PSEUDOSPOOFING

I'm absolutely *horrified* and *nauseated* that our eminent list
moderator E.H. has come out in total support of what I have been
calling `spoofing' or using pseudo-real addresses to post to the list. 

(It isn't `really' spoofing in the exact sense because as I noted there
has only been an *implicit assumption* by all of us here that opinions
from unique addresses were themselves unique. so, lets call it)

PSEUDOSPOOFING

the activity of misleading people into thinking that an identity is
unique when it really isn't! i.e. posting behind `real' addresses not
specifically noted as anonymous!

I consider pseudospoofing a *detestable* and *reprehensible* activity
if it exists. Am I the only one who finds this absolutely *repulsive*
and *abhorrent*? How long has this been going on? who has been doing
it? am I the first to suspect it is happening? how many debates have
been affected? how many people have been *harassed* or *intimidated* or
*burned* to a *crisp* by pseudospoofers? is this going on in *private
email* too? how many debates have been skewed? how many people here
DON'T EXIST? Are the other founders T.C.May and J.Gilmore in favor of
this too? how much have you guys been doing this? is this really part
of the cypherpunk agenda? who here supports this, anyway? does this
have anything to do with the bizarre conspiracy theories posts of
`S.Boxx'?! is this why `everyone' is opposed to a newsgroup or other
change in the `status quo'?! Is this why *I* get *flamed* so much? is
this polluting other mailing lists?!

E.H.
>The claim that a person should have only one pseudonym per forum
>indicates profound misunderstanding.  If someone wants to have
>multiple cryptographically protected pseudonyms, they will be able to;
>that is one of the main goals of cypherpunks software.

IMHO, this itself represents a `profound misunderstanding' under what
actually constitutes an OPEN FORUM. If we are merely conducting some
depraved experiment on the psychology of pseudonymity and
pseudospoofing on unwilling participants, please say so! I for one
never saw *that* announcement when I signed up! calling
`pseudospoofing' `one of the `main goals' of cypherpunks software'
sounds *criminal* to me. Or maybe I'm missing the point! I guess this
is what anarchy really *is* all about!

* * *

speaking of OPEN FORUMS, `Jamie Dinkelacker' <Jamie@netcom.com> objects
to my other proposals for reputation tracking statistics:

>>
>>1) how long they have been on the list in days, 0 if none at all
>>2) how many postings they have posted here
>>3) maybe a posting/age ratio -- some people seem to be very sensitive
>>or tune out people with a high one.
>>4) another idea: tracking the number of responses a given poster has,
>>average, per original post, measured by `re: [x]' subject tracking.
>>
>
>Each of these suggestions call for data that may contribute to identifying
>individuals, tracking their behavior or providing information useful to
>decypher some messages. This has a very NSA feel to it. 

A very ``NSA FEEL''?! all of these statistics could be generated by
*anyone* who subscribes to the list! is this an OPEN FORUM or not?! How
could *anyone* object to anything so innocuous? 

A *true* forum would be *representative*. For example, I already have
the impression that no one here supports my suggestions whatsoever on
list modifications & protocol  from E.H.'s comments and
jamie@netcom.com. Now, humor me, and take the hypothetical situation
that these are the same person! how can this be a `forum' if an opinion
is not *representative*? what if a single person just `ganged up' on
someone they didn't like by overwhelming them with pseudospoofs? what
if there was *truly* support for some project but a pseudospoofer
ganged up on the proponents and clobbered them with flames? does this
sound anything like what has happened on this list in the past? doesn't
it throw every `conversation' on this list into spectacularly
*grotesque* doubt? wouldn't that be a lot like intimidation at best and
*extortion* at worst? would it look like a `clique'? what if this was
happening *routinely*? what if people were being *influenced* by what
they perceived was the *majority opinion* or the *views of their peers*
that were really nothing but DECEPTION AND LIES? what if it was
*thwarting progress*? I would consider this nothing but TREACHERY and
HIGH TREASON. is all this  really one of the `main goals' of the
cypherpunk agenda? if so, SIGN ME OFF.

Regardless of whether anyone believes in democracy (a `lot' of people
here said they didn't a while ago, but now I have my doubts!) the idea
of `one man one vote' is SACRED. it means in essence, one man shall not
have UNFAIR INFLUENCE. anything less is just the `Golden Rule: He who
Has the Most Gold Makes the Rules'. or, `you can be here as long as I
always have more *power* than you do and you don't complain!' it is
*anti egaltarian*. it is a recipe for anarchy, dischord and chaos. Or
perhaps I'm MISSING THE POINT?! maybe that's what somebody *wants*. is
*this* what the Cypherpunks really stand for? UNFAIR INFLUENCE. ABUSE
OF POWER. MANIPULATION. DECEIT. TREACHERY. EXPLOITATION. SECRET CONSPIRACIES.

p.s. if anyone doesn't hear from me for awhile, assume I've been
`liquidated' and this isn't really an `open forum' ...

L. Detweiler -- shocked, simply shocked, at the realization that
multiple pseudonyms are possible on the net -- explodes:

> ....how can this be a `forum' if an opinion
> is not *representative*? 

Perhaps there are differences between a forum and a voting booth?

