Re: The Pulp Theorem (Re: Digital Cash)

On 12 Jul 2001, at 15:41, Morlock Elloi wrote: > The basic point here is that: > > a) most "public" (including me and the few that I talked with) will not "trust" > money that is pure math, without actual *people* (who can be pulped if > something goes wrong) behind it. You say that now, but

Re: General Ashcroft makes his move

On 12 Jul 2001, at 19:55, A. Melon wrote: > > Those 3 things you mentioned violate the First on at least two counts, > free speech and press, > and also the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part --- the ob

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism + 802.11b access

> `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person > qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be > considered shall include-- > `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was > disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism

On 27 Jul 2001, at 17:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > George wrote : > As for Mr. Felton's run-in with this abomination, did he sign any sort > of contract with the music guys to get the materials he needed to do his > work? That might change how we view his situation relative to DMCA. > > Mike

Re: (file sharing) morpheus rules!

On 3 Aug 2001, at 11:33, Adam Back wrote: > If any were looking for a replacement for napster since > it buckled to pressure from RIAA, it's here: morpheus. > [review deleted] > > Adam > > Some questions that would be of relevance duscussing file-sharing systems on this group: is it adware/

Re: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites

On 4 Aug 2001, at 20:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The only cite that could possibly refute my words above would be to cite someone >being busted, >since the behavior you claim is illegal, the behavior that George >announces his intention to engage in, is routine in most well run >companies.

RE: Spoliation cites

On 5 Aug 2001, at 12:07, Aimee Farr wrote: > George: > > > Look, we are just trying to envision what opponents are likely > > to try. The > > > outcome will depend on the facts. > > > > > > > Are you sure it isn't more likely to depend on things that should be > > completely irrelevant, say,

Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.

On 6 Aug 2001, at 10:13, Ray Dillinger wrote: > Offhand, I'd estimate that if three US remops were taken down > forcefully, and the federal law looked as though any other could > be, all but two or three hardcases would cease operating remailers > in the USA. Depends on exactly what you mea

Re: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing

On 7 Aug 2001, at 8:51, Lance M. Cottrell wrote: > The [EMAIL PROTECTED] node of the cypherpunks list will be > closing on Friday August 10. > > You should ensure that you are subscribed to a different node of the > cypherpunks list before that time. > > -Lance > Could some helpful

Re: Pavlovich

Could someone more versed in the law attempt to elaborate on the logic the judge is applying here? I mean, Pavlovich is a Purdue student with a Russian sounding name, so presumably he lives in Indiana. As I read it, the judge seems to feel that Californai law should apply to Pavlovich becasue

No fault antitrust

On 7 Aug 2001, at 14:48, Steve Schear wrote: > At a workshop presentation last spring I suggested a non-regulatory way to > include reduction in choice effects. Under the proposed changes Congress > would set market size and penetration limits for all markets (based on SIC > or its newer off

Re: lynx for mirroring? (Re: Advertisements on Web Pages)

On 8 Aug 2001, at 12:41, Subcommander Bob wrote: > Declan once gave a lynx command line that would download a website > (recursing) less the images, of course. I found it didn't preserve > file names or directory hierarchy, so it was less useful for mirroring > sites I anticipated being oppress

Re: No fault antitrust

On 8 Aug 2001, at 13:34, Steve Schear wrote: > At 12:39 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On 7 Aug 2001, at 14:48, Steve Schear wrote: > >So under this "no fault antitrust" proposal, we strip away the > >illusion that the DOJ is punishing predatory behavior and accept > >that, in f

Re: Products Liability and Innovation.

On 13 Aug 2001, at 9:42, Black Unicorn wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Eugene Leitl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Faustine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:49 AM > Subject: RE:

Re: More Liability Issues. Was: Re: Products Liability and Innovation.

