Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
Unknown Fund @fund_unknown Dec 11 All projects are funded. Website Expired This account has expired. If you are the site owner, click below to login. Squarespace No posts yet by anyone claiming receipt of any funds. Lol.
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
Well said. virtually all online initiatives, including the Internet and Web, have this shady appeal and inherent vulnerability. Not that all infrastructure, nay, government and business, are so different. Predators and prey, then reversed, revolution and authoritarism. Billionaires breed genocide. Small-time Cypherpunks invented by well-off to fill up day-dreamy idleness promoting tecnoid supremacy. Privacy and spying invented for promoting insecurity fears. Go too far, go to jail, don't go too far, induce others to do that as believers. So far most of the online chatter seems to be about getting yet more pointless shitcoins off the ground than working on fundamental underlying tech the fund, or at least some of us, would like to see. I'd even help review some of the apps but I'm not in that loop. https://www.unknown.fund/ https://twitter.com/fund_unknown anon_f...@protonmail.com chris_unknown_f...@protonmail.com
Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
> Is there a location at which these proposals have been published? They are not currently publishing the applications by default because they currently view that as harming potential startups. Though you can send them project press releases for publishing to: chris_unknown_f...@protonmail.com There are probably no third party locations because most proposals are likely to be from typical "startup" space that is usually trying to secretly extract money from each other and the market, than giving good things to the world. > Has anyone proposed what we propose doing, building > an anonymization network... done-right? Unknown. But if you're serious about doing anything with them you need to get at least some kind of hello application in now because they have a lot of apps in the pipeline, and they say applications are closed. So it'll have to be something good to bypass the rest. As to some recently mentioned ones... 1) A new general purpose secure *PA resistant internet overlay transport network built from good current and new research, including use of pluggable RF module tech. Many apps can ride. And it should be designed to be a factor stronger than tor, i2p, and all the rest are today. 2) An OpenAudited OpenFab building OpenHW (including CPU, GPU, ASIC, RF, Phones), to run all the OpenSW on. 3) There should be an application for strictly a cryptocurrency... distributed, privacy in protocol by default, cpu transaction mined, no 100GB's of blockchain history only a UTXO state db, and strictly serving only the "currency / money / cash" function, fast lightweight hard, no premine, no support for tokens, contracts, data, or any other bloatware at all, just a plain old fashioned single purpose cash. Maybe multisig and timelock for safer holding, but that's it, the less the better will yield recognition as purely money and reach primary goal of cryptocurrency adoption faster therein. It must be capable of running over anonymous overlay networks. 4) And an application for a genuine fully distributed cross-chain DEX (CCDEX) is a remaining tech that is desperately needed to help complete the cryptocurrency function space. It must be capable of running over anonymous overlay networks. Few want to do 1, 3, or 4, because when done right, there's no profit or control over other people for them to have, and that's how it should be. Though 2 can profit once it gets running, it would be better if it spent its profit to seed independant redundant copies of itself and or other needed projects. So far most of the online chatter seems to be about getting yet more pointless shitcoins off the ground than working on fundamental underlying tech the fund, or at least some of us, would like to see. I'd even help review some of the apps but I'm not in that loop. https://www.unknown.fund/ https://twitter.com/fund_unknown anon_f...@protonmail.com chris_unknown_f...@protonmail.com
Re: ...for funds for proof of substance -- Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 03:53:22 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:43:08AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > The submitters should continue development of > >any good ideas without relying on such entities, >> sending their ideas to public forums to seek other >> support if needed, not least so that if their own >> development ends, others can pick them up and >> run with them, against any such entities intended >> imposition of race condition or worse. >Ack. >> There are others who have received no response. Is there a location at which these proposals have been published? Has anyone proposed what we propose doing, building an anonymization network, as a competitor to TOR? Well, I should say, not precisely as a "competitor" to TOR, but maybe a "TOR-done-right"??? Jim Bell
Re: Application for funds for proof of substance -- Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:43:08AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > The submitters should continue development of > any good ideas without relying on such entities, > sending their ideas to public forums to seek other > support if needed, not least so that if their own > development ends, others can pick them up and > run with them, against any such entities intended > imposition of race condition or worse. Ack. > There are others who have received no response.
Re: Application for funds for proof of substance -- Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
The submitters should continue development of any good ideas without relying on such entities, sending their ideas to public forums to seek other support if needed, not least so that if their own development ends, others can pick them up and run with them, against any such entities intended imposition of race condition or worse. There are others who have received no response.
Re: Application for funds for proof of substance -- Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
I was going to give this 7 days, but 6 is enough, and so calling this bullshit as of now. Not even a courtesy email response, either privately or publicly, leads conclusion this was nothing but a fishing net bullshit carrot to gather the good ideas of others, by someone who is lacking creativity, and apparently also lacking good intention. U bin identified, muffaluggerahs! On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:04:32PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:47:15PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > > > " > > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > Dear Anonymous Fund, > > prior to putting our best ideas in detail to you, I hereby apply as > follows in order to establish proof of substance of the Anonymous > Fund: > > > I apply for $1 million, which is 1/75th of the published fund amount, > which shall be used for: > > > a) The purchase of 30 Librem 5 mobile phones for use by myself and a > few of my cohorts in freedom. > > I shall use at least one of these phones as a test bed for > software development. > > This will total around $21,000. > > > b) The purchase of 30 Purism laptops, for use by myself and a few of > my freedom loving cohorts. > > I shall personally use two of these laptops to upgrade my ageing > laptop, for the development of libre freedom protecting > software. > > This will total around $90,000. > > > c) The balance of the $1 million, I shall donate to the Puri.sm > enterprise to continue furthering their work creating the best > freedom respecting hardware that they are capable of creating. > > > See https://puri.sm/about/ for further details about Purism and their > awesome vision of creating hardware which respects our freedom and is > not a walled garden where we are locked in, but where we may easily > modify and add and remove our own chosen software. > > I shall obtain from Purism a letter of gratitude for the donation, > and ask that they publish this letter on their website, as proof that > the donation has been made by way of receipt of funds from the > Unknown Fund, via myself. > > Thank you, > Zenaan Harkness > Australia >
