On 29/12/2013 10:15, Mauro Pirata wrote: > Ma questo che data ha? quella del 30c3?
> Il 29/dic/2013 09:46 "mutek" <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >> Cypherpunk movement started as a mailing list in 1992. In 1993 Eric >> Hughes publishes a “A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto” [1]. In 1994 Timothy C. May >> publishes “Cypherpunks FAQ” [2]. >> >> Here’s an excerpt from the FAQ: >> >> 2.3. “What’s the ‘Big Picture’?” >> >> Strong crypto is here. It is widely available. It implies many changes in >> the way the world works. Private channels between parties who have never >> met and who never will meet are possible. Totally anonymous, unsinkable, >> untraceable communications and exchanges are possible. >> >> Transactions can only be voluntary, since the parties are untraceable and >> unknown and can withdraw at any time. This has profound implications for >> the conventional approach of using the threat of force, directed against >> parties by governments or by others. In particular, threats of force will >> fail. >> >> What emerges from this is unclear, but I think it will be a form of >> anarcho-capitalist market system I call “crypto anarchy.” (Voluntary >> communications only, with no third parties butting in.) >> >> In 1998 Wei Dai publishes a proposal of “b-money”, a practical way to >> enforce contractual agreements between anonymous actors [3]. He captured >> the essence of the movement in an immortal quote: >> >> I am fascinated by Tim May’s crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities >> traditionally associated with the word “anarchy”, in a crypto-anarchy the >> government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and >> permanently unnecessary. It’s a community where the threat of violence is >> impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because >> its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations. >> >> In 2005 Nick Szabo publishes a proposal for “Bit gold” [4], a purely >> digital collectible based on a proof-of-work algorithm borrowing ideas from >> RPOW server (“Reusable proof of work”) by Hal Finney [5]. Proposal does not >> mention contract enforcement mechanism, but Nick Szabo himself already >> proposed several ideas about smart contracts back in the nineties [6]. >> >> In late 2008 Satoshi Nakamoto publishes an overview of Bitcoin [7] and on >> January 3rd, 2009 releases the code and begins the blockchain. >> >> Bitcoin is an exact implementation of the system envisioned by Tim C. May, >> Wei Dai and Nick Szabo. The only requirement is for transacting parties to >> remain anonymous. If there’s no trace to physical persons, there is no >> place for the violent intervention and thus the contracts can only be >> enforced according to the voluntarily agreed-upon rules between the >> parties. Bitcoin allows encoding these rules right in the transactions so >> they are automatically enforced by the whole network. >> >> In practice, we cannot imagine living in full anonymity. Human beings live >> in a physical world and enjoy a lot of physical things. Anonymity is not >> something you can easily manage like a single encryption key. It must be >> maintained via careful dissemination of one’s actions among actions of >> others. And since the network activity is easily recordable, one mistake is >> enough to reveal oneself. In other words, the cost of anonymity is rather >> high compared to the benefits. Does this mean crypto-anarchy is an utopia? >> >> I would argue, it’s far from it. Cypherpunks being rigorous scientists >> made a much stronger assumption than needed in practice. For transacting >> parties it is enough to have costs of cheating meaningfully higher than the >> cost of following the contract. If that condition holds for the majority of >> the interactions in society, there will be a great incentive for people to >> protect themselves against remaining rare cases of cheating thus keeping >> the system sustainable. Anonymity is simply one of the ways to raise the >> cost of the attack. >> >> Bitcoin raises the cost of many kinds of attacks, going far beyond >> protecting against central banks meddling with money supply. >> >> First, all sorts of computational services will flourish. Machines never >> need to disclose their physical locations and can freely automate both >> payment verification and payments themselves. Denial-of-service and spam >> can be largely eliminated by simply requiring a smallish payment for every >> request. >> >> Second, personal services can be protected by peer-to-peer insurance >> deposits [8] that quite literally raise the cost of cheating by making both >> parties agree to a greater sacrifice. >> >> Third, in a similar manner, crowdfunding can be fully insured by allowing >> raised funds to be reverted if the majority of shareholders decides to do >> so. >> >> Finally, systemic predation by the state becomes economically impossible. >> Most modern states get their funding from debasing money supply (also known >> as “bond issuance”, “budget deficit”, “inflation”, “quantitative easing”, >> “stimulus package”). Bitcoin-based economy simply does not allow this as it >> is very cheap to store bitcoins and verify transactions yourself and >> completely avoid all kinds of fraud associated with modern banking. As >> central banking disappears from the state’s arsenal, federal government >> activities including wars become unfunded and quickly come to an end. >> >> Local governments may continue their operations funded by local taxes, but >> that would become increasingly voluntary. Extracting bitcoins costs much >> more than protecting them. There is no highly centralized and monitored >> banking network, so it’s much harder to track taxable transactions. Every >> additional tax evader defunds the local police department and makes it >> safer for the next person to underreport earnings if he wishes to do so. >> Considering that the law enforcement is paid only a small portion of the >> total budget to be extracted (50% goes to bureaucrats and the rest to other >> public services), consistently extracting bits of information from millions >> of individuals is unsustainable in the long run. If anyone is good at >> stealing bitcoins, they are much better off doing it alone and taking all >> profits for themselves. >> >> Governments, of course, can also tax in kind (like your underreported >> Ferrari or a house), but this would be even costlier than seizing any kind >> of money and those costs must be paid by the state in bitcoins that it does >> not have to start with. >> >> If this speculation does not sound to you like a complete lunacy yet, here >> is the fun part. Most governments are completely broke and can only pay >> with the IOUs they print. When people start a massive run for bitcoins to >> protect their wealth, everyone will be able to earn bitcoins for their >> work, except those who work for the government. Policemen, public school >> teachers and alike will be the first ones to notice prices rising faster >> than their salaries. They will the first to change jobs or become largely >> corrupt on all levels (like it was in Russia after the fall of the Soviet >> Union). Bureaucrats will smell the approaching panic and, instead of trying >> to retain control over the employees, will privatize as much public goods >> as possible, again, exactly like during the fall of the Soviet Union. >> People will see how all promised public services are either abandoned or >> stolen, and this time everyone will have a method to protect their own >> property and do business voluntarily and in an even safer and cheaper way >> than before. Crypto-anarchy will quickly become a boring reality without >> the need for anyone to remain fully anonymous. >> >> [1]http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html >> >> [2]http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.txt >> >> [3]http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt >> >> [4]http://unenumerated.blogspot.co.uk/2005/12/bit-gold.html >> >> [5]http://cryptome.org/rpow.htm >> >> [6]http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_idea.html >> >> [7] http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf >> >> [8] >> http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-trust-or-third-parties >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Open >> https://lists.partito-pirata.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/open >> > _______________________________________________ > Open > https://lists.partito-pirata.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/open > -- lilo http://wiki.debian.org/LILO #### -Da grande faro' il cattivo esempio, questo e' uno stage formativo- bit in rebels GnuPG/PGP Key-Id: 0x5D172559 FINGERPRINT: AB62 DC0E 3CB3 2B83 6333 5DF4 9674 A4B3 5D17 2559 server: pgp.mit.edu -------------- parte successiva -------------- Un allegato non testuale è stato rimosso.... Nome: 0x5D172559.asc Tipo: application/pgp-keys Dimensione: 8101 bytes Descrizione: non disponibile URL: <https://lists.partito-pirata.it/pipermail/open/attachments/20131229/06c10c10/attachment.key> _______________________________________________ Open https://lists.partito-pirata.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/open