On 13 Aug 2001, at 13:33, Black Unicorn wrote: > The theory is that if your goal is to reduce accidents and claims you allow > the market to incorporate that sort of risk (which in early innovation looks a > lot like an externality) into the innovation process. Activities, it is > argued, which

Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report

On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > even if the meaning is

Re: Physicspunks

On 17 Aug 2001, at 16:17, An Metet wrote: > > But, in the case described the two bodies start out at the same > temperature. One radiates more energy towards the other one at that > particular temperature. So, you would expect that one body would > become hotter than the other. > The importa

rocks

On 18 Aug 2001, at 9:59, Aimee Farr wrote: > I was also taught not to turn over rocks. Under rocks is where some of the most intersting stuff is. George > ~Aimee > *reptilian slithering sounds*

Motives

On 18 Aug 2001, at 6:44, Reese wrote: > > You would be well-advised to question motives, here. What do I gain by > pursuing an address on the legality of posting bomb recipes? Normally I try to avoid such questions, I find it much more significant what people do than why they do it, but th

Re: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech

On 21 Aug 2001, at 14:10, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > > >You're missing my general point. If you prefer that I not use "religion," > >I could just as easily use an example where certainly people of some > >community think that some otherwise-constitutional practi

Re: PETA gets control of parody peta.org domain, says appeals court

On 25 Aug 2001, at 12:10, Declan McCullagh wrote: > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46313,00.html > > Ethical Treatment of PETA Domain > By Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 2:00 a.m. Aug. 25, 2001 PDT > > WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court has ruled that a web

Re: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers.

On 25 Aug 2001, at 16:06, Gary Jeffers wrote: > My fellow Cypherpunks, > >Ray Dillinger believes that scanning would assist oppressors as > much as regular users. Joseph Ashwood agrees with this and further > thinks that the Internet overhead of a scanner would be a serious > problem. > The

Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money

On 25 Aug 2001, at 21:39, Jim Windle wrote: > As an addendum I would add Claude Shannon. In fact I can't think of a single lawyer >in the 20th century who had the long term influesnce on society that either Shannon >or von Neumann did. The list of other influential non-lawyers might also be

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: > But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools. > They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate. > Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current > remailer system is. A truly reliable

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

Having read Tim's reply already, I'll confine myself to a point he didn't address. On 1 Sep 2001, at 22:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: > It's true that this does not directly impact the design. But we can't > ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue. For example, > there are any num

Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums

On 1 Sep 2001, at 1:38, Dan Geer wrote: > . "Below, we present an implementation of a parasitic computer > . using the checksum function. In order for this to occur, > . one needs to design a special message that coerces a target server > . into performing the desired computation

Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums

On 2 Sep 2001, at 9:37, Tim May wrote: > > Since I haven't noticed anyone else point this out (apologies for > > my redundancy if I just somehow missed it), it's worth mentioning > > that the original result was more of a "gee whiz, it's interesting we > > can do this in principle" type of thi

Re: Moral Crypto

On 2 Sep 2001, at 3:40, Nomen Nescio wrote: > The fact that a given person is using the remailer network is not a > secret. At least one remailer finds out every time he sends a message. > The point is, the entry from the non-anonymous to the anonymous world > is a vulnerability. > Sort of.

Re: Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

On 5 Sep 2001, at 17:26, Declan McCullagh wrote: > [I'm not saying I believe these arguments, of course.] > Since a remailer, on the other hand does not exercise any independent > editorial judgment about the content of the work, the burden should > properly be on you to argue that a law rest

Re: RE: Expectation of privacy in public?

On 24 Sep 2001, at 17:49, Robert wrote: > > Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime > > in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any > > confidential communication, including a telephone call or > > wire communication, without the consent of all parties. > > > > It is

Re: America needs therapy

On 1 Oct 2001, at 11:05, Eric Murray wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:34AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > Besides which, the true cost of gasoline at the pump would be > > $10-15 @ gallon without all the gov't subsidies to the oil industry. > > > > http://www.icta.org/projects/trans

Netscape Out!

On 22 Oct 2001, at 18:52, Tim May wrote: > You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or > Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not > perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is. > There never was a netscape 5, they jumped from 4.5 to 6.

Re: eWe Won't Have CJ Parker and Richard NIxon To Kick Around AnyMore...

