't assured. If some counters wanted to scale a
"Bitcoin-like" chain to handle, on-chain, the average transaction volume of
PayPal (about 120/sec.), quite a coup, it would require (by my reckoning) a
block size of about 64 MB. The Bitcoin Unlimited people are planning to
test blocks much larger. Clearly, this would likely result in considerable
miner concentration, unless, as Garzik's recently announced Bitcoin United
(which includes a "our" Escher feature) takes over Bitcoin Corey's mantle.

On Dec 25, 2017 8:21 PM, "James A. Donald"  wrote:

On 12/26/2017 12:58 AM, Michalis Kargakis wrote:

> Not a ready implementation yet but the mimblewimble protocol solves a lot
> of the scalability issues plagued in other blockchains.
>
> https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/mimblewimble.pdf
> https://github.com/ignopeverell/grin/blob/master/doc/intro.md
>

Maybe I am understanding this imperfectly, but this hides how much you are
paying, and thus how much you have, but does not hide whom you pay it to.

Suppose HHitler create an evil fascist website, and requests donations in
mimblewimble coins.

Let us call the public key advertised on that evil fascist website HHitler.

Ann buys mimblewimble coins on an exchange, using US$, and has to give her
true name and an image of her true face.

Won't the mimblewimble blockchain show that Ann gave an unknown amount to
HHitler, whereupon antifa goes around and kills some girl whose face
superficially resembles that of Ann, and then the judge lets them off as
well intentioned good guys?

As the judge recently let off a black man who killed a white man and then
took his wallet, and subsequently claimed, without racist inconvenience of
actually needing to produce any evidence, that the white man had called him
a nr


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Are cryptocurrencies ready to handle large number of transactions?

[Steven Schear]

For obvious fraud and thefts, yes. Stashcrypto's multi-sig Voting Pools, if
widely adopted, have a good chance to quell some of the illicit activities.
However, there are so many ways markets and exchanges can and are
manipulated (e.g., "painting the tape") that it will clearly take some time
and maturing of exchanges before this can happen.

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Georgi Guninski <gunin...@guninski.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:04:23PM -0800, Steven Schear wrote:
> > Clearly they are not, yet. The problems are somewhat multi-dimensional
> and
>
> Are there attempts to mitigate dishonest majority?
>
>

Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article

[Steven Schear]

"Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users choose
to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a
problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who
recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very
concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running
the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from
occurring?”

This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell  wrote:

>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/\
> ×
>
>
> Connectivity
>
> This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause
> Napster-size legal headaches
> Augur lets people bet on events and pays whoever gets it right—so of
> course they’re wagering on the deaths of Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos.
>
> * by Mike Orcutt
> * August 2, 2018
>
> Augur, a new blockchain-based prediction market platform, is getting a lot
> of media attention because people are using it to predict the deaths of
> celebrities. But despite fears that the rise of “assassination markets”
> could inspire real killings, the more urgent problem Augur presents is
> something else entirely.
>
> 1.
> This piece first appeared in our twice-weekly newsletter Chain Letter,
> which covers the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Sign up
> here—it’s free!
>
> Really, people saw these sorts of “death pools” coming decades ago, and
> blockchains, with their decentralized networks and (potentially) anonymous
> transactions, serve as an ideal platform. Augur’s open-source software
> relies on blockchain-based computer programs called smart contracts to let
> users set up their own prediction markets that automatically pool
> cryptocurrency bets and distribute winnings without the need for
> participants to identify themselves. Perfect for ginning up interest in
> offing someone by guaranteeing a payday to whoever does the deed, at least
> in theory. Predictably, the protocol, which launched July 10, has already
> led to markets for forecasting the demise of Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos,
> Warren Buffett, Betty White, and others. But these markets have seen very
> few transactions, and the amounts wagered have been tiny, making it
> unlikely they’d inspire someone to engage in foul play.
>
> Nevertheless, Augur may already be facilitating illegal activity that
> could prove far more troublesome.
>
> In the US, prediction markets are generally not permitted. Federal and
> state laws prohibit online gambling, and “in many ways the line between
> prediction markets and gambling is not that clear,” says Aaron Wright, a
> professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City. Further,
> some Augur contracts allow users to bet on the future value of something,
> such as Ether cryptocurrency. That sounds a lot like a type of investment
> called a binary option, which is unlawful to list without approval from the
> Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 2012, the CFTC sued Intrade, an
> Ireland-based prediction market, accusing it of permitting US users to
> trade binary options, and eventually a judge blocked Intrade from offering
> the contracts in the US.
>
> Sure enough, Augur already has the CFTC’s attention. But even if the
> agency decides that Augur is breaking the law, how will it enforce that
> decision? Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its
> users choose to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This
> creates a problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright,
> who recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very
> concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running
> the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from
> occurring?”
>
> When Napster, Limewire, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing networks
> started slinging music, movies, and other files around the internet two
> decades ago, they created similar law enforcement headaches. But in each
> case there was an entity that could be sued for copyright infringement.
> Software like Augur, which is open-source, freely downloadable, and run on
> a blockchain, presents genuinely new challenges, says Wright.
>
> That doesn’t mean laws can’t be applied—just that they’ll need to be
> applied in different ways. For instance, if officials were to rule that
> Augur was facilitating illicit activity, they might try to go after the
> people who developed the software, much as malware developers have been
> held liable for their creations, says Wright. That would be likely to set
> up a fight over First Amendment protections. Prosecutors could also try to
> target the users who keep the protocol running. Called “reporters,” they
> use Augur’s tradable crypto-token, REP, to report outcomes and are rewarded
> with more tokens if their 

Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article

[Steven Schear]

Freenet seems to work when you predominantly or solely use private/dark
peers.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 4:28 PM Mirimir  wrote:

> On 08/02/2018 04:14 PM, Steven Schear wrote:
> > "Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users
> choose
> > to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a
> > problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who
> > recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very
> > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running
> > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from
> > occurring?”
> >
> > This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature.
>
> Yep. I mean, that's the fucking point!
>
> But I gotta say, they need to work on the anonymity aspect. The argument
> that participation anonymity doesn't matter, as long as adversaries
> can't attribute stuff, is weak. Look at Freenet, for example.
>
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/
>
> 
>
>

Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article

[Steven Schear]

Can't see them scaring the developers into submission as its OS and any
attempt to change the code and architecture to thwart its intent will
simply cause a fork.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell  wrote:

>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/\
> ×
>
>
> Connectivity
>
> This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause
> Napster-size legal headaches
> Augur lets people bet on events and pays whoever gets it right—so of
> course they’re wagering on the deaths of Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos.
>
> * by Mike Orcutt
> * August 2, 2018
>
> Augur, a new blockchain-based prediction market platform, is getting a lot
> of media attention because people are using it to predict the deaths of
> celebrities. But despite fears that the rise of “assassination markets”
> could inspire real killings, the more urgent problem Augur presents is
> something else entirely.
>
> 1.
> This piece first appeared in our twice-weekly newsletter Chain Letter,
> which covers the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Sign up
> here—it’s free!
>
> Really, people saw these sorts of “death pools” coming decades ago, and
> blockchains, with their decentralized networks and (potentially) anonymous
> transactions, serve as an ideal platform. Augur’s open-source software
> relies on blockchain-based computer programs called smart contracts to let
> users set up their own prediction markets that automatically pool
> cryptocurrency bets and distribute winnings without the need for
> participants to identify themselves. Perfect for ginning up interest in
> offing someone by guaranteeing a payday to whoever does the deed, at least
> in theory. Predictably, the protocol, which launched July 10, has already
> led to markets for forecasting the demise of Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos,
> Warren Buffett, Betty White, and others. But these markets have seen very
> few transactions, and the amounts wagered have been tiny, making it
> unlikely they’d inspire someone to engage in foul play.
>
> Nevertheless, Augur may already be facilitating illegal activity that
> could prove far more troublesome.
>
> In the US, prediction markets are generally not permitted. Federal and
> state laws prohibit online gambling, and “in many ways the line between
> prediction markets and gambling is not that clear,” says Aaron Wright, a
> professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City. Further,
> some Augur contracts allow users to bet on the future value of something,
> such as Ether cryptocurrency. That sounds a lot like a type of investment
> called a binary option, which is unlawful to list without approval from the
> Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 2012, the CFTC sued Intrade, an
> Ireland-based prediction market, accusing it of permitting US users to
> trade binary options, and eventually a judge blocked Intrade from offering
> the contracts in the US.
>
> Sure enough, Augur already has the CFTC’s attention. But even if the
> agency decides that Augur is breaking the law, how will it enforce that
> decision? Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its
> users choose to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This
> creates a problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright,
> who recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very
> concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running
> the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from
> occurring?”
>
> When Napster, Limewire, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing networks
> started slinging music, movies, and other files around the internet two
> decades ago, they created similar law enforcement headaches. But in each
> case there was an entity that could be sued for copyright infringement.
> Software like Augur, which is open-source, freely downloadable, and run on
> a blockchain, presents genuinely new challenges, says Wright.
>
> That doesn’t mean laws can’t be applied—just that they’ll need to be
> applied in different ways. For instance, if officials were to rule that
> Augur was facilitating illicit activity, they might try to go after the
> people who developed the software, much as malware developers have been
> held liable for their creations, says Wright. That would be likely to set
> up a fight over First Amendment protections. Prosecutors could also try to
> target the users who keep the protocol running. Called “reporters,” they
> use Augur’s tradable crypto-token, REP, to report outcomes and are rewarded
> with more tokens if their reports are consistent with the larger consensus.
> There are potentially other avenues, as well, says Wright: “Just because
> there is no center doesn’t mean there aren’t indirect ways to attack
> lawless activity.”
> Keep up with the latest in blockchain at EmTech MIT.
>
> Discover where tech, business, and culture converge.
>
> 

Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article

[Steven Schear]

I've been waiting for Loopix, or a similar, anonymity overlay to go into
widespread testing but it's seems to be stillborn.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 4:38 PM Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 04:27:53PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
> > On 08/02/2018 04:14 PM, Steven Schear wrote:
> > > "Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users
> choose
> > > to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a
> > > problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who
> > > recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very
> > > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are
> running
> > > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from
> > > occurring?”
> > >
> > > This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature.
> >
> > Yep. I mean, that's the fucking point!
> >
> > But I gotta say, they need to work on the anonymity aspect. The argument
> > that participation anonymity doesn't matter, as long as adversaries
> > can't attribute stuff, is weak. Look at Freenet, for example.
>
> Free speech (free from censorship and arbitrary punishment against
> 'speech the state does not like') depends on anonymity, which depends
> on the transport - e.g. localised face to face conversation on the
> beach (and no sand bugs in your ears), or some form of mesh
> networking.
>
> At the very least, for digital anonymity, trusted entry nodes to a
> network, some number (math math) of trusted peer nodes (if all your
> entry node's peers are untrusted and say kill your link
> simultaneously, or in symmetric semi-rapid succession, they will
> likely be able to correlate your communication) and chaff fill links.
>
> 'Till then... pigs ain't flyin'.
>
>
> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell  wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/
> >
> > 
> >
>

Re: Next on the Blockchain: Crowdfunding Death

[Steven Schear]

But despite an abundance of profitable opportunities, we don’t see a lot of
high-profile assassinations. The truth is, there simply isn’t some massive
pent-up hasn't for murder, languishing for want of a group buy."

