Untraceable Payments, Extortion, and Other Bad Things

I've noticed a few references in the press, and maybe on this list, to the
idea that because some bad things may be done with untraceable payments
(true Chaumian digicash, not the watered down version offering only
one-sided untraceability), that governments will "not allow" such
untraceable payments.

This won't work. So long as there is at least *one* such service, anywhere
in the world....

I'll explain.

A few definitions:

"Bad things" are the uses to which strong crypto, anonymous systems,
information markets, untraceable payments, etc., may be put to commit
various crimes and dastardly acts. For example, untraceable payments for
untraceable contract assassinations (thus removing the primary means by
which such contractors are caught, the arrangements to begin with and the
payments). Or, espionage in which the spy transfers information digitally
via a "digital dead drop," eliminating the need for a physical contact
point (an obvious vulnerability, as recent cases have shown) and also
allowing efficient payment via untraceable funds transfers. And extortion.

Extortion is an interesting example to focus on. "Pay $25,000 or the
following action will occur." A bomb, a virus, release of secrets, etc.
Blackmail is of course a form of extortion, as is kidnapping. The acts
involving *physical* actions will of course be less affected by crypto
advances than will purely information-domain acts, e.g., where secrets will
be released unless a payment is made. Physical acts have a nexus of
detection at the act itself, the kidnapping, the bomb-planting, etc.
(Though often the original act is very hard to protect against, and
traditionally it has been the payoff that has been the nexus for catching
the perpetrator...with untraceable payments, kidnapping becomes less
dangerous for the kidnapper, especially if he kills his victim...I surmise
that new technology, such as cameras and wireless Net video calls will be
used increasingly to provide the payer of a ransom increased assurance that
the victim was still alive at the time the transfer was made...the video
call could even go through remailers, if the frame rate was drastically
reduced or if PipeNet comes into existence.)

But I'll focus on simple extortion, with no complications of physical,
meatspace actions. Pure cyberspace.

"Untraceable payments" refer to payer- and payee-untraceable Chaum-style
cash. Although for the discussions here of extortion, payee-untraceable
(the person being paid would not be traceable is my sense of this term)
digital cash would be sufficient; that the payment originated from XYZ
Corporation or some account at the Bank of Albania would not stop the acts.

Chaum has in recent years attempted (I have to presume) to take the "edge"
of fully-intraceable digital cash by making it only partly untraceable.
Many of us hypothesized that "mixes" (as in remailers) could be used to
fully-untraceabalize (?) even partly-traceable systems. I recall Lucky
Green, Hal Finney, and others in such discussions. "Banks" were proposed to
do this. Recently, Ian Goldberg claims to have a system which formally
accomplishes this.

(Keep in mind my original claim, that all it takes is _one_ such system...)

Now suppose that the U.S. Government formally and officially and with
actual enforcement halts all such untraceable systems, at least in terms of
U.S. banks, credit unions, local moneychangers, etc. Even halts all
partly-untraceable systems, to head off the Goldberg Gambit.

Does this stop extortion?

Suppose there exists a supplier of fully-untraceable (or payee-untraceable
at least) cash *somewhere* in the world. It could be a physical bank, a la
the Bank of Albania, or it could be an underground payment system, a la the
Mafia, the Tongs, the Triads, whatever. A reputation-reliant system which
says "Present us with the proper set of numbers and we will provide money
to the bearer, or follow instructions, and so on." (I'm informally
describing the process of "redeeming" a digital bearer instrument,
converting the set of numbers into some other form of specie, or item of
value, whatever. Maybe gold, maybe dollars, maybe an entry into an account
somewhere. The "untraceability," via the blinding operation, means that the
bearer is not linked to the transaction made earlier, so there is not risk
at the bank or Triad. I'm also not distinguishing between offline and
online clearing here...my feeling for a long time has been that online
clearing has many advantages, but I suspect it does not work too well in
the extortion case described here, until something like PipeNet can be used
as part of the process.)

So, Ed the Extortionist tells Vic the Victim to please purchase $25,000
worth of Bank of Albania crypto-credits, by whatever means he has to
(including, presumably, even flying to Albania, or using other funds
transfer mechanisms, or perhaps even using crypto credits he had
accumulated in other transactions.) Whatever, it is assumed that Vic
_wants_ to make the transaction, just as with kidnap ransom demands. (Not
"want" in the ultimate sense, but "want" in the sense of the local
transaction. In extortion and kidnap cases, the victim of the extortion or
the family of the kidnap victim may choose not to make the payment...I'm
dealing with the more interesting case of where the payment is being made.)