On 23 Oct 2001, at 14:13, Steve Furlong wrote: > Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 11:32:19PM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote: > > > I can't sympathise much on this basis. A family member, a retired cop > > > and the family shame, confirmed what I had suspected: that most people

Re: Now we know why those 1000 are being held in NYC

On 28 Oct 2001, at 9:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > NEW YORK(Reuters) -- Among almost 1,000 people being held in the United > States in connection with the hijacked-airliner attacks on the World Trade > Center and the Pentagon are people who made congratulatory telephone calls > minutes later, T

Re: Hunger in Amerikka (was: Market Competition for Security Measures)

On 28 Oct 2001, at 8:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The stretches these guys have concocted to find evidence of > hunger in the US is itself evidence that what they seek is > not to be found. If there were actual hungry people, we > would not looking for evidence of their existence in ways > mo

RE: Transperancy Spray?

On 30 Oct 2001, at 14:51, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Mike [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > > I would bet that there is SOMETHING that > > is dissolved by liquid freon. Just mark > > your letters with the stuff and look for > > the integrity of the mark at the other end. > > Or... is there something

RE: Transperancy Spray?

On 30 Oct 2001, at 16:29, Reese wrote: > At 04:52 PM 10/30/01 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On 30 Oct 2001, at 14:51, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > >> Mike [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > >> > >> > I would bet that there is SOMETHING that > >> > is dissolved by liquid freon. Just mark > >> > you

Re: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying

On 4 Nov 2001, at 8:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Senator Kerrey was cerrtainly a mass murderer, and the > guardsmen who stopped her from flying were certainly thugs, > but the reason there are arguably grounds for overlooking > Kerrey's cynical murders and the guardsmen's thuggery ,is > that i

Re: Pricing spare resources and options?

On 18 Nov 2001, at 22:30, Greg Broiles wrote: > It seems like there ought to be an interesting market here, but I know and > worked with several people (with good financial backgrounds) who flogged > this for awhile and never got anywhere. I guess a big part of the problem > is that there's s

Re: The Crypto Winter

On 18 Nov 2001, at 20:37, CDR Anonymizer wrote: > >Anonymous: > >> but why did governments engage in the vigorous and frequent > >> application of bayonets and batons to render their money > >> independent of precious metals? > > > >Because they could. > > This goes beyond gratuitous demonstrat

Re: The Crypto Winter

On 19 Nov 2001, at 2:54, Neil Johnson wrote: > There are still a lot people that believe the U.S. should return to the > "Gold Standard" meaning the amount of money in circulation should equal the > amount of gold held by the U.S. government. That's what Fort Knox was > originally for. > It's

Re: Security-by-credential or security-by-inspection

On 8 Nov 2001, at 11:58, Greg Broiles wrote: > It's a popular fantasy, this idea that people will faithfully report a > "true name" which can be matched to a database of past actions which will > reliably predict future behavior - but it's a failure in every way, from > the notion of a true,

In praise of gold

On 19 Nov 2001, at 17:40, Tim May wrote: > On Monday, November 19, 2001, at 05:03 PM, David Honig wrote: > > > > Yes, but what this thread has ignored is that gold (and other > > densely precious things) were valued *in and of themselves* and so > > using them as money was not symbolic. You trad

Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

On 25 Nov 2001, at 19:30, David Honig wrote: > At 03:05 PM 11/25/01 -0800, Tim May wrote: > >For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a > >core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the > >phrase "reputation capital." > > I recently posted how gro

Re: Pricing Mojo, Integrating PGP, TAZ, and D.C. Cypherpunks

On 20 Nov 2001, at 22:54, Greg Broiles wrote: > Very early in its lifetime, the Autonomous Zones/Mojo Nation people said > that maybe Mojo would someday be exchangable with real cash, though the > assumption was that during the early stages of software development, people > were playing with

Re: in praise of gold

On 21 Nov 2001, at 7:55, David Honig wrote: > At 08:12 PM 11/20/01 -0500, Faustine wrote: > >David wrote: > >George wrote: > > > >>>5) Gold makes women sleep with you. I don't know why they > >>>like it, but they do. > >>They sleep with you because of your large cattle herd only they > >>have ac

