gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:23 PM
> To: Marcel Popescu
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: WebMoney
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:20:46PM +0300, Marcel Popescu wrote:
>
> > Second, has anyone seen http://www.wmtransfer.com/ ? Ok, it's Russian,
> so
>
First, was there a black hole on this list, or am I the only one who isn't
receiving any messages?
Second, has anyone seen http://www.wmtransfer.com/ ? Ok, it's Russian, so
not a lot of trust in there... on the other hand, it DOES mean it's unlikely
to bow to US pressure.
Any opinion?
Thanks,
Ma
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of R.A. Hettinga
> >Don't Trust Your Eyes or URLs
> >-
> > by Glenn Fleishman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The likelihood of falling victim to
> > a spoofed URL on the Web itself is less likely, assuming you
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Anonymous
> The only people endangered by this capability are those who want to be
> able to lie. They want to agree to contracts and user agreements that,
> for example, require them to observe DRM restrictions and copyright
> la
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1522
The State Was a Mistake
By Walter Block
[Posted May 25, 2004]
Once upon a time, long, long ago, in a faraway place (actually, a
contrary-to-fact made-up one), there lived a group of human beings without
benefit of government. Any government at all.
From: "Tyler Durden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3) One for plausible real data, BUT when this one's used, it also destroys
> the real data as it opens the plausible real data.
For Windows, look up Strong Disk Pro, they're quite paranoid - it can be
used like this.
Mark
From: "Thomas Shaddack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is it possible to have a system where nyms can share reputation without
> divulging the links between them? That would allow the possibility of eg.
> publishing as a "new" identity while still having the "weight" of an
> already established seasoned pr
From: "PaweÅ, Krawczyk (IPSec.PL)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This case should teaches us a lot, indeed...
First, subscribe to RISKS.
=> SUBSCRIPTIONS: PLEASE read RISKS as a newsgroup (comp.risks or
equivalent)
if possible and convenient for you. Alternatively, via majordomo,
send e-mail requests
From: "Brian C. Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Clay Shirky has some good thoughts on this in his essay 'The Group Is
> Its Own Worst Enemy', found at
> http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
"So we're back, and we're taking wizardly fiat back, and we're going to do
things to run the system. We
From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Freedom -is- Security.
Wake him up! Jim got one thing right, we can't have that. It ruins our
filtering.
Mark
From: "Vincent Penquerc'h" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Disney doesn't have the power to tell me what I may eat or smoke,
> > except in their parks and on their property.
>
> [snip]
>
> Now, imagine a Disney owning the whole of the land of the USA,
> and having armed forces the size of the USA.
> At le
From: "Shawn Duffy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While I disagree with the phrase "revenge only becomes justice if
carried out by the State" and I certainly don't agree with everything
ever written in a Crypto-Gram, I must disagree with your evaluation of
Mr. Schneier's editorial. Specifically, the phras
From: "Bruce Schneier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My intuition is that the government is going to be slightly fairer than,
> for example, Disney. That's just a guess, though.
While I do have a "talent" for pissing off (and getting pissed off by) known
celebrities (see Tim May in the cypherpunks list)
Are you for real???
I'm reading with horror the editorial of your latest crypto-gram. Phrases
like "revenge only becomes justice if carried out by the State" or "the
State has more motivation to be fair" sound like right out of 1984. What
happened to you? This is so utterly ridiculous that I'd lau
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Isn't this what I said?
Yes, I agreed with you with regard to the law as it is in the UK. I
corrected my mistake.
Mark
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mark cited the Bank of England, not U.S. law. I don't know what British
> law is in this regard.
It does appear that the law in England is not as "demanding" as I believed:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/legaltender.htm
<>
Mark
Errata: "companies are forbidden from accepting them as payment" is, of
course, "companies are REQUIRED TO accept them as payment".
Sorry.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Marcel Popescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reason the IOUs emitted by the Ba
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nearly all forms of money are more like IOUs than any other single
> description.
Right.
