On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:04:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> > > >Rather amazed AP hasn't yet risen (publicly) to affect things. > No disagreement from me on that! When I proposed AP almost 22 years > ago, https://cryptome.org/ap.htm, I believed that the possibilities > and advantages of the system would be immediately debated and decided > upon. A lot of debate did indeed occur, but even today the average > person remains unaware that there is a solution to militaries and > war, to government and tyranny. How long until freedom breaks out > and lives? Most of the initial objection to AP was either dishonest > or uninformed. Perhaps many people could not imagine that a complex > system of software could exist that would maintain anonymity, but two > decades of software development (TOR, Bitcoin, tor and bitcoin are obviously not the proper tools to use against the state. Especially tor, the pentagon's cyberweapon. You might have more luck with some sort of 'hight latency' mixing network and a crpytocurrency with built in 'anonimity' (that is NOT bitcoin) > Silk Road silk road clearly illustrates the shortcomings of using garbage like tor. Jusk ask Ulbricht. > and its > successors, Ethereum, and Augur) should prove to everyone that we are > up to the task. I claimed that AP would eliminate both war an > militaries. People have claimed they want to end both for centuries. > Well, finally they actually get the promise of such an outcome, and > a plausible mechanism to do so, and they fail or refuse to address > the issue. Maybe they don't really want peace: They merely want the > continuation of the status quo. Or perhaps your analysis is simplistic AP advertising, not a serious look into the nature of state rule. AP may be a means for a libertarian defense system, but AP by itself isn't necesarily libertarian > They want their kind of people in > control. And when they get upset, it is only because they are losing > control. Jim Bell > >