Sixpack Encryption Email client

On 21 Nov 2001, at 21:00, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > David wrote: > > > Declan's comment on operating a physical > > remailer for suitably valuable cargo, > > plus some of Tim's recent comments about > > integration, made me think of the > > question in the subject line. So far > >I see at least th

Re: Cattle Herding... (was Re: in praise of gold)

On 23 Nov 2001, at 19:13, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > Pecunia, the latin word for money, comes from the Etruscian pecu, meaning, cow. > > Cheers, > RAH > And of course the German word for money is Gelt, which means Gold. Cows might have served well as currency for primitives like the Etruscans

Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

On 25 Nov 2001, at 15:05, Tim May wrote: > For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a > core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the > phrase "reputation capital." > > Reputation is an easily understandable concept which explains a lot > about

Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

On 29 Nov 2001, at 16:11, Wei Dai wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > But there is a scalar number attached to a person which deserves the name > "reputation capital", namely his own judgement of what his reputation is > worth. Even this is not a scalar. Since r

Nyms for sale! Get your red hot nyms!

On 30 Nov 2001, at 13:56, Wei Dai wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:58PM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > > Following which, Alice pulls out the pre-dated revocation certificate, > > and generates confusion as to the validity of Bob's key change message. > > I guess we would need a distribute

Re: CDR: Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

On 30 Nov 2001, at 13:34, Sunder wrote: > Simple. Once the buyer has the keys she issues an email saying "I'm > changing my keys, here's the new public key" and signs it with the old key > - thus proving that the nym's original message was valid, thus > invalidating the old one. Duh! > > Any

Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

On 30 Nov 2001, at 22:05, Petro wrote: > On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 07:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > Even this is not a scalar. Since reputation cannot be bought > > and sold, the idea that it is worth a specific well defined amount is > > false. > > What makes you think

Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -- > On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm surprised I've gotten so much disagreement over this, > > particularly since my original statement was much weaker > > than it could have been. For reputation to have a single >

Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

On 3 Dec 2001, at 13:44, Ken Brown wrote: > All the discussion about certificates of speaking Navajo or whatever are > slightly beside the point. If personal reputation, as such, has a market > value it isn't the money you'd get by selling the reputation, because as > everyone else already pointe

Re: RUSSIAN POLICE ARREST GANG TRYING TO SELL URANIUM

On 7 Dec 2001, at 21:41, Steven Furlong wrote: > "!Dr. Joe Baptista" wrote: > > > > Russian police say they have arrested seven members of an organized > > crime gang after they tried to sell about one kilogram of uranium to > > undercover officers. > ... > > There is not much detail in the stor

Magic Money URL?

I had an urge to take a look at the magic money code, I was unable to find it, my googling just led me to old dead extinct URLs. Does anyone know of an URL for it that currently works? Thanks, George

Re: FBI Surveillance Software to be Part of Windows XP Updates (fwd)

On 13 Dec 2001, at 22:33, Jei wrote: > "We are confident that Microsoft and the government will limit the use of > this technology only to targets relevant to legitimate investigations," he > added, further underscoring the cult's faith in federal law enforcement > organisations. "The FBI has a

Re: Poor little child pornographer

On 14 Dec 2001, at 15:02, Declan McCullagh wrote: > This is pretty funny. As you'll see in Part V, I got tipped off to the > case by Crime Victims for a Just Society. As for the rest, well, I posted > a bunch of court documents on wired.com; read them for yourself and > make up your own mind. >

Re: Reg - Linotype copyright action on Adobe-format fonts

On 18 Dec 2001, at 13:52, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Bitmapped fonts may not be copyrightable in the U.S., but Postscript/vector > fonts certainly are: > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0,1,0-1005-200-326302,00.html > >In a case that pitted Adobe Systems > >against a small software company in Fl

spam and Remailers

On 18 Dec 2001, at 14:42, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote: > > > Can't spam be repelled by not forwarding email not encrypted to > > the remailer's key? > > Who is to say that spammers won't use remailer clients that automatically > encrypt to the remailers' keys