Application for funds for proof of substance -- Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:47:15PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > " > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. Dear Anonymous Fund, prior to putting our best ideas in detail to you, I hereby apply as follows in order to establish proof of substance of the Anonymous Fund: I apply for $1 million, which is 1/75th of the published fund amount, which shall be used for: a) The purchase of 30 Librem 5 mobile phones for use by myself and a few of my cohorts in freedom. I shall use at least one of these phones as a test bed for software development. This will total around $21,000. b) The purchase of 30 Purism laptops, for use by myself and a few of my freedom loving cohorts. I shall personally use two of these laptops to upgrade my ageing laptop, for the development of libre freedom protecting software. This will total around $90,000. c) The balance of the $1 million, I shall donate to the Puri.sm enterprise to continue furthering their work creating the best freedom respecting hardware that they are capable of creating. See https://puri.sm/about/ for further details about Purism and their awesome vision of creating hardware which respects our freedom and is not a walled garden where we are locked in, but where we may easily modify and add and remove our own chosen software. I shall obtain from Purism a letter of gratitude for the donation, and ask that they publish this letter on their website, as proof that the donation has been made by way of receipt of funds from the Unknown Fund, via myself. Thank you, Zenaan Harkness Australia
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 03:26:34 AM PST, grarpamp wrote: On 11/15/19, jim bell wrote: >> This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the >> right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and >> that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is >> uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. >> I think we should appply for some of these funds. >Yes, strong alternative and in fact entirely new and open fully independant competition in this space is very much needed. Such an application would also "test" the proposal. Are they real? Sending them a reasonably-well thought-out proposal should be immediately acceptable to them, and certainly in principle. And they should love a quickly implementable (months, not years) example of the functioning of their system. >> I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably >> going to be $80 per node >What's the spec? Well, the quote was for $72 for a Raspberry Pie 4, in 500 quantity. I think shipping was included, but probably just to a single location. If might be more efficient if we could supply the addresses, and have them forward the devices. I assume that there would be a few other expenses, such as an SD card. I rounded up to $80/unit based on this. >> People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes >Any good overlay network is encrypted so comes with deniability, same for any storage elements on disk. Generally, except for "liability" of an exit function which may or may not be present, and simple blocking of otherwise useful IP's by blacklists, anyone can run one. No different than any other overlay today. Don't forget my idea to have a given file, on entry to the anonymization netword (we need a name...), split into two files based on being XOR'ed with a random or pseudorandom key, and send both copies (which would each 'look like' a random set of bits) to the same endpoint. This wouldn't be 'secret', it would merely be a way to ensure that if the output of a given exit node is monitored, the data looks like a random output. Thus, no liability to the exit nodes. They cannot know the meaning of what data they are outputting. >> This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they >> would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. >"We'll pay for your upgrade for one year!" "And if you act before midnight tonight, you will receive Ronco's Pocket Fisherman and a Chia Pet shaped like Donald Trump!" >> This might also provide funds for development of the software, >> which is a task in itself. >10 cypherpunks writingcode for subsistance room and board for a year is $125k. That's a reasonable side gig stipend, but go with say $250k if you want people to be more full time at it. Lots of options within that bottom line figure... 5 x $50k, etc. Are whips and chains going to be involved? Uh, sorry, I was thinking of something else... >> A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 > nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first > year. >> Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this > 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less > than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. >In a lot of the grantmaking biz, capital outlay is often easier for entities to write than ongoing funds. A internet-service subsidy for merely the first year 'looks like' a capital outlay. >Assuming this Anon entity is real, it may be wise to assume and plan, that it being anonymous, may not prefer to stick around for very long. Notice, I think, that they referred to 'start-ups'. Many start-up companies don't accomplish anything in the first year or two. This fund ought to recognize that there would be a major benefit to helping quickly create an anonymization network that could be active in half a year. They could tout that as a major achievement for privacy. >Also, an $80 HW appliance may support one network well and be adoptably cute on the desk, but it's definitely going to bog down when trying to run multiple overlay networks nodes on it... storage, messaging, cryptocurrency, etc. And it probably would have trouble meeting whatever needs may come at 5-10 years. >Unless viewing the $80 one as a disposable to be tossed for a hotter new $80 one every N years... There are also going to be people who will view whichever processor being proposed as being flawed in some way, genuinely or fictitiously, so I'd hope that the software could be ported to multiple platforms. >It may be better to drop around $300 or so towards a mini-ITX platform spec that can support multiple different software networks at the same time. As well as some external expansion for WiFi and SDR interfaces via some USB ports. If the money becomes available... >So with being a l
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On 11/15/19, jim bell wrote: > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the > right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and > that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is > uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > I think we should appply for some of these funds. Yes, strong alternative and in fact entirely new and open fully independant competition in this space is very much needed. > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably > going to be $80 per node What's the spec? > People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes Any good overlay network is encrypted so comes with deniability, same for any storage elements on disk. Generally, except for "liability" of an exit function which may or may not be present, and simple blocking of otherwise useful IP's by blacklists, anyone can run one. No different than any other overlay today. > This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they > would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. "We'll pay for your upgrade for one year!" > This might also provide funds for development of the software, > which is a task in itself. 10 cypherpunks writingcode for subsistance room and board for a year is $125k. That's a reasonable side gig stipend, but go with say $250k if you want people to be more full time at it. Lots of options within that bottom line figure... 5 x $50k, etc. > A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 > nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first > year. > Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this > 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less > than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. In a lot of the grantmaking biz, capital outlay is often easier for entities to write than ongoing funds. Assuming this Anon entity is real, it may be wise to assume and plan, that it being anonymous, may not prefer to stick around for very long. Also, an $80 HW appliance may support one network well and be adoptably cute on the desk, but it's definitely going to bog down when trying to run multiple overlay networks nodes on it... storage, messaging, cryptocurrency, etc. And it probably would have trouble meeting whatever needs may come at 5-10 years. Unless viewing the $80 one as a disposable to be tossed for a hotter new $80 one every N years... It may be better to drop around $300 or so towards a mini-ITX platform spec that can support multiple different software networks at the same time. As well as some external expansion for WiFi and SDR interfaces via some USB ports. So with being a little more generous on the HW buy and the SW dev, that gives around $850k... still well under $1M or 1.4% of the fund. Maybe you'll want to stick a $120k second year $10/mo internet subsidy tail into that $1M, and throw the remaining $30k at advocacy, talks, training. Various ways to do $1M quite effectively.
