On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 20:21:14 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > tor and bitcoin are obviously not the proper tools to use
> > against the state. Especially tor, the pentagon's cyberweapon.
> I read, months ago, that one of the military's uses for TOR is to
> control aerial drones from around the world. Presumably, the reason
> for using TOR is to prevent systems in the link from identifying the
> traffic as "controlling an aerial drone" and cutting it off.
That's funny. That's something I was about to mention in the
tor-talk mailing list a couple of times, but somehow didn't. I
should have, before the pentagon scumbags (dingledine, syverson
and their psycho-lapdogs) banned me.
It sounds plausible, although I'm not sure if it's really true.
No doubt murdering children for the benefit of the US empire
is a core value of the tor project, but I would guess that
drone control requires a more reliable link (but maybe not).
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/ramstein-base-in-germany-a-key-center-in-us-drone-war-a-1029279.html
Anyway, the official explanation is plausible too. The
alleged reason why the pentagon wants a 'low latency' network
is that the typical web 'surfer' can't tolerate any delays and
won't use tor if it's slow. So their shitty 'low latency'
network is both easy to attack by its owners (the pentagon),
and 'popular'. Win win.
>
> That use explains why they want the ability to have a low-latency
> link. What it DOESN'T explain is why that low-latency link isn't
> merely one way to use the system: Why can't the packets themselves
> decide how they are to be routed? Why can't they have an
> arbitrarily-large number of hops,
You can have more (or less) than three hops - it's just a
matter of configuration. But more hops inside the network solve
nothing if the 'attacker' can watch packets entering and
leaving the network. Something the pentagon can do.
> of course at the expense of higher
> latency. Why can't hops fork? Why isn't dummy traffic inserted? All
> explained by the military's need to make TOR good, but not TOO GOOD!
Yes. Here's another datapoint
"zero-knowledge inc vs cryptoanarchy"
https://cryptome.org/zks-v-tcm.htm
Looks like the gov't friendly scammers behind "zero knowledge"
are the same scammers who now work for the pentagon, like ian
goldberg for instance. It's also funny to see how austin hill
uses the same lame excuses that the tor clowns use today.
" we need to make sure that we get millions of people on the
system,"
"we need every AOL user, ICQ user, Disney loving parent and
child" - disney, LOL.
>
>
> > You might have more luck with some sort of 'hight latency'
> > mixing network and a crpytocurrency with built in
> > 'anonimity' (that is NOT bitcoin)
>
> Zerocoin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin
Or something based on cryptonote.
https://cryptonote.org/
> >> Silk Road
>
> > silk road clearly illustrates the shortcomings of using garbage
> > like tor. Jusk ask Ulbricht.
>
> Quite true. Nevertheless, SR did have the salutory effect of showing
> how such a secret system could operate, for months and even years,
> despite flawed tools. It was a data-point. People will continue to
> construct and operate SR-2's, SR-3's, etc, hopefully with increasing
> levels of success. They will learn.
>
I guess time will tell and we'll see how the arms race evolves.
>
>
> > Or perhaps your analysis is simplistic AP advertising, not
> > a serious look into the nature of state rule.
> Should I have to be doing all the work, here?
No, certainly not. Indeed it's not something a single person
can do because the problem is a cultural problem.
> I would argue that if
> a person proposes a plausible idea to eliminate war and militaries
> (what everyone has always said would be an excellent idea) it thereby
> becomes a obligation of the (interested) public to either credit or
> discredit it.
I agree. On the other hand I'd guess that many of the people
who say they want to eliminate war think that the way to do
so is to have a world state (either fascist american or
commie flavor). Or 'good' politicians. Or any other statist
nonsense. So AP won't appeal too much to them...
>
> > AP may be a means for a libertarian defense system, but AP by
> > itself isn't necesarily libertarian
> A gun isn't necessarily libertarian, either: It can be used to shoot
> attacking, guilty people, or shoot innocent people.
Yep. That would be my point =P
> That's not an
> argument to make ownership of guns impossible.
>
> Jim Bell