Apparently,  Elaine hasn't been following the alt-left.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, 10:38 AM jim bell  wrote:

>
> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-30/ethereum-augur-death-bets-are-like-crowdfunding-murder
>
> It’s now easy to anonymously bet on the date of a celebrity’s death. Does
> that encourage assassination?
> By
> Elaine Ou 
> July 30, 2018, 8:00 AM PDT
>
>
> A new prediction market has been live on the Ethereum blockchain for less
> than three weeks, and already the death bets
> 
>  are
> rolling in. Up for wager on the Augur market are the fates of public
> figures like national leaders, celebrities and tech company CEOs. It’s
> controversial not just because some find it unseemly, but also because it
> could create incentives to kill.
>
> There’s nothing inherently wrong with speculating on a person’s untimely
> demise; that’s the entire purpose of life insurance and the old pooled
> annuities called tontines. But the players in a prediction market are
> rarely all dispassionate observers. Short sellers in the stock market are
> motivated to drag down a company’s share price. Bettors in a “ghoul pool”
> prediction market have effectively created an assassination market.
>
> An assassination market differs from traditional murder-for-hire in that
> unlimited wagers can be made against a potential target. The greater the
> odds stacked against a person’s death, the larger the incentive for a
> prospective assassin to take the opposite side and execute the outcome.
> This is not a new idea: In 1995, crypto-anarchist Jim Bell designed a
> system he called “Assassination Politics
> ,” a
> prediction market where participants could anonymously contribute digital
> cash to bounty funds designated for the death of government officials. 1
> 
>  The
> idea has been launched
> 
>  multiple
> times on the dark web, but it’s unclear that any of these markets resulted
> in assassination.
>
> Previous conceptions of such markets relied on centralized operators that
> could be identified and shut down. Because it uses the Ethereum blockchain,
> Augur exists as a decentralized application, replicated on thousands of
> computers around the world. Participants are pseudonymous, and payments are
> made in cryptocurrency. Even if the creators of Augur are prosecuted, the
> source code is freely available  so that
> anyone can replicate the model. As a result, the platform is essentially
> unstoppable.
>
> But don’t panic just yet. Any prospective assassin is unlikely to trawl
> prediction markets looking for a job; it wouldn’t even be good business.
> There are better ways to profit from advance knowledge of a death, and
> there’s a bloodless alternative as well.
>
> The stock market provides far greater liquidity and noise to avoid tipping
> off the target in advance. And deaths move markets. Even rumors of deaths
> move markets. In 2008, CNN inadvertently spread a false report that Apple
> CEO Steve Jobs had suffered a heart attack
> , triggering a 10
> percent decline in Apple’s share price. In 2013, the Associated Press
> Twitter account announced
> 
>  that
> President Barack Obama had been injured in an explosion at the White House.
> The market lost over $130 billion in stock value, then rebounded when AP
> confirmed that its account had been compromised and the report was false.
> In both these cases, no one was harmed in the making of fake news. 2
> 
>  But
> some people surely made money as the markets heaved.
>
> When it comes to censorship-resistant markets, critics are quick to jump
> to the most abhorrent possible use cases. But despite an abundance of
> profitable opportunities, we don’t see a lot of high-profile
> assassinations. The truth is, there simply isn’t some massive pent-up
> demand for murder, languishing for want of a group buy. It’s possible that
> we could see a rise in milder tasteless markets — character assassination
> 

Re: Augur’s Joey Krug Comments On Assassination Markets

[Steven Schear]

"These assassination markets raise ethical questions for Augur's creators
and force us to confront a hideous side of society that seems to lurk in
the seemingly pseudonymous depths of the internet."

Should the functioning existence of these markets raise different ethical
questions from when governments engage in similar targeting of foreign
civilians (or even their own citizens) without benefit of open and fair
trials?