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On 11/14/19, grarpamp wrote: > https://www.unknown.fund/ anon_f...@protonmail.com https://twitter.com/fund_unknown
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
For such anonymity to have purchase (pun intended) with true freedom loving anarchists, requires say a $1 million (1/75th portion of this supposed fund) to be donated to an existing exemplary liberty project, with the prime candidate being Puri.sm - we have no doubt that ze Germans ( cookies :D ) will have no problems putting a spare million fiats to sanity. Call this "Proof of Substance" - substance of dollars, as well as substance of ethics. Failure to provide such Proof of Substance, leaves a strong implication that this "Anonymous" crowd might be nothing more than a wide fishing net used to collate the ideas of the cutting edge. On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:47:15PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > " > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the > Development of Ideas of Anonymity > > The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends > to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly > or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given > to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for > anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. > > The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from > different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. > In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said: > > “We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, > friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many > countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and > the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the > benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, > freedom and the right to self-expression.” > > The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the > main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a > powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool > is both amazing and frightening. > > Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit > campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, > one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough > personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in > big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the > level of addiction that the general population has to social networks > - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations. > > Anonymous added: > > “Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much > information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then > use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making > ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and > protect people." > > The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the > rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and > cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a > new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the > world a better place. > > Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations > to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous > have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be > announced later. > > Anonymous ended the brief with the words: > > “If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most > importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also > Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or > conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve > our goal.” > > "
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 06:17:38PM -0500, John Newman wrote: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:29:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 01:50:43 AM PST, John Newman > > wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 2:51 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 12:22:31 AM PST, John Newman > > > wrote: > > > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote: > > >> >Most people are not anarchists. > > > > > >> Mostly because they have grown up their entire lives being unaware of > > >> the possibility that a society can be run without a centralized, > > >> heirarchical government. And they were also nearly unaware that some > > >> non-governmental entity could issue "currency" that people could > > >> actually use to buy real things. Things have changed, huh? > > > > > > > >Crypto-currency is an important precursor to the technical > > >problems of AP, but AP isn't just a technical problem. The fact > > >that people are investing in bitcoin to try to make a big score > > >has fuck all to do with the ideas behind AP, which involves > > >financing murder for the greater good (oh, and to deter car > > >theft :). > > > > None of your arguments explain why you think AP won't work. Just explains > > why YOU don't want to see it work. Can't you see why that is irrelevant > > for most people? > > > I can see that you're making an irrelevant and poorly constructed > argument :) For one thing, I layed out quite clearly what I think > the weaknesses of AP are, you can re-read my previous email if you > like. It's pretty simple stuff - I lack faith in the "human spirit" > to prevail over the global orwellian nightmare into which we are > devolving, and disagree with you that the ruling class will accept > the assassinations of themselves or their henchmen without fighting > back. It has nothing to do with my own desires about AP working or > not working. Of course I agree that tyrannicide is a noble and moral > goal. Although... killing people for petty theft is not, and > positioning AP as a functional replacement for the current criminal > justice system is fucking insane. This provokes a simmering thought to the surface of a lone neurone, regarding just one of many possible escalations: The mobbish public in their hasty and unthinking zeal to "send a message" could at some point target a tyrant/ oligarch's child/ren. That might sound outlandish and "never possible" at first glance, but let's consider possible scenario: - Epstein turns out to be alive. - Pedophile hate rises and fueled with slut media advert sales. - A photo of Clinton and Epstein banging a 12 year old becomes public. - Pedophile hate reaches fever pitch. - Epstein and Clinton are bunkered down with their own private merc army - cannot be personally "AP"ed. - Devastated souls "tortured at a young age" unite to "end the Clinton" genetic line, once and for all. - All of the above happens in a very short time period, say 48 hours, with global P2P coverage and hysteria, with no relevant time for anyone to step back and slow the lynch. - And remember, it's only the 1 in a 1000 or the 1 in 10,000 humans who need to be the unbalanced, tortured, reacting unthinking ones who pitch in an average of $10 each, and we're talking $380,000 to $3.8 million, immediately slushing around the world's most efficient conceivable anonymous assassination market, to "end the Clinton line, once and for all, children, grandchildren, the lot".
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
"Eye for an eye" is not the only form of justice. Restitution is another. Depending on the crime and the individuals involved, sometimes communication and (if it happens) empathic meeting of minds/ hearts is sufficient - depends of course on the individuals, as sometimes "pizza and coffee" is insufficient to be relevant. Some (though perhaps quite rare, and again, depending on the crime) are able to find closure and peace with no "external" restitution. Again, it always depends on the individual(s) involved and what is important to them in their own Souls/ lives. Folks should listen to Juan a little more - he has repeatedly stated certain of the (actual) libertarian fundamentals many times... On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:47:48AM -0700, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: > What is justice? > > If it is not visiting upon those who do wrong the same wrongs that > they commit, what is it? > > Kurt > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:38 AM coderman wrote: > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell wrote: > > ... > > > > Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a > > killing that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco > > (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians > > who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of > > murder! Merely for self-defense. > > > > > > a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all! > > > > > > Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would > > be involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP essay > > about two months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, I > > frequently pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' > > people who just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of > > miles away from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds > > responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, > > well-meaning person choose? The fact that the latter choice was then not > > possible doesn't mean that it cannot be compared as a moral choice. > > > > > > again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better > > to not kill anyone! > > > > > > > > Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never > > killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying! > > > > > > if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly > > dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this too! ;) > > > > > > > > Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the > > ability to defend themselves. You can morally choose to be a pacifist for > > yourself; I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice > > for themselves. > > > > > > i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using > > murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice > > nor moral. > > > > best regards, > >
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 05:29:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 01:50:43 AM PST, John Newman > wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 2:51 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 12:22:31 AM PST, John Newman > > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > > > > I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by > > > your use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called > > > an "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the > > > alternative. > > > > > > > What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car > > thieves and people that look at porn. > > > > > > NO! 24 years ago, I DID propose the former. But go back and read: I DID > > NOT propose the latter. It was raised as a possibility, by someone else, > > and I then COMMENTED on that concept. > > > >> If you cannot follow English-language discussion any better than this, who > >> can trust your conclusions? > > > > > >> >You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such > >> >crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?) > > > > > >> I can discuss the possibility that tomorrow, it will rain. That doesn't > >> mean I ADVOCATE that it rain, or that I WISH it to rain, let alone can I > >> MAKE it rain! > > > > > >> >> For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all > >> >> militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody > >> >> will need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily > >> >> solved by donation. > > > > > > > >>Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right > > >>now. > > > >> Can you explain how that might happen? You are speculating. > > > > >All of this discussion is speculation Jim :). > Yes, certainly. I think the problem is that people don't take the discussion > seriously enough. There was plenty of time to speculate in the 1990's, but I > don't think anybody came to enough detailed conclusions. > > >The way I see it being co-opted is pretty simple: govcorp uses its nearly > >limitless financial resources to target anyone who is pushing for AP in a > >way that would take them out of power. You don’t think they will fight with > >everything they have? > > Well, they certainly went after me, huh? But remember, during the initiation > of AP, few if anybody needs to "advocate" for AP, and even if they want to, > they can do so anonymously. At least, the tools should exist to allow > anonymous discussion, > > >They even have AP to use for their ends, because at this point AP has to be > >a system with perfect privacy (right? We hope so!), making government > >assassinations deniable. > > That merely means that they can have a show at fighting back. Not that this > will be effective at saving the then-existing government. > > >Legit AP participants, by which I mean people not sanctioned by govcorp who > >are donating funds and killing the rich/politicians/law-enforcement/etc, > >would be vilified by the media and the vast majority of society would see AP > >as horrible criminality. > > That's what discussions of this issue are for. Make what amounts to a > virtual list of the crimes of governments, past and present, and explain why > "the system" didn't stop them at the relevant times. Explain that AP can > punish the guilty without the vast majority of the people having to 'stand > up' and take a visible position on the subject. > > >People don’t give a fuck about real freedom, not most of them. > > >The ruling class has too many resources. And some of your most recent > >statements paint AP in a fucked up new light. > > No, you are continuing to misrepresent what I have said. Someone raised an > issue, and I simply commented. I didn't expose some sort of 'new' flaw or > weakness or undesirability in an AP system that wouldn't have been obvious in > 1995. The big problem is SOMEBODY LOST THE FUCKING ARCHIVE!! Or at least, > allowed it to be faked. > > When the originator and biggest proponent of the idea has stated he thinks > > killing car thieves is a valuable usage of the tool > > And I did that, 24 years ago. To show the public how a crowd-funded, > crowd-sourced retribution system can actually accomplish something that had > nothing to do with politics. > > >, essentially portraying it as a replacement for the current criminal > >justice system, > > What!?!? You mean that the CONCEPT of AP replacing the current criminal > justice system is NEW TO YOU!!! You obviously haven't been paying attention! > If anything, I consider that outcome as unavoidable as AP itself, and indeed > quite desirable. Yes, in fact I'm surprised to hear you state it so baldly. I guess I should re-read your essays. I didn't realize you were simply attempting to replace fucking "law enfor