Re: Wired on e-gold

On 19 Dec 2001, at 1:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Of course the cypherpunk interest in e-gold revolves around its vaunted > privacy protection. The article provides a much-needed dose of reality to > those who still harbor fantasies that e-gold is interested in protecting > the privacy of its cust

Re: MS DRM OS

On 19 Dec 2001, at 0:38, Graham Lally wrote: > Ralph Wallis wrote: > If the patent hasn't been picked up by the courts yet, then why not? > *If* the SSSCA were to come into effect (and I have heard little about > it for several months now... biding its time?), I suspect that someone has point

Re: Ersatz Chick Thing

On 4 Jan 2002, at 19:36, John Young wrote: > What is pleasurable to us unimaginatives trapped east > of the limits of decency is getting hands on ersatz chick > things, and the other marvelous west coast entertainments > gone stale years ago. > > We get ersatz ersatz chick things by the planeloa

Re: Cpunks Lauded

On 5 Jan 2002, at 7:58, John Young wrote: > > This crypto demonization may well intensify as investigations > proceed into the government, military and intelligence failure to > prevent 911. Whether crypto actually played any role in the > attack may be seen as unimportant so long as a convi

Re: explicit govt monopoly rent-seeking (law abuse)

On 5 Jan 2002, at 23:59, Bill Stewart wrote: > Most state governments also give you a breakdown on the things that > they spend the money on (with usually some weasel-words to avoid > indicating that it's proceeds from scamming suckers. > Usually the establishment of the lottery was justified to

Re: Random Data Compressed 100:1 (Guffaw)

On 8 Jan 2002, at 9:51, Michael Motyka wrote: > Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > >Someone else needs to read the comp.compression FAQ. > > > >http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=498720 > > > >- > > > >NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Florida research start-up

Pigeonhole principle

On 8 Jan 2002, at 14:27, Michael Motyka wrote: > Here we go : > > "As Eric correctly points out, true random input simply cannot be > compressed, it doesn't matter how clever you are or how much time and > computing power you have access to." > > This is a statement of belief isn't it? Odd. >

Re: Olympic Jewells: Utah = UK

On 11 Jan 2002, at 12:19, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > "The Secret Service is one agency that hangs its hat on security that > is discreet," Camillo said. > "There will be a visual presence because of magnetometers and fencing. > What you won't see is > what I'll describe as a police state." >

Appeal to ignorance

On 11 Jan 2002, at 21:26, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > At 2:10 PM -0800 on 1/11/02, "Eric Cordian" makes an actual appeal to > ignorance...: > > > > I see not a single denial. > > Ah. Prove to you that he didn't say it? > > > > :-). > That's not a

Re: Blueberry encryption for boston pigs?

On 15 Jan 2002, at 10:26, Eric Murray wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:44:46AM -0600, xganon wrote: > > We are interested in the 'encryption' used in these > > over-the-air queries... > > > ARDIS, the protocol the Blackberry uses, does an XOR > with a 32 bit constant of the day. > > > Eric

Detweiller vs. cyphepunks

On 23 Jan 2002, at 20:11, Doc.Cypher wrote: > Many thanks for that, I didn't believe it had been posted to Usenet. > > The short URL for it is > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3l1q2d%24rk2%40news-2.csn.net > > > Doc. > - -- Kind of an interesting read. I find it kind of odd that Detw

Re: Letters on technology and Mediation.

On 8 Feb 2002, at 15:58, CDR Anonymizer wrote: > > Dear 'olde' sirrah, please get a clue - age before beauty. And pearls before swine - Dorothy Parker

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment.