> what if a single person just `ganged up' on
> someone they didn't like by overwhelming them with pseudospoofs? what
> if there was *truly* support for some project but a pseudospoofer
> ganged up on the proponents and clobbered them with flames?

Perhaps "support" is better measured by how many people are motivated
enough to go to the effort to make multiple but individually unique,
reputable posts in favor of a proposition, rather than by 
simple numerical polls that abstract away knowledge and
motivation, or by how many True Names position themselves 
with I'm-on-your-side posts. 

On cypherpunks' better days, "support" is measured by what kind 
of code gets written, not by who flames whom how often under
how many names.  Of course we all know that writing code
does not constitute *true* support, since only Democracy is 
The One True Way.

> doesn't
> it throw every `conversation' on this list into spectacularly
> *grotesque* doubt? 

Welcome to the Internet, Detweiler.  Perhaps you might get
together some physical meetings in Colorado, talk to more cypherpunks 
on the phone, look at the pictures in Wired magazine (perhaps also
faked?), etc. if you are so concerned about being ganged up on by 
unknown numbers of strangers.  (Is it better to be ganged up
on by known numbers of strangers?  Why of course, that's called
Democracy).

> the idea
> of `one man one vote' is SACRED.

Hallelujah!  Praise the Lord & pass the card punch!  Let's
vote ourselves bigger paychecks & unlimited medical care.
Let's take a vote on which cypherpunks tools we will implement.
Those who vote with the minority get to do the programming
work, those in the majority get to tell the minority what to write.
I nominate L. Detweiler President of the Cypherpunks.  All in favor 
say "aye" and bow down to His Holiness of the Veiled Booth!

> it is
> *anti egaltarian*. it is a recipe for anarchy

God forbid!  Quick, Detweiler, get out your garlic, raise
up your cross and abjure these crypto-anarchists 
before we spread any further!  Next thing you know
we'll get some elitist, anti-democratic development like
untraceable digital cash.  Some people will accumulate
more digicash than others, and Detweiler won't even know
who they are.  Horrors!  Quick Detweiler,
write your electronic leveling tax protocols before 
its too late.  Better yet, get the majority to vote on
making us evil crypto-anarchists -- only a small cypherpunk
minority once our pseudonyms are unmasked, of course -- make 
us write them for you.  After all, egalitarian software
is a basic human right!

> UNFAIR INFLUENCE. ABUSE
> OF POWER. MANIPULATION. DECEIT. TREACHERY. EXPLOITATION. SECRET CONSPIRACIES.
>...

Isn't it just dreadful?

> p.s. if anyone doesn't hear from me for awhile, assume I've been
> `liquidated' and this isn't really an `open forum' ...

Detweiler to be axed by untraceable crypto-moderator.  Can't figure 
out how to make a pseudonym or use a remailer to avoid his fate in 
Oblivion.  Graphic pictures at 11, may be unsuitable for children!

Nick Szabo				szabo@netcom.com

"L. Detweiler" writes:
 > I'm absolutely *horrified* and *nauseated* ...

If digicash were a reality, I'd send you some with the proviso that
you only spend it on clues.

Repeat this chant until you attain enlightenment:

	Pseudospoofing cannot be prevented
	Pseudospoofing is a reality of online existance
	No amount of fear and loathing will make it go away

If it weren't for fundamentally new concepts like the ability to
pseudospoof (that's a lousy term, by the way), the net would not be
the quantum change in human communication and human thought it is.

 > p.s. if anyone doesn't hear from me for awhile, assume I've been
 > `liquidated' and this isn't really an `open forum' ...

No, I'll assume the ELF-2 running your pseudomind blew a fuse.

--
Mike McNally

L. Det writes:
> I for one
> never saw *that* announcement when I signed up! calling
> `pseudospoofing' `one of the `main goals' of cypherpunks software'
> sounds *criminal* to me. Or maybe I'm missing the point! I guess this
> is what anarchy really *is* all about!

It was one of the main reasons *I* signed up... we were working on
a TV show about cyberspace, and Paco Nathan explained public key
encryption, digital money, and nyms with reputations in his inimitably
cheerful and energetic fashion for our cameras.

The part he was most excited about (a part that still fascinates
me no end) is the possibility of spawning new identities that
can acquire reputations, property, prestige, ignominity, whatever,
without the need to appeal to a government bureaucracy for validation.

Furthermore, the whole notion that there is some kind of implied contract 
when you join a free mailing list completely absurd, second only to your 
notion that we are all pushing for the same political agenda (or should
be) because we put our names in the same hat at toad.com. It just ain't so,
and no amount of wishing will make it so.

And, to cap it all off, I have had more external validation of the 
physical existence of the key members of *this* data space than any 
other international data space I participate in; in addition to 
numerous pictures, I've met a number of the folks, who have, in turn,
met a number of the folks... cypherpunks is one of the meetingest
mailing lists I've ever seen or heard of.

Doug

PS: the show never got edited, because Steve and I decided to set up 
io.com. 

-- 
----------------                                             /\ 
Douglas Barnes            cman@illuminati.io.com            /  \ 
Chief Wizard         (512) 448-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v)      / () \
Illuminati Online          metaverse.io.com 7777          /______\