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
Yes, I see nothing wrong with the concepts of self-defense, and of punishing people for actions that many or most people consider 'wrong'. I refer people to my AP essay, Part 9, where I referred to a public communication between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. As I said, in part: "Interestingly enough, when I first started thinking about the idea that I would later term "Assassination Politics," I was not intending to design a system that had the capability to eliminate war and militaries. What I was targeting, primarily, was political tyranny. By my standards, that included not merely totalitarian governments but also ones that many of us would consider far more benign, in particular the Federal government of the United States of America, "my" country. Only after I had thought of the fundamental principle of allowing large numbers of citizens to do away with unwanted politicians was I "forced," by my work up to that point, to address the issue of the logical consequences of the operation of that system, which (by "traditional" ways of thinking) would leave this country without leaders, or a government, or a military, in a world with many threats. I was left with the same fundamental problem that's plagued the libertarian analysis of forming a country in a world dominated by non-libertarian states: It was not clear how such a country could defend itself from aggression if it could not force its citizens to fight." "Only then did I realize that if this system could work within a single country, it could also work worldwide, eliminating threats from outside the country as well as corrupt politicians within. And shortly thereafter, I realized that not only could this occur, such a spread was absolutely inevitable, by the very nature of modern communications across the Internet, or older technologies such as the telephone, fax, or even letters written on paper. In short, no war need ever occur again, because no dispute would country he intended to war with, obviously, but he would also draw the ire of citizens within his own country who either didn't want to pay the taxes to support a wasteful war, or lose their sons and daughters in pointless battles, or for that matter were simply opposed to participating in the aggression. Together, all these potentially-affected peoples would unite (albeit quite anonymously, even from each other) and destroy the tyrant before he had the opportunity to make the war." "I was utterly astonished. Seemingly, and without intending to do so, I had provided a solution for the "war" problem that has plagued mankind for millennia. But had I? I really don't know. I do know, however, that very few people have challenged me on this particular claim, despite what would normally appear to be its vast improbability. While some of the less perceptive critics of "Assassination Politics" have accused me of eliminating war and replace it with something that will end up being worse, it is truly amazing that more people haven't berated me for not only believing in the impossible, but also believing that the impossible is now actually inevitable!"[end of partial quote] On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 10:48:02 AM PST, Kurt Buff - GSEC, GCIH wrote: What is justice? If it is not visiting upon those who do wrong the same wrongs that they commit, what is it? Kurt On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:38 AM coderman wrote: > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell wrote: > ... > > Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing > that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) > had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back > in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for > self-defense. > > > a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all! > > > Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be > involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP essay about two > months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, I frequently > pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who > just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away > from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby > Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose? The > fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot > be compared as a moral choice. > > > again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better to > not kill anyone! > > > > Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never > killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying! > > > if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly > dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
Correct. Any method for killing humans is fatally! flawed unless it includes simultaneous killing the author, supporters and/or applicator of the method. Untold millions have been slaughtered by those who expect to avoid what they preach others to do. Truly courageous killers kill themselves and nobody else to satisfy their lust to be god. Still, the killing industry and homicidal faiths persist by promising the killers they will be honored by their cowardly manipulators. At 01:38 PM 11/16/2019, you wrote: âââââââ Original Message âââââââ On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell wrote: ... Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for self-defense. a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all!
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
What is justice? If it is not visiting upon those who do wrong the same wrongs that they commit, what is it? Kurt On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:38 AM coderman wrote: > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:16 PM, jim bell wrote: > ... > > Not clear who says this, but let's remember that "murder" is simply a killing > that the government declares is illegal. If the attackers at Waco (the Feds) > had fired first, which we know happened, the Branch Davidians who shot back > in self-defense...would have been labelled as guilty of murder! Merely for > self-defense. > > > a false dichotomy; it would be better if no one was killed at all! > > > Except you don't even attempt to quantify the amount of killing that would be > involved in these two hypothetical situations. I wrote my AP essay about two > months prior to the OKC bombing on March 19, 1995. Later, I frequently > pointed out that if the choice is between killing 168 'innocent' people who > just happened to be in a building two years later, hundreds of miles away > from Waco, and killing (for example) the top 30-40 Feds responsible for Ruby > Ridge and Waco, what should an intelligent, well-meaning person choose? The > fact that the latter choice was then not possible doesn't mean that it cannot > be compared as a moral choice. > > > again, false dichotomy; these are not the only two possibilities - better to > not kill anyone! > > > > Also, you can claim you are merely saying "better to err towards never > killing", but that doesn't mean that nobody is dying! > > > if this is about universal healthcare, then i agree: people are needlessly > dying without being explicitly murdered, and we should fix this too! ;) > > > > Sure they are, the people you have chosen to say should not have the ability > to defend themselves. You can morally choose to be a pacifist for yourself; > I suggest that you cannot force other people to make that choice for > themselves. > > > i agree. i cannot force anyone. i can only highlight the fallacy of using > murder to right wrongs. expedient? sure. but call it vengeance, not justice > nor moral. > > best regards, >
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 01:50:43 AM PST, John Newman wrote: > On Nov 16, 2019, at 2:51 AM, jim bell wrote: > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 12:22:31 AM PST, John Newman > wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > > I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your > > use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called an > > "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative. > > > > What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car > thieves and people that look at porn. > > > NO! 24 years ago, I DID propose the former. But go back and read: I DID > NOT propose the latter. It was raised as a possibility, by someone else, and > I then COMMENTED on that concept. > >> If you cannot follow English-language discussion any better than this, who >> can trust your conclusions? > > >> >You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such >> >crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?) > > >> I can discuss the possibility that tomorrow, it will rain. That doesn't >> mean I ADVOCATE that it rain, or that I WISH it to rain, let alone can I >> MAKE it rain! > > >> >> For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all >> >> militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody >> >> will need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved >> >> by donation. > > > >>Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right now. > >> Can you explain how that might happen? You are speculating. > >All of this discussion is speculation Jim :). Yes, certainly. I think the problem is that people don't take the discussion seriously enough. There was plenty of time to speculate in the 1990's, but I don't think anybody came to enough detailed conclusions. >The way I see it being co-opted is pretty simple: govcorp uses its nearly >limitless financial resources to target anyone who is pushing for AP in a way >that would take them out of power. You don’t think they will fight with >everything they have? Well, they certainly went after me, huh? But remember, during the initiation of AP, few if anybody needs to "advocate" for AP, and even if they want to, they can do so anonymously. At least, the tools should exist to allow anonymous discussion, >They even have AP to use for their ends, because at this point AP has to be a >system with perfect privacy (right? We hope so!), making government >assassinations deniable. That merely means that they can have a show at fighting back. Not that this will be effective at saving the then-existing government. >Legit AP participants, by which I mean people not sanctioned by govcorp who >are donating funds and killing the rich/politicians/law-enforcement/etc, would >be vilified by the media and the vast majority of society would see AP as >horrible criminality. That's what discussions of this issue are for. Make what amounts to a virtual list of the crimes of governments, past and present, and explain why "the system" didn't stop them at the relevant times. Explain that AP can punish the guilty without the vast majority of the people having to 'stand up' and take a visible position on the subject. >People don’t give a fuck about real freedom, not most of them. >The ruling class has too many resources. And some of your most recent >statements paint AP in a fucked up new light. No, you are continuing to misrepresent what I have said. Someone raised an issue, and I simply commented. I didn't expose some sort of 'new' flaw or weakness or undesirability in an AP system that wouldn't have been obvious in 1995. The big problem is SOMEBODY LOST THE FUCKING ARCHIVE!! Or at least, allowed it to be faked. > When the originator and biggest proponent of the idea has stated he thinks > killing car thieves is a valuable usage of the tool And I did that, 24 years ago. To show the public how a crowd-funded, crowd-sourced retribution system can actually accomplish something that had nothing to do with politics. >, essentially portraying it as a replacement for the current criminal justice >system, What!?!? You mean that the CONCEPT of AP replacing the current criminal justice system is NEW TO YOU!!! You obviously haven't been paying attention! If anything, I consider that outcome as unavoidable as AP itself, and indeed quite desirable. >I think you lose another big chunk of sympathetic support. In other words, if nobody explains to people what will eventually happen, they will be confused and even scared. THAT is the reason for the discussion! And quite possibly, that's one powerful motivation for somebody STEALING THE FUCKING ARCHIVE! >Murderous treatment of a mere thief is squalid, gross, and totally reminiscent >of cops, jail, death row, torture, and the prison-indus