On 9 Feb 2002, at 10:45, Steve Schear wrote: > At 09:31 AM 2/9/2002 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, proffr11 wrote: > > > > > SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a serious blow to California's three-strikes > > law, a > > > federal appeals court has ruled that life in prison for shoplifting

Re: Sheeple Land With Hands on Heads

On 12 Feb 2002, at 13:20, Riad S. Wahby wrote: > Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, if the "passengers" were on the books as part-time employees then more > > than 10 could fly and still be classed as Part 135? Can you spell employee > > owned airline? > > I'm not sure about this,

Re: [Reformatted] freedom of speech, religion WINS in HA mandatory youth

On 14 Feb 2002, at 10:20, Sunder wrote: > But wait, how about the mafia, they're a gang right? I wonder if well > dressed mafiosos wear suits, ties, and dress shoes? and if on Friday's > they wear khaki's and polo shirts... > > Well then in that case both the students and the teachers should

Re: On NOT publishing the public half of a key-pair

On 15 Feb 2002, at 22:42, Morlock Elloi wrote: > > You could do this, of course, but if you're going to use a separate > > public key for each person you correspond with, it kind of > > defeats the purpose of public key encryption. Why not just skip > > the public key phase which, after all, i

RE: When Nannies Rule the Net (kinda long, sorry) (fwd)

On 23 Feb 2002, at 9:17, Jonathan Wienke wrote: > This is not the point, now, is it. I have, I believe, provided you > with the bits; you now have the TOS and Privacy Policy, and I have > read them both but can find no statement that says "we reserve the > right to read your emails without your

Re: Interesting new cipher patent

On 28 Feb 2002 at 12:39, Sunder wrote: > So it's > > while(...) > { > r=rng(); // read block from the rng > p=plaintext(); // read block of plaintext > c1=cypher1(plaintext,key1); // encrypt plaintext > c2=c1 ^ r; // xor c1 with rng block > c3=cypher2(r,key2);

Re: P2P Psyops & DOS

On 3 Mar 2002 at 9:04, Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote: > Steve Griffin > StreamCast/Morpheus CEO > Continued... > > http://www.musiccity.com/ > > It appears that the attacks included an encrypted message > being repeatedly sent directly to your computers that > changed registry settings in your c

CodeCon

On 20 Mar 2002 at 15:18, dmolnar wrote: > > Hey look, it's been a while, but I don't remember anyone saying much about > CodeCon from last month. It happened. It was cypherpunkly. People wrote > code. I can get the MP3s over Bram Cohen's BitTorrent. This is really > cool. Unfortunately there's s

Re: List analysis.

On 20 Mar 2002 at 14:48, Trei, Peter wrote: 24 > > Of the 62 messages, a total of 7 were signal, IMHO. Your opinion > will of course, be different than mine, and I have no intention of > trying to explain or justify my classifications to others. > Nonetheless,

Re: design considerations for distributed storage networks

On 23 Mar 2002 at 9:26, Anonymous wrote: > Also, you have not distinguished clearly one of the main differences > between the Napster-type file sharing networks and what you are calling > storage-surface networks (what does "surface" mean here anyway?). > The difference is that in the latter yo

network topology

I've been thinking a little lately about network topologies and peer-to-peer. What reading I've done seems to indicate that most networks either have no organizational structure to them at all or have some sort of dictated hierarchy. But it's possible to have quite a lot of organization without

Re: network topology

On 27 Mar 2002 at 22:43, Eugene Leitl wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I don't recall ever having read of this type of structure before, > > but it seems so obvious that I'm sure it's been discussed before. > > So is there a name for it? Does anyone use it? has it been

Re: gnutella's problems (Re: network topology)

On 28 Mar 2002 at 2:18, Adam Back wrote: > And gnutella is not able to resume a transfer that dies part way > through which is very bad for download reliability. FastTrack/Kazza > (but no longer Morpheus since the Kazza / Morpheus fall-out) on the > other hand can resume, and in fact do multiple

Re: DOJ press release: Visa offshore records to be turned over

On 28 Mar 2002 at 19:17, Declan McCullagh wrote: > DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2002 > TAX > (202) 514-2007 > TDD (202) 514-1888 > WWW.USDOJ.GOV > > COURT APPROVES IRS SUMMONS FOR OFFSHORE CREDIT CARD RECORDS Records from > VISA International Will Identif

Re: network topology considerations

On 30 Mar 2002 at 12:31, Eugene Leitl wrote: > If you consider the constraints of the physical layer (crossbars don't > scale, and latency limits bidirectional acknowledged protocols to short > links), you'll that doesn't leave you with too many choices. > > Is this really true for peoples' ho

re: Reputable E-Gold Funded Debit Cards?