How Ed receives the funds without the bits being followed through
cyberspace is of course an easy exercise for readers here. Anonymous
remailers with reply-block capabilities, a la Mixmaster, or, my preference,
posting in a public place, a la the Usenet or other widely-disseminated
message pools.

Ed takes the crypto credits and redeems them as he sees fit (after some
unblinding stuff, of course). The redemption order is unlinkable to the
extortion. (Modulo the usual issues: if Ed and Vic happened to be the
_only_ users of such a system, then of course simple input-output mapping
would finger Ed, as with such uses of remailer networks. Correlations are
always a danger. Correlations in timing, in deposit size, etc. The usual
fixes apply: more users, more bits sloshing around the network, time
delays, etc. Offline clearing facillitates some of these measures. Ditto
for breaking up the payment into N separate smaller-denomination transfers.)

What could the U.S. do? If Vic the Victim is careful, and either flies to
Europe or the Caribbean to make the arrangements, or uses various
Cypherpunks-type communication methods, he should be able to wire money
from a conventional account, or use real cash, and purchase the crypto
credits from the Bank of Albania. Likewise, if Ed the Extortionist has
freedom of travel or freedom to use various channels, he can cash in his
crypto credits. This no matter what the U.S. does.

So, even if "Mark Twain Bank" and "Bank of America," and, indeed, the rest
of the U.S. banking establishment eschews untraceability, the presence of
such services anywhere in the world is enough to make the act described
workable. And that "anywhere in the world" can, as I mentioned earlier,
encompass the various underground banking systems already widely in use
(Tongs, Triads, chop marks, etc. in Asia, and presumably similar systems
elsewhere). Or it could encompass fairly conventional banks which offer
such untraceable routes for a premium. A $5,000 commission on top of the
$25,000 transfer would make a lot of the world's banks sit up and take
notice. And so long as they were not told what the fund transfer was all
about--Vic is unlikely to gain anything by telling them--they have
plausible deniability and moral comfort.

Yes, this has all been obvious for a while. (The mapping of the scenario I
describe to a specific digital cash system depends of course on the nature
of the system, on cryptographic protocols, and so forth.)

And I surmise that the U.S. Government must have realized this. And
realized that only by _completely quashing_ all such untraceable payments
systems can the goals of stopping such "bad uses" be met.

Unfortunately for them, and unfortunately for the victims of such crimes,
no such worldwide stoppage of all such systems seems possible, even with
draconian police state measures. There are just too many interstices for
the bits to hide. And too much economic incentive for some persons or banks
to offer such funds transfer methods.

Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic
losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire,
is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by
powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with
foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted
in other interferences in private behavior, etc.

This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable
communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is
> no big deal because greater evils exist in the world. 

It's a matter of perspective and a weighing of consequences.  Are you 
trying to so that all evils are inherently equal?
 
> it's an argument I see often among the libertarians 
> around here. "what's the big deal
> about murder? govt's do it all the time. everyone should be able to
> murder anyone if govt's do it. why, the right to murder people is an
> inalienable right!!". of course the arguments are never made in this
> language-- the fun is spotting it in the rhetoric.

I often see arguments on this list where people happily build 
irrelevant straw men and pound them into a pulp.  What's more amazing 
is that they're not doing it deliberately; they simply miss the 
point.

You see whatever you expect to see.
 
> >This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully
> >untraceable communications and fully untraceable economic
> >transactions.
> 
> ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but
> "looks forward to it"
> 
> careful, timmy, your slime is showing!!

Careful vladdy, your detweiler is showing.

I thought the message was a pretty clear statement of opinion.  ie. 
the deconstruction of democracy is a good thing and cryptoanarchy 
will a enable a more just society.  (Some would argue more brutal as 
well, but I think that the level of brutatlity in society would 
change little from it's current levels.)

So cut the crap and go ahead and argue for or against that thesis.

(by the way.  Conveniently enough Tim May has put his ideas on the 
web in quite a bit of detail.  Just put "cyphernomicon" in your 
favorite web search engine)
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com>
 PGP Key fingerprint =  6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2  
                        59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 
Send a message with the text "get key" in the 
"Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key.
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Omegaman" <omega@bigeasy.com> writes:
> >
> > ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but
> > "looks forward to it"
> >
> > careful, timmy, your slime is showing!!
>
> Careful vladdy, your detweiler is showing.

LD not only knows more about crypto than any "cypher punk", he also
has way more balls than you, anonymous coward.

