On 9/10/23, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote: > Like most cypherpunk ideas - bitcoin, TOR, bittorent - it has a fatal > flaw - it doesn't actually work as advertised. > > Suppose I am an assassin. I kill the target. How am m I going to get > paid? I don't mean some pseudoanonymous mechanism of payment, but who > decides I get paid? > > Who do I complain to if I don't get paid?
This isn’t addressed on a protocol level in the paper? What do you see as the fatal flaws with bitcoin, tor, bittorrent? > > > Peter F > > > On 10/09/2023 03:23, jdb10...@yahoo.com wrote: >> As much respect as I had and have for Tim May, I believe that in this >> statement he is oversimplifying the situation. >> First off, I was unaware of the existence of cypherpunks list as of >> January 1995, when I thought of the idea that I called assassination >> politics. I actually knew of Tim may, probably as early as 1979, having >> known that he discovered the reason for soft errors in dynamic Rams. >> But, if somebody had said the name Tim May to me in January 1995, this >> soft error thing, and the fact that Tim May once worked for Intel, is >> all that I would have known. >> I won't try to claim that I was entirely unaware of the concept of using >> encryption to pay for anonymous hits on the internet; indeed, I probably >> vaguely knew of that idea. >> However, I think it's appropriate to point out that the idea that Tim >> May thought of amounted to: >> 'Anonymous person A anonymously hires anonymous person C to kill person >> C.' >> This, of course, was a fascinating concept, especially for the era of >> the early 1990s. While I have not read the cypherpunks archives for >> those years, I have no doubt that this was extensively discussed, and >> indeed should have been discussed. >> Someone who does such reading should critique my idea that, however, >> what I "brought to the party" extensively and dramatically changed and >> added to the overall concept. >> What I added, first of all, was the idea that the donations were to come >> not merely from one person, but potentially hundreds, thousands, >> millions or even billions of people. >> >> Functionally, this is an entirely different system. There are probably >> very few people who are hated by one other person enough that the other >> person would be willing to spend the money necessary to hire a hit man >> to kill him. >> But, once a system is set up that allows hundreds or thousands of people >> to donate to such a fund, there are a great deal of potential targets. >> Raise that number of donations to millions, and perhaps the amount >> donated will be millions or tens of millions of dollars, and the system >> will work in ways and places that I believe Tim May did not anticipate. >> The second thing that I added was the concept that the contract would >> not merely be offered to one willing hitman, but in fact the contract >> would be offered to everyone in the world. Potentially billions of >> people. >> This makes it an entirely different system imagine you a person who is >> fearful that he is being donated to death by some other individual, but >> the contract was limited to only one person. It is probably actually >> fairly straightforward to identify such a person. >> But, if the number of people who might potentially collect that contract >> rose to 'everyone on Earth', it would become virtually impossible to >> identify the person who's coming to collect the bounty. >> >> >> On Sep 9, 2023 2:18 AM, pro2...@yahoo.com.au wrote: >> >> "assassination politics" boils down to be being a minor variant on >> a well-established topic: the use of untraceable payments for >> contract >> killings. >> >> Timothy C. May 1996 >> >> >> https://mailing-list-archive.cryptoanarchy.wiki/archive/1996/11/e64f667c278643deb58a45642d0f3ea6b64a01fab294bcc9be681fd5656895f2/ >> >> Reposts not deadpools on Paul Wolfowitz made in July 2003 ( see >> archive ) >> >> > >