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
Yes, my covert wireless project. 😏 On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 12:15 AM grarpamp wrote: > > 'anonymous' is the americunt government - you know that, right? > > You know there is no reason that it and or its elements > could not be, after all, spying on, taking, and steering > developments in its favor is a favorite game of all governments. > > People should remember that possibility when > making their own assessments and choices. > > One choice could be crowdfunding a completely > opensource version of Zerodium, thus putting > those particular "anonymous" "cunts" out of business. >
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
> On Nov 16, 2019, at 2:51 AM, jim bell wrote: > > On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 12:22:31 AM PST, John Newman > wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > > I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your > > use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called an > > "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative. > > > > What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car > thieves and people that look at porn. > > > NO! 24 years ago, I DID propose the former. But go back and read: I DID > NOT propose the latter. It was raised as a possibility, by someone else, and > I then COMMENTED on that concept. > > If you cannot follow English-language discussion any better than this, who > can trust your conclusions? > > > >You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such > >crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?) > > > I can discuss the possibility that tomorrow, it will rain. That doesn't mean > I ADVOCATE that it rain, or that I WISH it to rain, let alone can I MAKE it > rain! > > > >> For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all > >> militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody > >> will need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved > >> by donation. > > > > > >Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right now. > > Can you explain how that might happen? You are speculating. > All of this discussion is speculation Jim :). The way I see it being co-opted is pretty simple: govcorp uses its nearly limitless financial resources to target anyone who is pushing for AP in a way that would take them out of power. You don’t think they will fight with everything they have? They even have AP to use for their ends, because at this point AP has to be a system with perfect privacy (right? We hope so!), making government assassinations deniable. Legit AP participants, by which I mean people not sanctioned by govcorp who are donating funds and killing the rich/politicians/law-enforcement/etc, would be vilified by the media and the vast majority of society would see AP as horrible criminality. People don’t give a fuck about real freedom, not most of them. The ruling class has too many resources. And some of your most recent statements paint AP in a fucked up new light. When the originator and biggest proponent of the idea has stated he thinks killing car thieves is a valuable usage of the tool, essentially portraying it as a replacement for the current criminal justice system, I think you lose another big chunk of sympathetic support. Murderous treatment of a mere thief is squalid, gross, and totally reminiscent of cops, jail, death row, torture, and the prison-industrial complex... > >Maybe they never let it take off. > > > Prior to the development of Bitcoin, there were probably discussions to the > point, "Maybe they will never let digital cash take off. Didn't seem to stop > it, huh? And now, there are many hundreds of altcoins in existence, and > there is little news of somebody trying to "ban" them. > > And today, there is actually a REAL death-prediction market in existence, > Ethereum+Augur. But not, yet, an "assassination market", but that simply > because a large payment to one unknown predictor. So, we are vastly closer > to an AP-type market in 2019 than we were in 1995. Your weak speculation > wouldn't have appeared to be so weak in 1995 or 1996, but you are well over > 20 years too late. > In danger of repeating myself, I think it boils down to a few things. Not enough “regular people” give a goddamn about freedom, toppling the government, etc. They are happy to shake a US soldier's hand and thank him for his service, they call cops when they have a problem, they just want a veneer of freedom and plenty of toys to buy. Further, you’ve poisoned the well with some noxious ideas about minor shit. It seems to me AP is for war criminals, billionaires, people destroying the planet for profit, etc… not for minor thievery or other shit that, under the current system, would just land you on paper or in some part of the American gulag for a brief time. > > >Maybe even if the tech is there, which it isn’t now, people are too fucking > >happy to get the latest gizmo from Apple and ignore the fact that they are > >slaves. > > If they never have any sort of idea that they can be anything other than > slaves, you will be right. But I think we are long past that situation. > Do you see a groundswell of support for anarchism in the wealthy American empire? Take off the blinders man. People are fucking stupid and mostly law-abiding “good citizens” who just want more money. > > >Most people are not anarchists. > > > Mostly because they have grown up their entire lives being
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
On Saturday, November 16, 2019, 12:22:31 AM PST, John Newman wrote: > On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote: > > I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your > use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called an > "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative. > What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car thieves and people that look at porn. NO! 24 years ago, I DID propose the former. But go back and read: I DID NOT propose the latter. It was raised as a possibility, by someone else, and I then COMMENTED on that concept. If you cannot follow English-language discussion any better than this, who can trust your conclusions? >You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such >crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?) I can discuss the possibility that tomorrow, it will rain. That doesn't mean I ADVOCATE that it rain, or that I WISH it to rain, let alone can I MAKE it rain! >> For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all >> militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody will >> need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved by >> donation. > >Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right now. Can you explain how that might happen? You are speculating. >Maybe they never let it take off. Prior to the development of Bitcoin, there were probably discussions to the point, "Maybe they will never let digital cash take off. Didn't seem to stop it, huh? And now, there are many hundreds of altcoins in existence, and there is little news of somebody trying to "ban" them. And today, there is actually a REAL death-prediction market in existence, Ethereum+Augur. But not, yet, an "assassination market", but that simply because a large payment to one unknown predictor. So, we are vastly closer to an AP-type market in 2019 than we were in 1995. Your weak speculation wouldn't have appeared to be so weak in 1995 or 1996, but you are well over 20 years too late. >Maybe even if the tech is there, which it isn’t now, people are too fucking >happy to get the latest gizmo from Apple and ignore the fact that they are >slaves. If they never have any sort of idea that they can be anything other than slaves, you will be right. But I think we are long past that situation. >Most people are not anarchists. Mostly because they have grown up their entire lives being unaware of the possibility that a society can be run without a centralized, heirarchical government. And they were also nearly unaware that some non-governmental entity could issue "currency" that people could actually use to buy real things. Things have changed, huh? > Can the critical mass of well-intending users of AP, a group of which I don’t > think I can consider you to be a member after your most recent suggestions, You were completely wrong about what you claimed to be my recent suggestion. > be depended upon to win in a fight to target and pay for assassinations > against the billionaire ruling class and their government and corporate > lackeys? The key in such a project is to eliminate, as much as possible, the need to 'trust' individuals. I again refer to Ethereum+Augur, which it is said can continue to run even if thousands of CPUs are taken out of service. >> That, at least if it is likely to be true, would be a genuine benefit, a >> huge one in fact. So, how do you know that even if AP has some sort of >> negative factor associated with it, that a post-AP world wouldn't be better >> than today? I suggest that 'you' (term used generically) who expresses an >> objection to AP have a certain responsibility to figure out which is better: >> The status quo or the post-AP world. It's not a legitimate objection to >> cherry-pick one aspect, ignore everything else, and declare "I don't like >> it!!!" >It is absolutely legitimate to find certain aspects of AP, or in this case how >it would be implemented by you, and see obvious problems. How else do you >problem solve or analyze the efficacy of.. anything? I have been trying to get this analysis started since 1995. > If, nearly 25 years after AP was first publicized, nobody has done the > admittedly-involved work to determine this, that suggests that people are > unthinkingly defaulting to the status quo, and for no obvious reason. The > old excuse, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is a > poor excuse. >I think people probably either see the limitations I’ve expressed, or they are >part of that population that is disgusted by the idea and doesn’t really want >to live in a world of escalating assassination wars. I mean, it sounds like a >cool video game :) Actually, "assassinations" will not "escalate": They will de-escalate. As people
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
> On Nov 16, 2019, at 1:37 AM, jim bell wrote: > > I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your > use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called an > "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative. > What you proposed was quite clearly said. You proposed using AP to kill car thieves and people that look at porn. You talked about the difficulty in finding people who had committed such crimes (cuz how else do you put an AP hit out on them?) > For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all > militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody will > need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved by > donation. > Maybe, or maybe AP gets co-opted by the same powers running shit right now. Maybe they never let it take off. Maybe even if the tech is there, which it isn’t now, people are too fucking happy to get the latest gizmo from Apple and ignore the fact that they are slaves. Most people are not anarchists. Can the critical mass of well-intending users of AP, a group of which I don’t think I can consider you to be a member after your most recent suggestions, be depended upon to win in a fight to target and pay for assassinations against the billionaire ruling class and their government and corporate lackeys? > That, at least if it is likely to be true, would be a genuine benefit, a huge > one in fact. So, how do you know that even if AP has some sort of negative > factor associated with it, that a post-AP world wouldn't be better than > today? I suggest that 'you' (term used generically) who expresses an > objection to AP have a certain responsibility to figure out which is better: > The status quo or the post-AP world. It's not a legitimate objection to > cherry-pick one aspect, ignore everything else, and declare "I don't like > it!!!" > It is absolutely legitimate to find certain aspects of AP, or in this case how it would be implemented by you, and see obvious problems. How else do you problem solve or analyze the efficacy of.. anything? > If, nearly 25 years after AP was first publicized, nobody has done the > admittedly-involved work to determine this, that suggests that people are > unthinkingly defaulting to the status quo, and for no obvious reason. The > old excuse, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is a > poor excuse. I think people probably either see the limitations I’ve expressed, or they are part of that population that is disgusted by the idea and doesn’t really want to live in a world of escalating assassination wars. I mean, it sounds like a cool video game :) > > Wouldn't it have been better if, 10-20 years ago, somebody had implement a > 'model AP' system, a simulation of it. In other words, just figure out what > would likely happen. No actual cash, no payments, no deaths, etc. Wouldn't > we have learned something? If your opinion today had been informed by this > kind of simulation, how do you know your opinion wouldn't have been different > today? > Sure, a simulation would be cool, even today. Neither of us can know how the outcome of a simulation would affect our thoughts on AP - until we see one, it’s pure conjecture. > Jim Bell > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:22:33 PM PST, John Newman > wrote: > > > I object to replacing a police state with a police state by mob, which seems > to be what you are actually proposing. > > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 12:56 AM, jim bell wrote: > > > > I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself. This sounds remarkably > > passive-agressive. > > > > You either have a valid objection, or you don't. If you had one, you > > should be willing to state it. > > > > Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it. > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman > > wrote: > > > > > > I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made > > some of those reasons extremely obvious. > > > > Cheers, > > John > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > > > One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against > > > ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car > > > thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > > > Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a > > > car thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he > > > will get found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. > > > If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which > > > can reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this > > > can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an > > > AP system. But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure > > > AP wo