> (by the way.  Conveniently enough Tim May has put his ideas on the
> web in quite a bit of detail.  Just put "cyphernomicon" in your
> favorite web search engine)

Waste of disk space. Don't bother.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

[timmy paraphrase]
>I thought the message was a pretty clear statement of opinion.  ie. 
>the deconstruction of democracy is a good thing and cryptoanarchy 
>will a enable a more just society.  (Some would argue more brutal as 
>well, but I think that the level of brutatlity in society would 
>change little from it's current levels.)

wow, what a ringing endorsement for cryptoanarchy, and quite Mayesque
in its style.

CRYPTOANARCHY!!! GO FOR IT!! IT PROBABLY WON'T BE ANY MORE
BRUTAL THAN THE WORLD IS ALREADY!!!

>So cut the crap and go ahead and argue for or against that thesis.

the cryptoanarchy thesis IS crap. everyone with a few brain cells to rub 
together is capable of seeing through this machiavellian dystopian trash
masquerading as a rational political philosophy.

anyone heard of "memes"? cryptoanarchy is a virus of weak minds without
any defense mechanisms. the cpunk list is the principal vector..

>(by the way.  Conveniently enough Tim May has put his ideas on the 
>web in quite a bit of detail.  Just put "cyphernomicon" in your 
>favorite web search engine)

gosh, thanks for the tip, Omegaman, hadn't heard anything about that--
I'll be sure to check that out. I certainly wouldn't want to prejudge
Mr. May's complex thesis, my profuse apologies if I misunderstood any
of the parts about extortion, kidnapping, tax evasion, anonymous
assassinations, etc.

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> >I thought the message was a pretty clear statement of opinion.  ie. 
> >the deconstruction of democracy is a good thing and cryptoanarchy 
> >will a enable a more just society.  (Some would argue more brutal as 
> >well, but I think that the level of brutatlity in society would 
> >change little from it's current levels.)
> 
> wow, what a ringing endorsement for cryptoanarchy, and quite Mayesque
> in its style.

You're not very good with context, I see.  The above statement neither
endorses nor condemns the notion of cryptoanarchy.  

You claim that you want to debate Tim on the issue but that he won't put the
issues on the table.  It's all right there for you to attack or support.  

Here:
THESIS:The deconstruction of democracy enabled by the inevitable genesis of
cryptoanarchy will result in a more just (fair?) society.  

Go for it.   Please start a relevant and interesting debate.  But quit
whining that Tim May won't challenge your brilliant mind.  Pick a point and
dissect whether it's accurate or flawed.

> CRYPTOANARCHY!!! GO FOR IT!! IT PROBABLY WON'T BE ANY MORE
> BRUTAL THAN THE WORLD IS ALREADY!!!

Brutality amongst human beings has little to do with what type of
government (or lack thereof) we have established.  Nor is brutality
inevitable amongst human beings; governments have little or no affect on how
individuals think and behave.

> the cryptoanarchy thesis IS crap. everyone with a few brain cells to rub 
> together is capable of seeing through this machiavellian dystopian trash
> masquerading as a rational political philosophy.
>
> anyone heard of "memes"? cryptoanarchy is a virus of weak minds without
> any defense mechanisms. the cpunk list is the principal vector..

Great.  But you said you wanted to debate the fundamental points raised by
May. 

> Mr. May's complex thesis, my profuse apologies if I misunderstood any
> of the parts about extortion, kidnapping, tax evasion, anonymous
> assassinations, etc.

O.K.  The point in the original message was that these things are inevitable
if only one anonymous payment system is established.  

1) Do you agree that these things are an inevitable consequence of anonymous
untraceable payment systems?

2) Do you agree then that all it would take is just one?  Or could one alone
be stopped or controlled?  how?

3) How can these bad things be prevented with an anonymous untraceable 
payment system?

Pick any or all points and make your case.


_______________________________________________________________
 Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> 
  PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2
                        59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 
 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" 
 field to get a copy of my public key
_______________________________________________________________

> >Brutality amongst human beings has little to do with what type of
> >government (or lack thereof) we have established.
> 
> bzzzzzzt, history readily denies this.
> 
>   Nor is brutality
> >inevitable amongst human beings; governments have little or no
> >affect on how individuals think and behave.
> 
> bzzzzzt, history readily denies this. but again it is amusing to see
> the patently incorrect assertions that cryptoanarchists embrace and
> flout.
> 
> >1) Do you agree that these things are an inevitable consequence of
> >anonymous untraceable payment systems?
> 
> murder, assassination, kidnapping, they all already exist. 