On 2 Apr 2002 at 10:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've been monitoring the e-gold discussion list for some time and this guy appears >to be legit (i.e., a lack of negative comments). I have not purchased from him, but >am considering obtaining one of these. Would be most interested in your e

Re: all about transferable off-line ecash (Re: Brands off-line tech)

On 9 Apr 2002 at 16:54, Ken Brown wrote: > But paper money is such a 20th-century thing! These days we're slowly > drifting back to higher value metal coins (2 pounds out for a few years > now, 5 pounds coming soon I think). Much more fun. Feels like real > treasure! Less of the floppy stuff, we

Re: all about transferable off-line ecash (Re: Brands off-linete ch)

On 9 Apr 2002 at 14:40, Steve Furlong wrote: > "Trei, Peter" wrote: > > <> > > > Just about a > > year ago, they tried again, with the 'Sacagawea' or 'Golden Dollar'. > > This is a very handsome coin, gold in color, but it was the same size > > as a SBA dollar (to fit the machines). You can sti

Re: New breed spam filter slashes junk email

On 9 Apr 2002 at 10:07, Steve Schear wrote: > New breed spam filter slashes junk email > 10:31 09 April 02 NewScientist.com news service > > A new breed of spam-filtering technology that combines peer-to-peer > communications with machine learning could intercept nearly all unwanted > email, a

Re: overcoming ecash deployment problems (Re: all about transferable off-line ecash)

On 11 Apr 2002 at 12:48, A. Melon wrote: > Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 06:59 AM, Mike Rosing wrote: > > > But the reason we have AC today is because Tesla requested no > > > royalties on his motor/generator. Something for Brands to think > > > about. >

Game money

On 12 Apr 2002 at 0:38, Adam Back wrote: > I was suggesting that the ecash mint operator exchange ecash directly > for Everquest currency (virtual "platinum pieces"). The Everquest VR > is a place in cyberspace, and there are people who make their living > by trading and selling virtual artifact

Google API

Google released a beta of the API to access its database today. Unfortunately the ResultElement object doesn't include anything like a message digest of the cached URL. George

Re: Two ideas for random number generation: Q for Eugene

On 21 Apr 2002 at 10:00, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > At 11:22 AM 4/21/02 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > >I disagree here somewhat. Cryptography ttbomk doesn't have means of > >construction of provably strong PRNGs, especially scalable ones, and > with > >lots of internal state (asymptotically ap

Re: Two ideas for random number generation

On 24 Apr 2002 at 17:41, David Howe wrote: > > Maybe for you, I sure as hell wouldn't use it either as a key or as a > > seed into a known hashing/whiting algorithm. > its probably a better (if much slower) stream cypher than most currently in > use; I can't think of any that have larger than a 2

Re: Quantum mechanics, England, and Topos Theory

On 23 Apr 2002 at 18:56, Tim May wrote: > On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 11:18 AM, Ken Brown wrote: > > Back nearer to on-topic, Tim's explanation why the world could not be > > predicted even if it were locally (microscopically) predictable sounds > > spot-on. > > It's not my idea, obviously.

RE: p2p and asymmetric bandwidth (Re: Fear and Futility at CodeCon)

On 28 Apr 2002 at 0:15, Lucky Green wrote: > I concur. In fact, I was surprised that not a single one of the many P2P > solutions presented at the recent excellent CODECON made any mention of > support for IPv6, which can be easily be added to just about any P2P > application, while every present

Re: Bad guys vs. Good guys

On 29 Apr 2002 at 12:29, Tim May wrote: > The deep error which has been with us for a long time is the assumption > that we can create legal systems or surveillance systems which go after > "bad guys" but not "good guys." That is, that we can separate "bad guys" > like Mohammed Atta from "good

  1   2   >