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
I think you are mischaracterizing what I am proposing, as suggested by your use of the word, "seems". Also, there is what is typically called an "opportunity cost", which is the 'cost' of NOT selecting the alternative. For example, I have long suggested that AP, in use, will get rid of all militaries, wars, and nuclear weapons. The argument is simple: Nobody will need militaries, or nukes, because any disputes can be easily solved by donation. That, at least if it is likely to be true, would be a genuine benefit, a huge one in fact. So, how do you know that even if AP has some sort of negative factor associated with it, that a post-AP world wouldn't be better than today? I suggest that 'you' (term used generically) who expresses an objection to AP have a certain responsibility to figure out which is better: The status quo or the post-AP world. It's not a legitimate objection to cherry-pick one aspect, ignore everything else, and declare "I don't like it!!!" If, nearly 25 years after AP was first publicized, nobody has done the admittedly-involved work to determine this, that suggests that people are unthinkingly defaulting to the status quo, and for no obvious reason. The old excuse, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is a poor excuse. Wouldn't it have been better if, 10-20 years ago, somebody had implement a 'model AP' system, a simulation of it. In other words, just figure out what would likely happen. No actual cash, no payments, no deaths, etc. Wouldn't we have learned something? If your opinion today had been informed by this kind of simulation, how do you know your opinion wouldn't have been different today? Jim Bell On Friday, November 15, 2019, 11:22:33 PM PST, John Newman wrote: I object to replacing a police state with a police state by mob, which seems to be what you are actually proposing. > On Nov 16, 2019, at 12:56 AM, jim bell wrote: > > I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself. This sounds remarkably > passive-agressive. > > You either have a valid objection, or you don't. If you had one, you should > be willing to state it. > > Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it. > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman > wrote: > > > I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made > some of those reasons extremely obvious. > > Cheers, > John > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > > One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against > >ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves > >as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > > Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car > > thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get > > found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. > > If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can > > reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can > > be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP > > system. But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP > > would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not > > exactly the same thing. > > Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating > > and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely > > learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, > > Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, > > This site lists many others. > > https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists > > > > If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating > > sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this > > kind of news. And that's a good step. > > > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > > wrote: > > > > Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested > > you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the > > public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, > > nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you > > might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around > > Epstein and the Clintons. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +, jim bell wrote: > > > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the > > >right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, > > >and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody > > >who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > > > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are > > > probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes > >
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
I object to replacing a police state with a police state by mob, which seems to be what you are actually proposing. > On Nov 16, 2019, at 12:56 AM, jim bell wrote: > > I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself. This sounds remarkably > passive-agressive. > > You either have a valid objection, or you don't. If you had one, you should > be willing to state it. > > Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it. > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman > wrote: > > > I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made > some of those reasons extremely obvious. > > Cheers, > John > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > > One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against > > ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves > > as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > > Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car > > thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get > > found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. > > If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can > > reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can > > be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP > > system. But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP > > would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not > > exactly the same thing. > > Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating > > and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely > > learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, > > Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, > > This site lists many others. > > https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists > > > > If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating > > sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this > > kind of news. And that's a good step. > > > > > >On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > > wrote: > > > > Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested > > you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the > > public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, > > nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you > > might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around > > Epstein and the Clintons. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +, jim bell wrote: > > > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the > > > right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, > > > and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody > > > who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > > > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are > > > probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes > > > could be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at > > > their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet > > > service. > > > I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they > > > could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a > > > portion of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to > > > approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, > > > maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink > > > I believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly > > > data-limit for 1 Gig service.) > > > This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because > > > they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. > > > This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is > > > a task in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and > > > multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about > > > $380,000 for the first year. > > > Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what > > > this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost > > > represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. > > >Jim Bell > > > > > > > > >On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp > > > wrote: > > > > > > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > > > > > " > > > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > > > > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > > > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > > > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > > > > > > > Unkno
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
I wish you would actually EXPLAIN yourself. This sounds remarkably passive-agressive. You either have a valid objection, or you don't. If you had one, you should be willing to state it. Don't pretend to have a valid opinion, unless you can defend it. On Friday, November 15, 2019, 10:37:59 PM PST, John Newman wrote: I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious. Cheers, John On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against >ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves as >a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car > thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get > found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. > If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can > reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can be > proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system. > But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would > work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not exactly > the same thing. > Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating and > covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely > learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, > Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, > This site lists many others. > https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists > > If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex > crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind > of news. And that's a good step. > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > > Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested > you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the > public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, > nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you > might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around > Epstein and the Clintons. > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +, jim bell wrote: > > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the > >right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and > >that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is > >uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are > > probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could > > be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their > > businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. > > I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could > > subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion > > of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to > > approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe > > $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I > > believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly > > data-limit for 1 Gig service.) > > This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they > > would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This > > might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task > > in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by > > 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first > > year. > > Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what > > this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents > > less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. > > Jim Bell > > > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp > > wrote: > > > > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > > > " > > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > > > > Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the > > Development of Ideas of Anonymity > > > > The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends > > to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly > > or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given > > to the following niches: protection of personal d