Exactly my point.  I believe interactions between individuals have 
far more to do with our (dis)inclinations towards brutal behavior 
that governments do.  Governments have little influence over human 
attitudes.

> I am
> dubious that the existence of anonymous payments will change much in
> this area. I don't think it will become any more prevalent. what TCM

I agree, actually.  I don't see an increase in these types of crimes 
because of the existence of anonymous payment methods.  What TCM and 
others have argued is that getting away with these crimes will be 
much easier due to anonymous payment schemes.

I would argue that anonymous payment protocols are not necessarily 
any easier for the foolish criminal to fuck up than current methods 
of payment for, ahem, services rendered.

Only if untraceable anonymous digital cash becomes a ubiquitous 
(and easy-to-utilize) standard will such crimes be more difficult to 
catch.  (TCMay says only one such system is necessary.  I disagree 
and will get back to this point in a later message)

> seems to imply in much of his writing, but fails to outrightly
> assert because he's such a weasel, is that the world would be a
> *better*place* with all these things, which I vehemently reject.

I think you're reading a little more into it than is there, but 
that's your perogative.
 
> I'm in favor of anonymous cash, but
> I am also in favor of social/legal mechanisms to minimize its
> subversive impact. note that "not dealing with kidnappers or
> terrorists" is one such approach that does not involve police.

I'm not in favor of legal mechanisms.  I think social mechanisms are 
all but inevitable. (more on this later) I don't think it's necessary 
or even desirable to build in orwellian schemes.  

The government's desire to limit untracability has far more to do 
with taxation than the four horsemen scenario.  Yes, I've heard of 
memes.

me
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com>
 PGP Key fingerprint =  6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2  
                        59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 
Send a message with the text "get key" in the 
"Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key.
--------------------------------------------------------------

omegaman taunts me to rant about cryptoanarchy. frankly I find
it tiresome given its originator repeatedly refuses to answer
point-blank questions about key aspects of it. lacking this, I 
fail to take it seriously, given nobody else has a similar idea.



>THESIS:The deconstruction of democracy enabled by the inevitable genesis of
>cryptoanarchy will result in a more just (fair?) society.  

actually TCM tends to avoid talking about the demise of democracy
to avoid spilling his real opinions on it, namely that it is a pile
of crap that has corrupted civilization. this from someone who likes
to wrap himself in the constitution when the issue is free speech
or something else like that.

>Brutality amongst human beings has little to do with what type of
>government (or lack thereof) we have established.

bzzzzzzt, history readily denies this.

  Nor is brutality
>inevitable amongst human beings; governments have little or no affect on how
>individuals think and behave.

bzzzzzt, history readily denies this. but again it is amusing to see
the patently incorrect assertions that cryptoanarchists embrace and
flout.

>1) Do you agree that these things are an inevitable consequence of anonymous
>untraceable payment systems?

murder, assassination, kidnapping, they all already exist. I am dubious that
the existence of anonymous payments will change much in this area. I don't
think it will become any more prevalent. what TCM seems to imply in much
of his writing, but fails to outrightly assert because he's such a weasel,
is that the world would be a *better*place* with all these
things, which I vehemently reject.

>2) Do you agree then that all it would take is just one?  Or could one alone
>be stopped or controlled?  how?

it is not so much the point that these things can happen, that I am
debating, but that they are inevitable and even something to look
forward to that I think mark TCM as a wacko.

>3) How can these bad things be prevented with an anonymous untraceable 
>payment system?

terrorism has existed for centuries, and will continue to exist. it
cannot be prevented, in a sense, and in another way, it can be 
minimized. it's not a black or white issue as feebleminded people
would like to portray it as. 

I'm in favor of anonymous cash, but
I am also in favor of social/legal mechanisms to minimize its subversive
impact. note that "not dealing with kidnappers or terrorists" is
one such approach that does not involve police.

consider this: the cash is normally anonymous, but the govt would
have the ability to "tag" it in special circumstances, such as the
way stolen money from banks may explode red ink over the culprit.

the fact that cpunks would totally reject any such reasonable compromise
I find highly repellent.

See what jerk tcmay(fart) is: he sends crypto discussions to the "cypher
punks" mailing list, where crypto is off-topic now.

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> I've noticed a few references in the press, and maybe on this list, to the
> idea that because some bad things may be done with untraceable payments
> (true Chaumian digicash, not the watered down version offering only
> one-sided untraceability), that governments will "not allow" such
> untraceable payments.

Fuck the gubmint. Fuck the patent law. Patent law, copyright law, libel
law - none of that shit has any relevance in the cyberspace. Do I understand
right that David Chaum no longer runs ecash? Then I see no ethical reason
not to implement his original ideas with full anonymity *NOW*.