> With British money it is the Bank of England (so I hear,
> but maybe it has changed to some sort of U.K. reference) that says
> "Anyone who presents this IOU for 10 po
From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (my Microsoft email software will of course mangle the URL:)
>
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInfor
> mationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1471,1888,00.html
1. TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/2a70
2. MakeAShorterLink: ht
<>
Would someone please explain him the wonderful invention called private
property, and the way it solves the "tragedy of the commons"?
Mark
From: "Sunder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> None of those things work. Most spammers don't give a shit if you don't
> receive email. I can attest to this by the slew of spam going to
> hostmaster, webmaster, and the like on many networks. What they're really
> selling is "ten million addresses" and s
From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Solution is obvious and has been known for a long time
> Integrate payment with email. If anyone not on your approved
> list wants to send you mail, they have to pay you x, where x is
> a trivial sum, say a cent or two.
>
> Spammers wind up sending h
From: "AARG! Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Think about it: this one innocuous little box holding the TPME key could
> ultimately be the root of trust for the entire world. IMO we should
> spare no expense in guarding it and making sure it is used properly.
> With enough different interest gro
Regarding our recent thread on copyrights and artists who won't create
anymore if they're not getting paid, has anyone ever played with the WinAmp
plug-ins? Some of them are amazingly beautiful.
Now, are they upset that people copy them? On the contrary - some of them
are accused of creating bogu
From: "Sampo Syreeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >There's no such thing as "efficient level", except in the tautology "the
> >market outcome is always efficient".
>
> Only if you take as granted a market based on some fixed set of property
> rights and other rules of exchange. If you do this, there is
From: "Sampo Syreeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But when the yield does not go to the one who created
> the master copy, why should anyone create anything, anymore? (Or, more
> realistically, why should people create at an efficient level?)
There's no such thing as "efficient level", except in the t
From: "Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Even libertarian
> monetarists such as Milton Friedman agree that this is the proper approach
> when dealing with a depression.
Murray Rothbard's law number 17: all economists specialize in the field they
suck most. Friedman is good in many areas, but he s
From: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have half a dozen computers, all usable in various ways. Not even in a
> Chinese-type police state could these legally-acquired computers,
> acquired for a lot of money, be declared "outlawed."
Now, I love hyperbole as much as the next guy, but you have no
From: "gfgs pedo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One solution suggested against the man in the middle
> attack is using the interlock protocol
This is the one I vaguely recalled, thank you.
> All mallory would have to do is send the half of the
> (n th) packet when he receives the half of (n+1)th
> pack
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As a side note, it seems that a corporation would actually have to
> demonstrate that I had seen and agreed to the thing and clicked
> acceptance. Prior to that point, I could reverse engineer, since
> there is no statement that I cannot reverse engineer agreed to. S
Is there a defense against MITM for Diffie-Hellman? Is there another
protocol with equivalent properties, with such a defense? (Secure
communications between two parties, with no shared secret and no out-of-band
abilities, on an insecure network.)
Thanks,
Mark
From: "Adam Back" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Consider during periods of high inflation people don't like holding
> money, as it devalues too fast. They will hold interest bearing
> deposits instead.
Agreed.
> During periods of high deflation, they will hold cash if it is the
> most attractive "inve
From: "Adam Back" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So this would be the argument for a closed supply of money in the
> system, like the digicash betabucks where they stated up from that
> they would only issue 1,000,000 betabucks. People trade them based on
> supply and demand.
>
> Perhaps. Though at the
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Rejecting equilibirum theory is not equivalent to doubting that
> markets tend to stability.
Correct.
> Austrians attribute business cycles to
> misjudgments, thus cycles will be limited by information and
> skill. They disagree with each other, and keep changing the
From: "Curt Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am developing a free program and simple
> specification - http://www.opencrypto.com
Hmm... Delphi programmer. That's a plus :) The minus is in these lines
(nevermind the typos, although this is your presentation page, so you could
have used a spellcheck
35 matches
Mail list logo