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
I always had a bad feeling about AP, for a few reasons. Jim just made some of those reasons extremely obvious. Cheers, John On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against > ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves > as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car > thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get > found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. > If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can > reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can be > proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system. > But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would > work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not exactly > the same thing. > Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating and > covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely > learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, > Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, > This site lists many others. > https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists > > If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex > crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind > of news. And that's a good step. > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > > Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested > you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the > public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, > nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you > might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around > Epstein and the Clintons. > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +, jim bell wrote: > > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the > >right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and > >that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is > >uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are > > probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could > > be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their > > businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. > > I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could > > subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion > > of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to > > approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe > > $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I > > believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly > > data-limit for 1 Gig service.) > > This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they > > would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This > > might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task > > in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by > > 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first > > year. > > Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what > > this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents > > less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. > > Jim Bell > > > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp > > wrote: > > > > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > > > " > > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > > > > Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the > > Development of Ideas of Anonymity > > > > The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends > > to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly > > or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given > > to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for > > anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. > > > > The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from > > different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. > > In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said: > > > > “We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters,
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
And Epstein had hundreds of teenage girls enter his mansion, and many told the tales of how they were treated. There are many high profile cases where plenty of photos and other incriminating evidence becomes public ... and this is the point that the public takes a real interest, especially today re the Clintons etc. On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:30:50PM +, jim bell wrote: > One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against > ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves > as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm > Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car > thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get > found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. > If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can > reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can be > proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system. > But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would > work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not exactly > the same thing. > Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating and > covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely > learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, > Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, > This site lists many others. > https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists > > If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex > crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind > of news. And that's a good step. > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > > Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested > you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the > public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, > nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you > might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around > Epstein and the Clintons. > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +, jim bell wrote: > > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the > >right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and > >that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is > >uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are > > probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could > > be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their > > businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. > > I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could > > subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion > > of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to > > approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe > > $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I > > believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly > > data-limit for 1 Gig service.) > > This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they > > would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This > > might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task > > in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by > > 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first > > year. > > Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what > > this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents > > less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. > > Jim Bell > > > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp > > wrote: > > > > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > > > " > > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > > > > Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the > > Development of Ideas of Anonymity > > > > The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends > > to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly > > or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given > > to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for > > anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. > > > > The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from >
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
One difficulty with using AP...or any enforcement mechanism...against ANYBODY is, you first have to detect the alleged crime. I used car thieves as a foil in Part 5 of AP. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm Like bank robbers, the probability of catching (or even identifying) a car thief the first time he acts is probably low. But eventually, he will get found out. And then he can get targeted using AP. If a pedophile was satisfied with looking at some dirty pictures, which can reside in some subdirectory on his computer, it isn't clear how this can be proven in enough confidence to induce the public to donate to an AP system. But it's arguable that it isn't really necessary to make sure AP would work...it would be enough to CONVINCE people that AP would work. Not exactly the same thing. Its clear that the news media has a major problem with their tolerating and covering up for pedophiles and other sex criminals. We are definitely learning that now, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, This site lists many others. https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-registered-offenders/celebrity-lists If executives of the news media get targeted by an AP-type for tolerating sex crimes, they would become far more careful about failing to expose this kind of news. And that's a good step. On Friday, November 15, 2019, 02:20:57 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons. On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +, jim bell wrote: > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the >right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and >that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is >uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably > going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be > achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their > businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. > I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could > subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion of > the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately > difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, > and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be > $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 > Gig service.) > This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they > would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This > might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in > itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 > nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year. > Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this > 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less > than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. > Jim Bell > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp > wrote: > > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > " > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the > Development of Ideas of Anonymity > > The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends > to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly > or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given > to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for > anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. > > The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from > different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. > In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said: > > “We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, > friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many > countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and > the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the > benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, > freedom and the right to self-expression.” > > The Unknown Fund sees the prot