...
> "Untraceable payments" refer to payer- and payee-untraceable Chaum-style
> cash. Although for the discussions here of extortion, payee-untraceable
> (the person being paid would not be traceable is my sense of this term)
> digital cash would be sufficient; that the payment originated from XYZ
> Corporation or some account at the Bank of Albania would not stop the acts.
>
> Chaum has in recent years attempted (I have to presume) to take the "edge"
> of fully-intraceable digital cash by making it only partly untraceable.
> Many of us hypothesized that "mixes" (as in remailers) could be used to
> fully-untraceabalize (?) even partly-traceable systems. I recall Lucky
> Green, Hal Finney, and others in such discussions. "Banks" were proposed to
> do this. Recently, Ian Goldberg claims to have a system which formally
> accomplishes this.

So instead of shooting your stupid mouth, issue some ecash and promise to
exchange it for real US$ upon bearer's demand. Do you have the balls for it?

> Suppose there exists a supplier of fully-untraceable (or payee-untraceable
> at least) cash *somewhere* in the world. It could be a physical bank, a la
> the Bank of Albania, or it could be an underground payment system, a la the
> Mafia, the Tongs, the Triads, whatever. A reputation-reliant system which
> says "Present us with the proper set of numbers and we will provide money
> to the bearer, or follow instructions, and so on." (I'm informally
> describing the process of "redeeming" a digital bearer instrument,
> converting the set of numbers into some other form of specie, or item of
> value, whatever. Maybe gold, maybe dollars, maybe an entry into an account
> somewhere. The "untraceability," via the blinding operation, means that the
> bearer is not linked to the transaction made earlier, so there is not risk
> at the bank or Triad. I'm also not distinguishing between offline and
> online clearing here...my feeling for a long time has been that online
> clearing has many advantages, but I suspect it does not work too well in
> the extortion case described here, until something like PipeNet can be used
> as part of the process.)

Translation: you don't have the balls to do this yourself.

See, "cypher punks" can only while and flame, and they don't have the
guts to issue ecash and to say: this token will be exchanged for $1 by
Lucky Green; and that token will be exchanged for $10 by Hall Filly.

> This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable
> communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.

But you don't have the balls to bring it any closer, you airbag parasite.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

poor timmy laments that no one responded to his latest
gedanken masterpiece. I am very pleased to be the one to  
relieve him of his loneliness.

Timmy writes:
>Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic
>losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire,
>is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by
>powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with
>foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted
>in other interferences in private behavior, etc.

imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is no
big deal because greater evils exist in the world. 

it's an argument I see often among the libertarians 
around here. "what's the big deal
about murder? govt's do it all the time. everyone should be able to
murder anyone if govt's do it. why, the right to 
murder people is an inalienable right!!". of course the arguments
are never made in this language-- the fun is spotting it in the
rhetoric.

>This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable
>communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.

ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but
"looks forward to it"

careful, timmy, your slime is showing!!

(it would be fun to debate you publicly some day on your true beliefs, but
alas, you never bite. oh well, I stay amused well enough..)

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:

> poor timmy laments that no one responded to his latest
> gedanken masterpiece. I am very pleased to be the one to
> relieve him of his loneliness.

I think Timmy mentioned something about a tryst with Gilmore (spit).
Is that why the coward has quiesced posting his tripe to this list?
Would it be more appropriate to put (swallow) rather than (spit)
after Gilmore's name?
How much proeteins, fats, carbohydrates, and vitamines are contained
in an average human ejaculation?
What about farm animals'?
Timmy (fart) and John (swallow) can tell us a lot about this subject.

> Timmy writes:
> >Fortunately for the bulk of us, the likely number of deaths and economic
> >losses from such crimes of kidnapping, extortion, and even murder for hire,
> >is still likely to be vastly lower than the number of deaths caused by
> >powerful central governments enriching themselves and their cronies with
> >foreign wars. Not to mention the deaths in the Drug War, the lives wasted
> >in other interferences in private behavior, etc.
>
> imho, it's a very warped kind of mind that insinuates some evil is no
> big deal because greater evils exist in the world.

Yes, Timmy May is one sick motherfucker.

> it's an argument I see often among the libertarians
> around here. "what's the big deal
> about murder? govt's do it all the time. everyone should be able to
> murder anyone if govt's do it. why, the right to
> murder people is an inalienable right!!". of course the arguments
> are never made in this language-- the fun is spotting it in the
> rhetoric.

