Re: Factoring with a quantum computer (Citation)

James A. Donald (jamesd@netcom.com) writes:
> persuasion to get him to put up the pot. Alas, Michael was
> not willing to let the pot for the bet go outside the
> control of him or these dubious people. Eventually I
> resorted to a vigorous attempt to shame him into putting up
> the money.
>  
> My unkind comments concerning Michael and his pals
> eventually resulted in me being expelled from the
> Extropians list, for flaming Michael and defaming the Exi
> board.

   First let me explain something to people who don't know. The extropians
list has a legal arbitration system to help keep down flames. We have
rules against bringing verbal assaults into heated debates so that
if you feel someone is insulting you, you may 'press charges'. If
evidence is presented, the person usually gets a warning. 3 warnings
and your posting privileges get revoked for a period between 24-72 hours
to allow a 'cool down' period on the list. This was implemented out
of neccessity because the list was averaging between 150 to 300
messages a day with most of those coming from only a handful of
people.

   A common way of resolving a standoff debate on the Extropians list
is to put your money where your mouth is -- a bet. This causes someone
to get off their lazy ass and go look up the citation and present it
to the list for judgement of the bet. Michael suggested having the
bet held by the treasury of Extropy, Inc, the non-profit which
runs the list. Extropy, Inc. has *never* been accused of financial
impropriety with people's funds. They run an honest operation
with far more altruism than libertarians should bear (e.g. the board
members go into debt to maintain service to extropians even when
revenues are low) James Donald insinuated that some board members
were dishonest, *BUT*, he was not kicked off for this. Michael and
one of the board members pressed charges under our flaming/insult
rule and James had his posting suspended for some period (a few
days, 72 hours I think)  

    Usually, we rely on an honor code to enforce posting priveleges. We
do not software block punished people from posting, but rely on their
honor and fairness to commit themselves to arbitration. Donald didn't
stop posting, so he had his priveleges turned off in software. He still
wasn't "deleted' (kicked off from the list)

    The final act which led to his removal was that he circumvented
the list security system by forging the headers of his message
so as to appear to be Perry Metzger.  This is a serious offense
on the list software we run because each user has database information
associated with their account, and our software is pay-for-use. 
Posting under someone else's account corrupts the list statistics,
deducts list credits from their account, and could, depending on software
limits set, use up their daily posting quota.

    For the act of forgery, James Donald was deleted and for no other
reason. Extropy, Inc. has given Harry S. Hawk full autonomy in managing
the list. The board can not kick off people just because they hate
them, which the board didn't hate James Donald anyway. He started
and esclated innuendo for no reason whatsoever.

    The legal system has been used rarely since and things are relatively
calm now.

    If James Donald thinks he was kicked off because the list owners
hated him, he is sadly mistaken. He should have honored the legal
judgement and restrained himself from posting/flaming for the
time limit set. Furthermore, he shouldn't have forged headers especially
since it wastes my time when I have to go manually correct people's
accounts.

   disclaimer: I hold no animosity towards James Donald, I hardly
know him. I am merely stating what I recall as the historical
record since I am the one who manages the software engineering
side of the list.

-Ray

What the hell does the Extropians list justice system have to do with
the Cyperpunks list?, I hear many of you asking.

It has to do with alternative (to government) justice, reputations,
the handling of flames, and other issues related to crypto anarchich
systems that are by nature outside the scope of conventional
governmental systems. Flames on this list are (fortunately) rare, but
still occur. And the recent Black Unicorn vs. Detweiler dispute shows
that the conventional legal system can come into play.

In any case, I spent 19 months on the Extropians list and was an
active poster, so I have some direct observations to make. I hope they
have some relevance to our own list.

Most of my comments will be based on the material Ram Cromwell writes:

>    First let me explain something to people who don't know. The extropians
> list has a legal arbitration system to help keep down flames. We have
> rules against bringing verbal assaults into heated debates so that
> if you feel someone is insulting you, you may 'press charges'. If
> evidence is presented, the person usually gets a warning. 3 warnings
> and your posting privileges get revoked for a period between 24-72 hours
> to allow a 'cool down' period on the list. This was implemented out
> of neccessity because the list was averaging between 150 to 300
> messages a day with most of those coming from only a handful of
> people.

Ironically, I found that the legal code *caused* many flames, for
various reasons. This is my interpretation, and I "assign credit" (in
genetic programming terms) for dozens of flames between various
parties to the existence of a legal code that encouraged/facillitated
the filing of charges and countercharges, the issuance of warnings and
other judgements, and the seemingly endless debate about all of these
issues, as well as of the charges.

In my view, the Extropians justice system, especially as I saw it in
the last several months on the list (I left in January, 1994), was an
interesting experiment, but ultimately flawed, causing many times more
problems as it solved. (Sort of like the real world court system, eh?)

>    A common way of resolving a standoff debate on the Extropians list
> is to put your money where your mouth is -- a bet. This causes someone
> to get off their lazy ass and go look up the citation and present it

With due respect for Ray here, this worked better in theory than in
practice. The issuance of a challenge typically resulted in each side
firing new volleys of charges, of clarifications, and of boring public
debate about the terms, judgement criteria, who would hold the money,
etc. Ad nauseum. I recall only one fairly positive example: some bet
whose details I have mercifully forgotten that involved Robin Hanson
(sometimes of this list). I recall that whoever lost made a statement
of this, and may have even paid up. (But maybe not.)

In all the other cases I saw, the "challenge" floated around for a
while, got interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again, caused
others to choose sides, and ultimately just kind of fizzled out.

I was once asked to be a judge in one of these stupid, unresolvable
debates about quantum computers (like we're gonna see one built,
right?). I declined. No interest, and pointless. (Quantum computers
are an interesting conceptual topic, but of zero practical interest in
this century or the next. My "Russians Break RSA" satire is about all
the sue I see for this stuff.)

Consider this experience a data point. I'd be interesting in hearing
about more recent experiences, espeically positive ones, but my
observations lead me to suspect there are few. Just because the
"theory" says these bets should uncover Truth and Fairness doesn't
make it so. Decision Duels and Fact Forums are not with us yet.

The best way to dismiss bogus claims is to ignore them.

>     The final act which led to his removal was that he circumvented
> the list security system by forging the headers of his message
> so as to appear to be Perry Metzger.  This is a serious offense
> on the list software we run because each user has database information
> associated with their account, and our software is pay-for-use. 
> Posting under someone else's account corrupts the list statistics,
> deducts list credits from their account, and could, depending on software
> limits set, use up their daily posting quota.

Yep, I saw this and was pretty surprised to see such forgery, I can't
say who it was who did, as I didn't follow the details. 

>     For the act of forgery, James Donald was deleted and for no other
> reason. Extropy, Inc. has given Harry S. Hawk full autonomy in managing

By the way, so far as I am aware, *nobody* has ever been kicked off
the Cypherpunks list. Not even Detweiler, who asked to be removed last
Novemeber or so, as he was entering his terminal phase. 


>     The legal system has been used rarely since and things are relatively
> calm now.

There may be a lesson here. A formal legal code encourages "law
hacking" by those with an axe to grind. A formal system which attempts
to cover all possibilities encourages incompleteness, loopholes. (This
is often analyzed as being the result of Goedel's Theorem, which I
suppose it is in an informal sense :-}.)

I like the Cypherpunks system a lot better. Instead of bogging down in
claims, charges, formal bets, adjudication, appeals, etc., there are
relatively few if any rules. Somehow the turkeys end up leaving.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."