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
Jim, if you want any success, John appears right when he suggested you link your system with targetting pedophiles - Joe Blogs in the public tends to be motivated in protecting his young daughters, nieces etc, and although I think your idea is a flawed idea, you might get public traction at the moment with all the hoohah around Epstein and the Clintons. On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:50:39PM +, jim bell wrote: > This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the > right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and > that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is > uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. > I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably > going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be > achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their > businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. > I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could > subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion of > the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately > difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, > and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be > $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 > Gig service.) > This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they > would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This > might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in > itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 > nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year. > Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this > 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less > than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. > Jim Bell > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp > wrote: > > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > " > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the > Development of Ideas of Anonymity > > The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends > to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly > or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given > to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for > anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. > > The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from > different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. > In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said: > > “We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, > friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many > countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and > the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the > benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, > freedom and the right to self-expression.” > > The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the > main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a > powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool > is both amazing and frightening. > > Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit > campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, > one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough > personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in > big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the > level of addiction that the general population has to social networks > - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations. > > Anonymous added: > > “Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much > information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then > use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making > ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and > protect people." > > The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the > rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and > cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a > new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the > world a better place. > > Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations > to nonprofit organizations. Investing
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
This Fund, and perhaps implied offer, seems to have arrived at just the right time. I have proposed that an alternative to TOR be constructed, and that is certainly not an idea that is new with my proposal. Anybody who is uncomfortable with TOR should want to see real competition. I have found, by obtaining a quotation, that the hardware costs are probably going to be $80 per node, and it would be good if 1000 nodes could be achieved, at least initially. People could host these nodes at their businesses and homes where they are already paying for Internet service. I think we should appply for some of these funds. Potentially, they could subsidize the hardware, say $80,000. They could also subsidize a portion of the internet service costs: I suggest the subsidy be set to approximately difference between the cost of 40 Mbit/second service, maybe $40 per month, and 1 gigabit/second service, which for Centurylink I believe to be $65/month. (and there appears to currently be no monthly data-limit for 1 Gig service.) This would powerfully motivate people to offer to host a node, because they would be getting the 1 gigabit service upgrade essentially for free. This might also provide funds for development of the software, which is a task in itself. A subsidy of $25/month is about $300/year, and multiplied by 1000 nodes amounts to $300,000, or a total of about $380,000 for the first year. Can anybody imagine a more worthy, concrete proposal to accomplish what this 'Unknown Fund' proposes to accomplish? And its yearly cost represents less than 1/2 of a percent of the proposed fund. Jim Bell On Thursday, November 14, 2019, 01:48:41 PM PST, grarpamp wrote: https://www.unknown.fund/ " Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said: “We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.” The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening. Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations. Anonymous added: “Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people." The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place. Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later. Anonymous ended the brief with the words: “If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.” "
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
Establishment psy-op and counter-revolutionary 1-0-1: co-opt (i.e. front run) any tech which might challenge establishment. On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:47:15PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > https://www.unknown.fund/ > > " > Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 > > We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups > that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data > protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. > > > Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the > Development of Ideas of Anonymity > > The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends > to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly > or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given > to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for > anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. > > The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from > different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. > In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said: > > “We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, > friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many > countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and > the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the > benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, > freedom and the right to self-expression.” > > The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the > main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a > powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool > is both amazing and frightening. > > Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit > campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, > one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough > personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in > big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the > level of addiction that the general population has to social networks > - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations. > > Anonymous added: > > “Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much > information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then > use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making > ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and > protect people." > > The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the > rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and > cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a > new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the > world a better place. > > Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations > to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous > have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be > announced later. > > Anonymous ended the brief with the words: > > “If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most > importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also > Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or > conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve > our goal.” > > "
Re: Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
> 'anonymous' is the americunt government - you know that, right? You know there is no reason that it and or its elements could not be, after all, spying on, taking, and steering developments in its favor is a favorite game of all governments. People should remember that possibility when making their own assessments and choices. One choice could be crowdfunding a completely opensource version of Zerodium, thus putting those particular "anonymous" "cunts" out of business.
Cryptocurrency: Anonymous to Invest $75M of Crypto to Develop Privacy Coins and Anon Tech
https://www.unknown.fund/ " Unknown Fund - Press Release 11/13/2019 We are going to invest and donate $75 million of bitcoin in startups that help anonymity ideas. Preferred niches are personal data protection, tools for online anonymity, cryptocurrencies, blockchain. Unknown Fund is Going to Invest and Donate $75 Million for the Development of Ideas of Anonymity The anonymous organisation Unknown Fund has announced that it intends to invest and donate $75 million in bitcoin to startups which directly or indirectly support the idea of anonymity. Preference will be given to the following niches: protection of personal data, tools for anonymity, cryptocurrency and blockchain. The organizers of the fund are ordinary, anonymous people from different countries who met on the 4chan English-language imageboard. In a brief to our news agency Anonymous said: “We are you, we are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues. Our ranks consist of representatives of many countries and nationalities, united by a virtual comradely spirit and the belief that we are fighting for the good of many, and not for the benefit of some. Anonymous is the voice of those who believe in truth, freedom and the right to self-expression.” The Unknown Fund sees the protection of personal data as one of the main challenges for modern man. The use of data has already become a powerful tool for manipulating people. The effectiveness of this tool is both amazing and frightening. Using as examples the ultra-targeted advertising used in Brexit campaigns and in the last presidential elections in the United States, one can see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with enough personal data. However, the manipulation of people occurs not only in big politics, but also in our daily lives. A perfect example is the level of addiction that the general population has to social networks - addiction orchestrated and achieved by corporations. Anonymous added: “Now the main goal of large corporations is to collect as much information as possible about the personal lives of people, and then use it for their enrichment. And they do a great job of it by making ordinary people get poorer. We are ready to fight for change and protect people." The Unknown Fund also sees incredible opportunities to protect the rights and freedoms of people that technology such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies give us. This is a chance for humanity to create a new environment, a new and honest monetary system, and to make the world a better place. Unknown Fund suggests investment in commercial startups and donations to nonprofit organizations. Investing is just the beginning. Anonymous have developed a number of strategies and methods that will be announced later. Anonymous ended the brief with the words: “If you believe in freedom of speech and the media, and most importantly, in a free and accessible Internet, then you are also Anonymous. Our opponents should not doubt our determination or conviction. We will continue to fight as much as necessary to achieve our goal.” "