Of course Timmy May is a coward. Despite his boasting about his
assault weapons collection, he probably doesn't have the balls
to ice a mouse caught in a mousetrap. Timmy is probably so femme,
he wails like a banshee and asks whoever he sleeps with that day
to take the mouse out.

> >This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable
> >communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.
>
> ah, an even more warped mind that not merely condones it but
> "looks forward to it"
>
> careful, timmy, your slime is showing!!

It's been showing for a while. Timmy May has been exposed on this list
as a coward, a liar, a racist, and an all-around scumbag.

> (it would be fun to debate you publicly some day on your true beliefs, but
> alas, you never bite. oh well, I stay amused well enough..)

Like I said, Timmy May is a coward.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

I can conceive of some ways in which only one untraceable anonymous payment
system could be controlled or halted if the aforementioned "bad things"
occurred.

> be released unless a payment is made. Physical acts have a nexus of
> detection at the act itself, the kidnapping, the bomb-planting, etc.
(...)
> "Untraceable payments" refer to payer- and payee-untraceable Chaum-style
> cash. Although for the discussions here of extortion, payee-untraceable
> (the person being paid would not be traceable is my sense of this term)
> digital cash would be sufficient; that the payment originated from XYZ
> Corporation or some account at the Bank of Albania would not stop the acts.

Indeed.  

But criminals are often a stupid and foolish lot.  Many will be caught at
the "nexus" of physical action due to their own ineptitude.  I can envision
several such instances occurring where it is publicized that these were
contract (killings,extortions,kidnappings) in which the individual was to be
paid in Bank of Albani digital cash.  

This publicity and subsequent public outrage result in many corporations and
institutions seizing the moral high ground (and a little good publicity
which could result in more revenue, of course)  and advocating/enforcing a
ban on usage of bank of Albania digital bux.  

The motivation of some of the corporations and banks is their investment in
their own competing forms of digital cash.  The Government is motivated to
support these anti-albanian actions for all the obvious reasons.  The
motivations of the exposing journalists are left as an exercise to the reader.

> How Ed receives the funds without the bits being followed through
> cyberspace is of course an easy exercise for readers here. Anonymous
> remailers with reply-block capabilities, a la Mixmaster, or, my preference,
> posting in a public place, a la the Usenet or other widely-disseminated
> message pools.

All protocols which have to be carefully followed by the Ed.  (He might use
a cutout or two to further muddy the link between him and vic.)  

> Ed takes the crypto credits and redeems them as he sees fit (after some
> unblinding stuff, of course). The redemption order is unlinkable to the
> extortion. 

True, but if Bank of Albania digital cash is not accepted as a method of
payment, what good does this do Ed?  No one will change them because they
are largely worthless.

> So, even if "Mark Twain Bank" and "Bank of America," and, indeed, the rest
> of the U.S. banking establishment eschews untraceability, the presence of
> such services anywhere in the world is enough to make the act described

> workable. And that "anywhere in the world" can, as I mentioned earlier,
> encompass the various underground banking systems already widely in use
> (Tongs, Triads, chop marks, etc. in Asia, and presumably similar systems
> elsewhere). Or it could encompass fairly conventional banks which offer

Not familiar with these systems...

> such untraceable routes for a premium. A $5,000 commission on top of the
> $25,000 transfer would make a lot of the world's banks sit up and take
> notice. And so long as they were not told what the fund transfer was all
> about--Vic is unlikely to gain anything by telling them--they have
> plausible deniability and moral comfort.

> And I surmise that the U.S. Government must have realized this. And
> realized that only by _completely quashing_ all such untraceable payments
> systems can the goals of stopping such "bad uses" be met.

Not to mention the loss of tax revenue....

> Unfortunately for them, and unfortunately for the victims of such crimes,
> no such worldwide stoppage of all such systems seems possible, even with
> draconian police state measures. There are just too many interstices for
> the bits to hide. And too much economic incentive for some persons or banks
> to offer such funds transfer methods.

Of course not.  But unless untraceable digital cash becomes a ubiquitous and
widely used form, it will not be useful for these "bad things" (or any other
purpose

As always, the key is deployment of an untraceable, anonymouse form of
digital cash now.  Wide usage is part of the key to legitimization.  Right
now the government is frantically attempting to marginalize the idea of
fully untraceable digicash with all sorts of four-horsemen publicity.  

If everybody's already using it, they'll be far less likely to switch to a
new digicash-escrow alternative.


