RE: Fighting the cybercensor

At 09:30 AM 1/26/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:

>> The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the
>> vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as
>> someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not
>> be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant.   When a distress call goes
>> out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come
>> from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance.
>>
>> It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens
>> of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or
>> "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech".   It is "those of
>> us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those
>> who would take it away".
>
>However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba should
>not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders their civilians
>in retaliation for something their governments supposedly did.

"I have a solution to that problem."

Seriously!  

Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to 
prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see 
any recognition of this fact.  

For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution 
to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in 
the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any 
leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public 
that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps.  Simple.  Economical.  
And, dare I say it, fair.

I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war, 
and they didn't even get rid of Saddam.  I'm sure AP would have done the 
task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would 
have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes.  Much of that money 
would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.)

 There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused 
among the people.  Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected, 
except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded.

Reminds me of the punchline to that joke.

"He sent two boats and a helicopter!  What more did you want?!?"




Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> writes:
>
> Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to
> prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see
> any recognition of this fact.

I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study.
Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for
a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents?
Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything?

> For the benefit of the masses, the AP ("Assassination Politics") solution
> to, for example, the Iraq problem would be to allow anyone and everyone in
> the world to donate money towards the death of Saddam Hussein, and any
> leadership which survives him, until that leadership satisfies the public
> that they won't be following in Hussein's footsteps.  Simple.  Economical.
> And, dare I say it, fair.

I have much respect for Saddam Hussein. I understand he's more admired by
Iraqi people than, say, the kkklintons are by American people. Saddam even
commands the respect of his Iranian enemies.

> I believe that the Coalition spent $60 BILLION dollars doing the Iraq war,
> and they didn't even get rid of Saddam.  I'm sure AP would have done the
> task for under $100 million, and possibly far less. (and that money would
> have been collected by donation, not stolen in taxes.  Much of that money
> would have come from the Iraqi people themselves, BTW.)

I doubt that they would collect much among the Iraqis: both because Saddam
is pretty popular, and because they don't have much cash, thanks to the
sanctions. I doubt they'd collect billions or even millions in the Western
countries. These were involuntary taxes. Do people really hate Saddam so
much as to bet that he'll live and hope to lose their bets to an assassin?
I doubt it. And you can't do the standard fundraising trick of collecting
some funds, then using them to run media ads soliciting more funds.

I suppose Kiwaiti and Saudi sheikhs might bet a few million.

(I hate these guys - I'd like to bet on the continuing existence of a
basket of sheikhs :-)

>  There would be few if any civilian casualities, no hunger or poverty caused
> among the people.  Even their soldiers would be relatively unaffected,
> except that their militaries (as well as ours) would be disbanded.
>
> Reminds me of the punchline to that joke.
>
> "He sent two boats and a helicopter!  What more did you want?!?"

Was it really Bush's goal to topple Saddam's government and bring in
a U.S.-friendly one that would need billions of dollars of aid?

---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> writes:
> > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to
> > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see
> > any recognition of this fact.

> I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study.
> Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for
> a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents?
> Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything?

If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto,
that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything*
in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors).

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> writes:
> > > Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method
> > > prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see
> > > any recognition of this fact.
>
> > I said many times that I find AP a very interesting notion, worthy of study
> > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for
> > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents?
> > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything?
>
> If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto,
> that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything*
> in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors).

But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant
and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them.

A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like
usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets,
would be a good demo.

---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
> > > Given how fast online gambling is growing, how soon do we have to wait for
> > > a web site for taking bets on deaths of politicians and other prominents?
> > > Why not set one up, using "funny money" not convertible to anything?
> >
> > If AP could really work, and AP is enabled by strong p-k crypto,
> > that fact alone would justify the Washington boys doing *everything*
> > in their power to stop *real* crypto (i.e., no back doors).
> 
> But they can't; and their efforts (ITAR, EAR, et al) are totally irrelevant
> and ineffective and not worth the time people spend fighting them.
> 
> A prototype AP betting server, first limited to very innocent events (like
> usenet postings containing certain regexps) and using "funny money" for bets,
> would be a good demo.

I have a feeling that you are missing the point. The point of AP 
is not to bet on whether a certain event will occur or not. The point 
is that only a person who really makes it happen (assassinates someone)
will know enough to get the money.

All other betters who do NOT intend to bring the event about will
expect to lose money, because they will not be able to make a
sufficiently good prediction.

It is not a bookie system, it is a collective anonymous hire-a-hitman 
scheme.

Yuor suggestion about trying a demo about homophobic posts is good, BUT
what needs to be added to make it a good demo is a danger for the poster
to lose an account. I.e., the requirement to such a homophobic post should
be that 1) it should be PGP signed by a real person and 2) it should 
have a correct return address.

Any fool can send an anonymous message, and that would have no 
educational value and no value for the AP demo.

	- Igor.

jim bell wrote:
> 
> "I have a solution to that problem."
> 
> Seriously!  
> 
> Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to 
> prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see 
> any recognition of this fact.  
> 

Jim, why don't you stop bullshitting and write a real assassination
bot. [as a beta, it can be a mailbombing bot] This bot would:

1) Accept bets as combinations of
	a) Some amount of cybercash
	b) A string that identifies an event that should happen
	   such as "domain X is mailbombed"
	c) [optional] date of that event (no date means that you always 
           lose)
	d) Return address (possibly a nym address) to send
	   all cash from UNSUCCESSSFUL bets for the event in 
	   question.
	e) [optional] time limit after which the cash will be refunded.

Note that for simplicity, the bot should identify the event as 
a unique string, without any understanding of any semantics of that
string.

2) Store these bets in a database.