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, 11:02 AM jim bell  wrote:

> https://www.ethnews.com/augurs-joey-krug-comments-on-assassination-markets
>
>
> By
> MATTHEW DE SILVA
> WRITER
> ETHNEWS.COM
>
> Shortly after Augur’s launch, some users created cryptocurrency-settled
> assassination markets. Since the Augur protocol exists on the Ethereum
> blockchain, the marketplace exists across many computers. Because of
> Augur’s decentralization, law enforcement may struggle to shut down these
> morbid and highly illegal markets.
>
> There's a frightening, niche segment of the cryptocurrency community that
> is comprised of extreme anarchists. These people aren't just apolitical,
> they're anti-political (to the point that they will facilitate bets on the
> lives of politicians). The thinking is roughly this: If there are financial
> incentives to "off" politicians, then people will be afraid to run for
> office and thus, the state will collapse.
>
> It might sound extreme, but assassination markets are not new phenomena.
> As early as 2013, some bitcoin enthusiasts were contributing toward
> assassination markets for prominent public figures including the US
> president, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and leaders of US
> government agencies. In November 2013, Forbes even profiled one of these
> market creators. Fortunately, nobody cashed in on those bets, which
> effectively functioned as bounties.
> When Augur launched earlier this month, it was only a matter of time
> before cryptocurrency-tied assassination markets reappeared. Initially,
> Augur's market questions were relatively tame (e.g., "Will the price
> of Ether be above $500 at the end of 2018?" and "Will England win against
> Croatia in the 2018 FIFA World Cup?" Spoiler Alert: England lost). However,
> in the last several days, darker questions were posted about the life of
> the US president and the lives of other public figures.
>
> These assassination markets raise ethical questions for Augur's creators
> and force us to confront a hideous side of society that seems to lurk in
> the seemingly pseudonymous depths of the internet. When ETHNews asked Augur
> co-founder Joey Krug whether there's any way to censor these questions, he
> simply directed us to Augur's FAQs:
>
> > "Users who decide to run the Augur code are the ones who perform trades
> and create markets on the Augur protocol. All functions of routing orders,
> matching orders, processing trades, escrow funds, manage the order book and
> resolve and settle markets are all operated and run on
> the Ethereum blockchain itself through a set of smart contracts, the Augur
> core protocol. Miners running Ethereum nodes route, match, store and
> process orders, trades and markets on the Augur protocol. All funds are
> escrowed and transferred directly on the Ethereum blockchain itself."
>
> In short, Augur seems to be out of Krug's hands.
>
> The responsibility instead lies with Augur's users (effectively any member
> of the public who has the technical know-how and financial wherewithal to
> place a wager). Another section on Augur's FAQ page explains, "Users of the
> Augur protocol must themselves ensure that the actions they are performing
> are compliant with the laws in all applicable jurisdictions and must
> acknowledge that others' use of the Augur protocol may not be compliant.
> Users of the Augur protocol do so at their own risk."
>
> Note: This seems like an awfully convenient way for Augur's creators to
> disclaim responsibility, but we're left with the same old question: is the
> creator of a tool responsible for its usage?
>
> Krug, for his part, doesn't seem worried about the assassination markets.
> He said, "As far as whether I'm personally concerned, it's a bit like
> asking the creators of SMTP if they're ok with email being used for ransom
> notes. Obviously, I would prefer people not use the tool for such things!"
> He continued: "That said, it's irrelevant what I think because if it is
> illegal, market creators shouldn't be creating such markets anyway, just as
> people should not write ransom notes with email."
>
> Personally, it would be easy to be outraged and appalled by Krug's
> response. He seems to unintentionally demonstrate the apparent
> invincibility and irresponsibility of youth. But is he really to blame?
>
> Ultimately, I'm persuaded by Krug's point. If it wasn't Augur, there would
> be another assassination marketplace. Creators cannot control how their
> tools are used and, more importantly, a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the
> bunch. Just because a 

How tech's richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse

[Steven Schear]

Silicon Valley’s elite are hatching plans to escape disaster – and when it
comes, they’ll leave the rest of us behind

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity

NSA Watchdog: Surveillance Giant Still Isn’t Securing Its Networks

[Steven Schear]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nsa-watchdog-surveillance-giant-still-isnt-securing-its-networks