_______________________________________________________________
 Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> 
  PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2
                        59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 
 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" 
 field to get a copy of my public key
_______________________________________________________________

By the way, I was gone last week, and missed some of the follow-ups to this
thread. I did notice in Omegaman's replies that he was replying to
Detwweiler's wailings about "Timmy." (What's with Detweiler and Vulis both
being so hung up on such a nickname? If it makes them feel they're winning
converts, let them call me "Timmy." Jeesh.)

At 6:21 PM -0600 12/29/96, Omegaman wrote:

>But criminals are often a stupid and foolish lot.  Many will be caught at
>the "nexus" of physical action due to their own ineptitude.  I can envision
>several such instances occurring where it is publicized that these were
>contract (killings,extortions,kidnappings) in which the individual was to be
>paid in Bank of Albani digital cash.

Sure, but my interest is in the possible, not the dumb mistakes of dumb
people. That some criminals will screw up and reveal their identities is no
different from the similar possibility that some people will mess up in
using remailers; doesn't alter the interesting properties of remailer
networks.

>This publicity and subsequent public outrage result in many corporations and
>institutions seizing the moral high ground (and a little good publicity
>which could result in more revenue, of course)  and advocating/enforcing a
>ban on usage of bank of Albania digital bux.

Perhaps. But I note that various "outrages" associated with use of Swiss
banks--Jewish gold deposits, banana republic deposits, tax avoidance,
etc.--have not exactly driven Swiss and similar banks out of existence.
Greed is a powerful lubricant. And there are of course various ways to make
the traffic less obvious.

>> Ed takes the crypto credits and redeems them as he sees fit (after some
>> unblinding stuff, of course). The redemption order is unlinkable to the
>> extortion.
>
>True, but if Bank of Albania digital cash is not accepted as a method of
>payment, what good does this do Ed?  No one will change them because they
>are largely worthless.

Ed can of course redeem his Bank of Albania digibux at the Bank of Albania,
if worst came to worst and somehow the Bank of Albania was "frozen out" of
the banking community (see below for why this is effectively impossible).
Go to Tiraz, present the digibux numbers, take payment in paper dollars,
gold coins, whatever.

And, more importantly, the "doubly untraceable" nature of true Chaumian
e-cash means that the Bank of Albania _cannot_ be frozen out of the banking
system (assuming other banks are also issuing Chaumian cash). Any mechanism
that would allow the Bank of Botswana, for example, to "know" that the Bank
of Albania was buying untraceable Botswanabux would of course mean the
Botswanabux were not untraceable! Once Bank of Albania can buy such
untraceable currency, they can pay Ed off in them. Or variants of this.
(The similarity of a network of Chaumian digicash banks to a network of
remailers is obvious...indeed, Chaum's work on "digital mixes" preceeded
his work on digital cash, 1981 vs. 1985.)



...
>Of course not.  But unless untraceable digital cash becomes a ubiquitous and
>widely used form, it will not be useful for these "bad things" (or any other
>purpose
>
>As always, the key is deployment of an untraceable, anonymouse form of
>digital cash now.  Wide usage is part of the key to legitimization.  Right
>now the government is frantically attempting to marginalize the idea of
>fully untraceable digicash with all sorts of four-horsemen publicity.
>
>If everybody's already using it, they'll be far less likely to switch to a
>new digicash-escrow alternative.

Well, I agree with all of these points. They want deployment halted, or at
least slowed.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> 
> Sure, but my interest is in the possible, not the dumb mistakes of dumb
> people. That some criminals will screw up and reveal their identities is no
> different from the similar possibility that some people will mess up in
> using remailers; doesn't alter the interesting properties of remailer
> networks.

Of course it doesn't.  But remailer networks are at a formative stage where
bad publicity (& disinformation) carries a lot more weight.  Think in terms
of remailer networks and digicash having "reputation capital" and you'll see
where I'm coming from.  Both the sensational nature of "THE NET" and the
efficiency of the net to spread information far & wide rapidly compound the
power of a carefully crafted publicity campaign

> Perhaps. But I note that various "outrages" associated with use of Swiss
> banks--Jewish gold deposits, banana republic deposits, tax avoidance,
> etc.--have not exactly driven Swiss and similar banks out of existence.
> Greed is a powerful lubricant. And there are of course various ways to make
> the traffic less obvious.

All of the above are well established in corporate circles.  Furthermore,
they're not widely used (relatively speaking, of course) or widely accessible.