3) Have a trusted party (someone really honest, like myself) report to
the bot the signed strings that, in the opinion of the trusted party,
are "true".

4) Upon receipt of such event notifications, the bot will find all bets
and forward them to the better whose date prediction was the closest.
If several betters predicted the same date, the money is split between
them in proportion to the amount of moneys submitted.

Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III,
cjames@cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to 
mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if
CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year).

I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com
disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the
loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants
to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot.

Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will
be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce 
mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be
a nym.

The fact of mailbombing would become apparent when CEC-SERVICES's MX
DNS record is pulled off. The trusted party will send a phrase
(standardized) "domain cec-services.com disabled" to the bot. The bot
sends my money to the mailbomber through his nym address.

I estimate that this bot would take about 2000 lines of perl. You may need
to use some real database, like postgres or sybase.

Use a nym for it. It will take a while for this bot to develop a 
reputation (remember, there is real money involved!).

	- Igor.

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
[...] 
> Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III,
> cjames@cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to 
> mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if
> CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year).
> 
> I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com
> disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the
> loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants
> to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot.
> 
> Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will
> be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce 
> mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be
> a nym.

	That's my birthday...

	have a great week ahead everyone!

Nurdane Oksas <oksas@asimov.montclair.edu> writes:
> 	That's my birthday...

Happy birthday to you,
 Happy birthday to you,
  Happy birthday dear Oksas,
   Happy birthday to you!

> 	have a great week ahead everyone!

Have a good year.

---

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

Thank you Dr. Vulis !

	:)

	oksas

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
>
> Jim, why don't you stop bullshitting and write a real assassination
> bot. [as a beta, it can be a mailbombing bot] This bot would:

I think this would be a very good demo project, but mailbombing may not
be the best choice...

> 1) Accept bets as combinations of
> 	a) Some amount of cybercash

Be careful about violating Chaumian patents... How about using funny
money in the prototype? Or, look at some of the micropayment schemes.

> 	b) A string that identifies an event that should happen
> 	   such as "domain X is mailbombed"

Not a good idea (see below).

> 	c) [optional] date of that event (no date means that you always
>            lose)

I think the date must always be specified, and the event must occur
(or not occur) on or before that date.

> 	d) Return address (possibly a nym address) to send
> 	   all cash from UNSUCCESSSFUL bets for the event in
> 	   question.
> 	e) [optional] time limit after which the cash will be refunded.
>
> Note that for simplicity, the bot should identify the event as
> a unique string, without any understanding of any semantics of that
> string.

I think we should think about the kinds of events that a 'bot can verify.

> 2) Store these bets in a database.
>
> 3) Have a trusted party (someone really honest, like myself) report to
> the bot the signed strings that, in the opinion of the trusted party,
> are "true".

Why not start with a less destructive event... For example,
"on or before <date> a Usenet article will appear in newsgroup X
saying Y".  That's something the 'bot can verify and anyone with
access to dejanews and the like can confirm. Eliminating the need
for a trusted human is always desirable.

> 4) Upon receipt of such event notifications, the bot will find all bets
> and forward them to the better whose date prediction was the closest.
> If several betters predicted the same date, the money is split between
> them in proportion to the amount of moneys submitted.

Have you ever dealt with a bookie?

I think there need to be two distinct operations:

1. A user can create a new kind of event. For a fixed fee F, one can enter
a new event into the table of events that can be bet on. (In a more
generalized system, the creator might also specify the third party that
determines whether or not the event took place.)

A human bookie decides which events can be bet on (based mostly on the
tradition and supply/demand). Here we let users bet on anything they
want as long as they're willing to may be bookiebot for keeping track
of who bet how much $ that the event will or will not happen.

In fact, when creating an event, the user must immediately bet an amount
>$F and the house enters an opposing bet for $F (or slightly less).

2. A user can bet $B that an existing event will/will not happen.
Bookiebot accepts the $B and promises to pay back an amount that's a
function of $B and the current amounts bet so far on yes and no
(or escrows the winning with a 3rd party).

I'll let Jim et al figure out how to compute the odds when there are
offsetting bets for the same event at two different times.
E.g. E1:"Saddam Hussen will die before April 1" and E2:"ditto June 1"; if the
first one occurs, then the second one occurs too. If a lot of money is
bet on E1, it should somehow affect E2 odds too. Also the bookiebot
should never lose money no matter what the outcome; all the winnings
should come from the losers' bets.

> Examples of use: Suppose I do not like The Right Reverend Colin James III,
> cjames@cec-services.com. I have a lot of money, but do not know how to
> mailbomb. I set some nym address as my return address (for refunds if
> CJ3 is not mailbombed within half a year).
>
> I place a bet with $1000 worth of money and phrase "domain cec-services.com
> disabled". The date would be open which means that I will always be the
> loser. I also post a message (anonymously) saying that anyone who wants
> to mailbomb TRRCJ3 can be rewarded through your assassination bot.

Here's an improved scenario. Say I pay the bot $10 to create the event
"a homophobic article will appear in soc.motss by April 1".
Then I bet $1000 that the event will NOT occur to skew the odds.

> Someone with more knowledge of computers, a T1 link and no money will
> be lured, submit a bet for, say, Feb 1, and on the 1st will start fierce
> mailbombing of cec-services.com. The return address will, of course, be
> a nym.

Someone looking to make a quick buck browses through the list of events
and odds in the bookiebot and sees the very skewed odds for a homophobic
article on soc.motss. He bets a small amount that the article will appear,
so he gets really good odds. Then he posts an article that's recognized
as the event, and collects a winning much larger than his bet.

But if this doesn't happen, I get almost all of my $1000 investment back.
In either event the bookiebot made a small profit for its owner.

---

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