> And, more importantly, the "doubly untraceable" nature of true Chaumian
> e-cash means that the Bank of Albania _cannot_ be frozen out of the banking
> system (assuming other banks are also issuing Chaumian cash). Any mechanism
> that would allow the Bank of Botswana, for example, to "know" that the Bank
> of Albania was buying untraceable Botswanabux would of course mean the
> Botswanabux were not untraceable! Once Bank of Albania can buy such
> untraceable currency, they can pay Ed off in them. Or variants of this.
> (The similarity of a network of Chaumian digicash banks to a network of
> remailers is obvious...indeed, Chaum's work on "digital mixes" preceeded
> his work on digital cash, 1981 vs. 1985.)

Yes.  But we were talking about one only "doubly untraceable" Chaumian
digicash system.  I feel that if such systems don't see wide and common
usage, they will fade away in favor off "singly untraceable" and like
systems. (or be pushed out, such as in the example we played with above).

One rogue bank, therefore, can be frozen out if others are not using
Chaumian cash.

One possibly and likely scenario is that partially untraceable Chaumian
style cash will begin to be widely used.  Once others using fully
untraceable systems come into play, the pot is muddied a bit.  (I guess I
need to re-read some of the recent releases about partially untracable
Chaumian cash to explore the possibilities represented.)


Happy New Year, all.
_______________________________________________________________
 Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> 
  PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2
                        59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 
 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" 
 field to get a copy of my public key
_______________________________________________________________

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Omegaman wrote:

> Yes.  But we were talking about one only "doubly untraceable" Chaumian
> digicash system.  I feel that if such systems don't see wide and common
> usage, they will fade away in favor off "singly untraceable" and like
> systems. (or be pushed out, such as in the example we played with above).
> 
> One rogue bank, therefore, can be frozen out if others are not using
> Chaumian cash.

I don't see how one bank offering fully anonymous digital cash could be
"frozen out."  Partially untracable cash systems may be much more popular, but
as long as the fully anonymous system receives enough money to stay in
business, there would be little risk of fading away.  A bank offering fully
anonymous digital cash could be used for tax evasion, extortion, and money
laundering.  These crimes usually involve large sums of money, so this would
keep the bank in business.


Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMsgtDyzIPc7jvyFpAQGZKAf8DvR1uWWCV5iTcj23YdxNC/Bg5e6+AFYw
buzMoNsHNdpu/LKBMIdr03vLbuOGIDDo+FobHtzVoqss2CExm2mHqlWJWChNO19M
8/M+JGj3RlXVbzKLaXyeTNQtVf9MqUdrxGaT00caggKglzO8w0ghoazbuGZ6nHhy
k2sKB1ghKF+9kJc7yCVMRtimZeCOl+veZjwK/SO3FgrhZD/hnJ0ArLBBF5gfPvOH
451mqcP+1Uy790+Y/+JzHPPAMhX7G7E8QotlHQm21b1nlSRN/eBnbtZwWXdCwf/C
MVYcs1q3nYoQF844RPo0L61hlsxhveYUTSyDtyF2I/KErobyunsz+g==
=2Ueo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 3:59 PM -0500 12/30/96, Mark M. wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Omegaman wrote:

>> One rogue bank, therefore, can be frozen out if others are not using
>> Chaumian cash.
>
>I don't see how one bank offering fully anonymous digital cash could be
>"frozen out."  Partially untracable cash systems may be much more popular, but
>as long as the fully anonymous system receives enough money to stay in
>business, there would be little risk of fading away.  A bank offering fully
>anonymous digital cash could be used for tax evasion, extortion, and money
>laundering.  These crimes usually involve large sums of money, so this would
>keep the bank in business.

Precisely my sentiment. And as I said in my main response to Omegaman's
points, all Ed the Extortionist has to do is cash in his digibux at the
bank; at worst this involves a trip to the physical site of the bank.

(Yes, he may be photographed by the bank, etc., but the payments are
untraceable, meaning, unlinkable. All the bank knows is that Ed is
redeeming $100,000 worth of digibux, and taking his payment in dollars, or
gold, or whatever. I grant you that having only fully untraceable digital
cash issuer is far from ideal, for various reasons. But I was addressing
the point Omegaman made that having only one such bank would mean it would
or could be driven out of business by other banks...I disagree.)

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timmy May <tcmay@got.net> farts:

> By the way, I was gone last week, and missed some of the follow-ups to this
> thread. I did notice in Omegaman's replies that he was replying to
> Detwweiler's wailings about "Timmy." (What's with Detweiler and Vulis both
> being so hung up on such a nickname? If it makes them feel they're winning
> converts, let them call me "Timmy." Jeesh.)

Tiny Timmy's use of the word "hung" indicates that he has a very small penis.

Does the pedophile cocksucker John Gilmore perfer small penises in his mouth?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps