Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[grarpamp]

If you have a line, you can still dial each other
and negotiate up to 33.8kbps v.34bis,
pair your own software compression instead
of depending on v.44, and add encryption algos
on each end. v.92 56k needed an ISP.
Companies like US Robotics and Zoom might still
make v.34bis hardware modems... see USR5637.
Lots of modems on used market.

Full hardware modem with PCM DSP is needed
to do elite first pass random phone scanning that
analyzes the analog instead of depending on
successful second stage negotiation. Plus you get as
bonus the WAV recordings of "Hello... Helloo?! WTF!!!" ;-)

Anyone still have that analysis software?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ITU-T_V-series_recommendations


On 12/23/18, jim bell  wrote:
> You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps.  Now,
> most people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet.
> I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S.
> Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk down,
> by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a
> person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem?  1200
> bps?  2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY responsible
> for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps, 14,400 bps, and
> 28,800 bps modems.  Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes, Telebit, and a few
> others.  Had that not existed, it would have been hard to make the Internet
> available to most people.
> From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem
> "V.32 modems operating at 9600 bit/s were expensive and were only starting
> to enter the market in the early 1990s when V.32bis was
> standardized. Rockwell International's chip division developed a new driver
> chip set incorporating the standard and aggressively priced it. Supra,
> Inc. arranged a short-term exclusivity arrangement with Rockwell, and
> developed the SupraFAXModem 14400based on it. Introduced in January 1992 at
> $399 (or less), it was half the price of the slower V.32 modems already on
> the market. This led to a price war, and by the end of the year V.32 was
> dead, never having been really established, and V.32bis modems were widely
> available for $250.V.32bis was so successful that the older high-speed
> standards had little to recommend them. USR fought back with a 16,800 bit/s
> version of HST, while AT introduced a one-off 19,200 bit/s method they
> referred to as V.32ter, but neither non-standard modem sold well."
>
> And:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem
>
> V.34/28.8 kbit/s and 33.6 kbit/s
>
> ×
>
> ×
>
>
> "Any interest in these proprietary improvements was destroyed during the
> lengthy introduction of the 28,800 bit/s V.34 standard. While waiting,
> several companies decided to release hardware and introduced modems they
> referred to as V.FAST. In order to guarantee compatibility with V.34 modems
> once the standard was ratified (1994), the manufacturers were forced to use
> more flexible parts, generally a DSP and microcontroller, as opposed to
> purpose-designed ASIC modem chips.
> "The ITU standard V.34 represents the culmination of the joint efforts. It
> employs the most powerful coding techniques including channel encoding and
> shape encoding. From the mere four bits per symbol (9.6 kbit/s), the new
> standards used the functional equivalent of 6 to 10 bits per symbol, plus
> increasing baud rates from 2,400 to 3,429, to create 14.4, 28.8, and
> 33.6 kbit/s modems. This rate is near the theoretical Shannon limit. When
> calculated, the Shannon capacity of a narrowband line is {\displaystyle
> {\text{bandwidth}}\times \log _{2}(1+P_{u}/P_{n})}, with {\displaystyle
> P_{u}/P_{n}} the (linear) signal-to-noise ratio. Narrowband phone lines have
> a bandwidth of 3,000 Hz so using {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}=1000} (SNR =
> 30 dB), the capacity is approximately 30 kbit/s.[7]

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

Happy "solstice" thank you very much! We'll have none of that
hemisphere bigotry Down Under (TM)(R)(NPC) tyvm :)

Only tolerance-Nazis ought be allowed to post - Censoreship for all :D



On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:49:35PM +0200, Cari Machet wrote:
> I LIKE TO SAY: PURITY IS A COFFIN
> 
> some freedom some imprisonment - just like life we are free we just happen
> to be experiencing life in a very limited container
> 
> so what about those pesky little undersea cables all going to the turtle
> island - u s of a ?
> 
> umn without them we got nothin goin too fast anywheres
> 
> when did they get laid ? 1854
> 
> by a coorporation
> 
> life is a build and dualism has run its course ... good and bad boys do
> good and bad things and sometimes what they do that is considered bad ends
> up being overall good and vice versa
> 
> happy winter solstice - when the sun is still - all the beautiful people on
> this listserve
> 
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 9:19 PM juan  wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 22:55:23 + (UTC)
> > jim bell  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >> 26 years is "forever" in technology.   26 years ago, very few people
> > had even heard of the "Internet".
> > >
> > > >Actually in the last 26 years there hasn't been any significant
> > 'technological' change *at all*. The only thing that happened is that
> > microelectronics got relatively cheaper.
> > >
> > > You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps.  Now,
> > most people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet.
> >
> >
> > I don't think I've forgotten that. That fact isn't just too
> > relevant to what I'm saying.
> >
> > TM : "Networks are multiplying beyond any hope of government
> > control,"
> >
> > Point is, 26 years ago there was no 'technological' reason for
> > that to be true just like there's no reason for that to be true now.
> > Networks were (supposedly...) beyond govcorp control simply because govcorp
> > wasn't devoting many resources to control them, not because they lacked the
> > 'technology' to control them.
> >
> > Yet another point is who 'owned' those networks. Oh wait, they
> > were and are owned by a few monopoplies chartered by the government,
> > monopolies that are of course just arms of the government.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S.
> > Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk
> > down,
> >
> >
> > You do? =) Yet it is a plain historical fact that the US govt and
> > military were heavily involved in the creation of the internet.
> >
> >
> > >by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a
> > person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem?
> > 1200 bps?  2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY
> > responsible for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps,
> > 14,400 bps, and 28,800 bps modems.  Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes,
> > Telebit, and a few others.  Had that not existed, it would have been hard
> > to make the Internet available to most people.
> >
> >
> > The main or only reason those audio modems were developed was to
> > use the existing telephone lines. Yet in 1995 ethernet run at 100
> > megabits...
> >
> >
> >
> > > It took a lot of work to learn how to shove 28.8Kbits/sec down a 3000 Hz
> > channel.
> >   By and large, those people who did that were the ones who made the
> > Internet of the late 90's possible.
> >
> >
> > Nah. On the other hand, it's true that all the hardware was
> > produced and is produced by pseudo 'private' government chartered firms.
> > Which is how highly corporatist mixed economies work.
> >
> > Bottom line : the belief that freedom is 'served' by 'technology'
> > is fully detached from reality.
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> cari machet
> about.me/carimachet
> 

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[Steven Schear]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018, 2:03 PM juan  On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 09:47:23 + (UTC)
> jim bell  wrote:
>
> >  On Saturday, December 22, 2018, 7:06:34 PM PST, juan <
> juan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: tc...@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
> > > Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 11:06:29 PDT
> >  To: cypherpu...@toad.com
> > >>> Subject: Some (Pseudo)Random Thoughts
> >
> >
> > >> Networks are multiplying beyond
> > >> any hope of government control,
> >
> >
> >  >   prophetic words. Except the prophesy was 100% wrong =) =(
> >
> > But I wouldn't blame Tim May.
>
> To be fair, here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcC0RNsallc  is
> Tim May stating
>
> "The US and other societies around the world are facing a turning
> point, a fork in the road where one path leads to a surveillance society
> effectively where people have television cameras recording their actions
> and conversations on a computer, all their transactions at stores,
> everything is completely tracked.
>
> The other path, the other fork in the road moves in a direction
> where governments can't even collect taxes anymore because they don't know
> what interactions people are making. People are buying things and
> information from other countries and they won't even know in what countries
> the transactions are taking place."
>


  "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One
path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total
extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

Woody Allen

>

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[Cari Machet]

I LIKE TO SAY: PURITY IS A COFFIN

some freedom some imprisonment - just like life we are free we just happen
to be experiencing life in a very limited container

so what about those pesky little undersea cables all going to the turtle
island - u s of a ?

umn without them we got nothin goin too fast anywheres

when did they get laid ? 1854

by a coorporation

life is a build and dualism has run its course ... good and bad boys do
good and bad things and sometimes what they do that is considered bad ends
up being overall good and vice versa

happy winter solstice - when the sun is still - all the beautiful people on
this listserve

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 9:19 PM juan  wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 22:55:23 + (UTC)
> jim bell  wrote:
>
> >
> > >> 26 years is "forever" in technology.   26 years ago, very few people
> had even heard of the "Internet".
> >
> > >Actually in the last 26 years there hasn't been any significant
> 'technological' change *at all*. The only thing that happened is that
> microelectronics got relatively cheaper.
> >
> > You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps.  Now,
> most people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet.
>
>
> I don't think I've forgotten that. That fact isn't just too
> relevant to what I'm saying.
>
> TM : "Networks are multiplying beyond any hope of government
> control,"
>
> Point is, 26 years ago there was no 'technological' reason for
> that to be true just like there's no reason for that to be true now.
> Networks were (supposedly...) beyond govcorp control simply because govcorp
> wasn't devoting many resources to control them, not because they lacked the
> 'technology' to control them.
>
> Yet another point is who 'owned' those networks. Oh wait, they
> were and are owned by a few monopoplies chartered by the government,
> monopolies that are of course just arms of the government.
>
>
>
> > I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S.
> Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk
> down,
>
>
> You do? =) Yet it is a plain historical fact that the US govt and
> military were heavily involved in the creation of the internet.
>
>
> >by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a
> person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem?
> 1200 bps?  2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY
> responsible for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps,
> 14,400 bps, and 28,800 bps modems.  Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes,
> Telebit, and a few others.  Had that not existed, it would have been hard
> to make the Internet available to most people.
>
>
> The main or only reason those audio modems were developed was to
> use the existing telephone lines. Yet in 1995 ethernet run at 100
> megabits...
>
>
>
> > It took a lot of work to learn how to shove 28.8Kbits/sec down a 3000 Hz
> channel.
>   By and large, those people who did that were the ones who made the
> Internet of the late 90's possible.
>
>
> Nah. On the other hand, it's true that all the hardware was
> produced and is produced by pseudo 'private' government chartered firms.
> Which is how highly corporatist mixed economies work.
>
> Bottom line : the belief that freedom is 'served' by 'technology'
> is fully detached from reality.
>
>

-- 

cari machet
about.me/carimachet

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[juan]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 22:55:23 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

> 
> >> 26 years is "forever" in technology.   26 years ago, very few people had 
> >> even heard of the "Internet".  
> 
> >    Actually in the last 26 years there hasn't been any significant 
> >'technological' change *at all*. The only thing that happened is that 
> >microelectronics got relatively cheaper.
> 
> You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps.  Now, most 
> people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet.  


I don't think I've forgotten that. That fact isn't just too relevant to 
what I'm saying. 

TM : "Networks are multiplying beyond any hope of government control," 

Point is, 26 years ago there was no 'technological' reason for that to 
be true just like there's no reason for that to be true now. Networks were 
(supposedly...) beyond govcorp control simply because govcorp wasn't devoting 
many resources to control them, not because they lacked the 'technology' to 
control them. 

Yet another point is who 'owned' those networks. Oh wait, they were and 
are owned by a few monopoplies chartered by the government, monopolies that are 
of course just arms of the government. 



> I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S. 
> Government" was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk down, 


You do? =) Yet it is a plain historical fact that the US govt and 
military were heavily involved in the creation of the internet. 


>by pointing out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a 
>person, at home, had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem?  1200 
>bps?  2400 bps?"I counter by pointing out that the people REALLY responsible 
>for a usable Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps, 14,400 bps, and 
>28,800 bps modems.  Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes, Telebit, and a few 
>others.  Had that not existed, it would have been hard to make the Internet 
>available to most people.  


The main or only reason those audio modems were developed was to use 
the existing telephone lines. Yet in 1995 ethernet run at 100 megabits...
 


> It took a lot of work to learn how to shove 28.8Kbits/sec down a 3000 Hz 
> channel.
  By and large, those people who did that were the ones who made the Internet 
of the late 90's possible.  


Nah. On the other hand, it's true that all the hardware was produced 
and is produced by pseudo 'private' government chartered firms. Which is how 
highly corporatist mixed economies work. 

Bottom line : the belief that freedom is 'served' by 'technology' is 
fully detached from reality. 

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[jim bell]

 On Sunday, December 23, 2018, 2:03:06 PM PST, juan  wrote:
 
 
 On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 09:47:23 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

> 
>> But I wouldn't blame Tim May. 

>    To be fair, here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcC0RNsallc  is Tim May 
>stating 

>    "The US and other societies around the world are facing a turning point, a 
>fork in the road where one path leads to a surveillance society effectively 
>where people have television cameras recording their actions and conversations 
>on a computer, all their transactions at stores, everything is completely 
>tracked. 

>    The other path, the other fork in the road moves in a direction where 
>governments can't even collect taxes anymore because they don't know what 
>interactions people are making. People are buying things and information from 
>other countries and they won't even know in what countries the transactions 
>are taking place."


>    That's a 1997 japanese documentary about crypto. By the way, looks like 
>the japanese 'forgot' to include you Jim. Then again, the video comes from the 
>japanese government...



>> 26 years is "forever" in technology.   26 years ago, very few people had 
>> even heard of the "Internet".  

>    Actually in the last 26 years there hasn't been any significant 
>'technological' change *at all*. The only thing that happened is that 
>microelectronics got relatively cheaper.

You forgot that in 1992, typical dialup modems worked at 9600 bps.  Now, most 
people have access to 25 megabits/sec Internet.  
I occasionally see people in discussion areas claim that "the U.S. Government" 
was responsible for making "The Internet".I shut that talk down, by pointing 
out "Do you think that The Internet would have 'worked' if a person, at home, 
had to connect up to his ISP at with a 300 bps modem?  1200 bps?  2400 bps?"I 
counter by pointing out that the people REALLY responsible for a usable 
Internet were those who developed the 9600 bps, 14,400 bps, and 28,800 bps 
modems.  Rockwell, USR (US Robotics), Hayes, Telebit, and a few others.  Had 
that not existed, it would have been hard to make the Internet available to 
most people.  
From:     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem 
"V.32 modems operating at 9600 bit/s were expensive and were only starting to 
enter the market in the early 1990s when V.32bis was standardized. Rockwell 
International's chip division developed a new driver chip set incorporating the 
standard and aggressively priced it. Supra, Inc. arranged a short-term 
exclusivity arrangement with Rockwell, and developed the SupraFAXModem 
14400based on it. Introduced in January 1992 at $399 (or less), it was half the 
price of the slower V.32 modems already on the market. This led to a price war, 
and by the end of the year V.32 was dead, never having been really established, 
and V.32bis modems were widely available for $250.V.32bis was so successful 
that the older high-speed standards had little to recommend them. USR fought 
back with a 16,800 bit/s version of HST, while AT introduced a one-off 19,200 
bit/s method they referred to as V.32ter, but neither non-standard modem sold 
well."

And:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem 

V.34/28.8 kbit/s and 33.6 kbit/s

×

×


"Any interest in these proprietary improvements was destroyed during the 
lengthy introduction of the 28,800 bit/s V.34 standard. While waiting, several 
companies decided to release hardware and introduced modems they referred to as 
V.FAST. In order to guarantee compatibility with V.34 modems once the standard 
was ratified (1994), the manufacturers were forced to use more flexible parts, 
generally a DSP and microcontroller, as opposed to purpose-designed ASIC modem 
chips.
"The ITU standard V.34 represents the culmination of the joint efforts. It 
employs the most powerful coding techniques including channel encoding and 
shape encoding. From the mere four bits per symbol (9.6 kbit/s), the new 
standards used the functional equivalent of 6 to 10 bits per symbol, plus 
increasing baud rates from 2,400 to 3,429, to create 14.4, 28.8, and 33.6 
kbit/s modems. This rate is near the theoretical Shannon limit. When 
calculated, the Shannon capacity of a narrowband line is {\displaystyle 
{\text{bandwidth}}\times \log _{2}(1+P_{u}/P_{n})}, with {\displaystyle 
P_{u}/P_{n}} the (linear) signal-to-noise ratio. Narrowband phone lines have a 
bandwidth of 3,000 Hz so using {\displaystyle P_{u}/P_{n}=1000} (SNR = 30 dB), 
the capacity is approximately 30 kbit/s.[7]
[end of quote]

It took a lot of work to learn how to shove 28.8Kbits/sec down a 3000 Hz 
channel.  By and large, those people who did that were the ones who made the 
Internet of the late 90's possible.  

                      Jim Bell





  

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[juan]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 09:47:23 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:

>  On Saturday, December 22, 2018, 7:06:34 PM PST, juan  
> wrote:
>  
> > From: tc...@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
> > Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 11:06:29 PDT
>  To: cypherpu...@toad.com
> >>> Subject: Some (Pseudo)Random Thoughts
> 
> 
> >> Networks are multiplying beyond
> >> any hope of government control, 
> 
>     
>  >   prophetic words. Except the prophesy was 100% wrong =) =(
> 
> But I wouldn't blame Tim May. 

To be fair, here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcC0RNsallc  is Tim 
May stating 

"The US and other societies around the world are facing a turning 
point, a fork in the road where one path leads to a surveillance society 
effectively where people have television cameras recording their actions and 
conversations on a computer, all their transactions at stores, everything is 
completely tracked. 

The other path, the other fork in the road moves in a direction where 
governments can't even collect taxes anymore because they don't know what 
interactions people are making. People are buying things and information from 
other countries and they won't even know in what countries the transactions are 
taking place."


That's a 1997 japanese documentary about crypto. By the way, looks like 
the japanese 'forgot' to include you Jim. Then again, the video comes from the 
japanese government...



> 26 years is "forever" in technology.   26 years ago, very few people had even 
> heard of the "Internet".  

Actually in the last 26 years there hasn't been any significant 
'technological' change *at all*. The only thing that happened is that 
microelectronics got relatively cheaper.

But as Tim May himself makes it clear, the  very serious threat to 
freedom that 'technology' represents was well known at that time.

And it was even better known and explained in 1962 

Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution (Berkeley Speech 1962)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30

And in 1948 - 1984. 

And in 1931, Huxley again. 

And speaking of the internet being unknown, well it's funny that the 
internet was very well described already in 1909 

THE MACHINE STOPS by E.M. Forster (1909)
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

And lastly in 1895, another prediction of the 'progressive' 
'accomplishments' of 'technology'. 

The Time Machine by H. G. Wells
http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/35  

And all that is off the top of my head. I'm sure there must be more...

> 
> 
> >> bandwidths are skyrocketing, CPUs are
> > >putting awesome power on our desktops, 
> > >PGP is generating incredible
> >> interest, and social trends are making the time right for crypto
> > >anarchy.
> 
> 
> >And yet, 25 years later, we are closer than ever to 
> >crypto-techno-totalitarianism.
> 
> 
> Don't blame me! 


Haha, I don't blame you =P


> I told everyone in 1995 how to get rid of all government.  I wouldn't have 
> been surprised if it had taken 10 years, but so far, it's been 23 years.  


> Ever heard the joke whose punchline is,  "He sent two boats and a helicopter! 
>   What more did you want?"   
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fumbling-change/200905/two-boats-and-helicopter-thoughts-stress-management
>      


Haha, the joke seemed somewhat familiar, but I didn't remember all of 
it. 





> 
>                  Jim Bell
> 
> 
> 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> |  |  |
> 
>  |
> 
>  |
> | 
> |  | 
> Two Boats and a Helicopter: Thoughts on Stress Management
> 
> I think about this joke a lot more than I wish I did.
>  |
> 
>  |
> 
>  |
> 
> ×
> 
>   

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[bbrewer]

> On Dec 22, 2018, at 10:07 PM, juan  wrote:
>   
>   prophetic words. Except the prophesy was 100% wrong =) =(
> 

"'Tis the part of wise man to keep himself today for tomorrow, and not venture 
all his eggs in one basket. (Cervantes, _Don Quixote_, 1605-)"

>   And yet, 25 years later, we are closer than ever to 
> crypto-techno-totalitarianism. 
> 
> 

See above.

Re: Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[juan]

> From: tc...@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 11:06:29 PDT
> To: cypherpu...@toad.com
> Subject: Some (Pseudo)Random Thoughts
> Message-ID: <9210141805.aa04...@netcom2.netcom.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
> 

> Networks are multiplying beyond
> any hope of government control, 


prophetic words. Except the prophesy was 100% wrong =) =(


> bandwidths are skyrocketing, CPUs are
> putting awesome power on our desktops, 
> PGP is generating incredible
> interest, and social trends are making the time right for crypto
> anarchy.


And yet, 25 years later, we are closer than ever to 
crypto-techno-totalitarianism. 




> 
> I look forward to hearing your views.
> 
> 
> --
> ..
> Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tc...@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
> Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP 2.0 and MailSafe keys by arrangement.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital Money/Transnationalism

[John Young]

Tim May 1992 Post on Future of Cyberspace/Cryptology/Digital 
Money/Transnationalism



--
Source: 
<https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2013-September/000741.html>https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2013-September/000741.html


From: tc...@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 11:06:29 PDT
To: cypherpu...@toad.com
Subject: Some (Pseudo)Random Thoughts
Message-ID: <9210141805.aa04...@netcom2.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Some thoughts on the recent meetings and what we're doing:


1. The importance of trading physical goods in the Crypto Anarchy
Game.

This, in my view, has been given undue and misleading importance.
Physical goods are inherently easy to trace through remailers (via
sniffers, radioactive tracers, weight of packages, and many other
physical cues), are hard to store physically (imagine getting 100
parcels for later remailing), and, most importantly, have none of the
"envelope within envelope within" protection accorded to the bits
of a cryptographic remailing, or DC-Net, system! The elegance of
cryptographic protocols is lost with physical goods.

Furthermore, physical delivery of any good, whether drugs, stolen
missile components, antiquities and art items, whatever, is
fundamentally a hard problem to solve...smugglers and thieves have
been dealing this since the beginning of time. Stings can be easily
arranged, delivery is not anonymous (one merely watches who takes
delivery, or who opens a train station locker, etcthis is all SOP
for narcs and counterespionage types), and a raid on a remailing
entity will result in confiscation of the physical goods and (likely)
prosecution of those caught holding the stuff. (Raiding a bit
remailing entity produces only random-appearing bits...granted, the
authorities may well outlaw bit remailing, or use the RICO and
conspiracy/sedition laws to prosecute, but that's another topic.)

Our recent emphasis on physical goods, and all the ideas pouring in on
what other kinds of "contraband" besides drugs can be used, is
misleading. None of the richness of the cryptographic world is
faithfully preserved. I urge we get back to our roots and deal only
with things that can be expressed purely in bit form.

2. The "colonization of cyberspace" does not mean there is no
interaction with the physical world, of course. But that interaction
can be mediated with money made by converting information or digital
money into physical money. Several methods for this conversion path
can be considered:

-Alice sells information in the cyberspace domain for the equivalent
of, say, $30,000. She converts this to "real" dollars by using an
escrow entity which hold both sides of the transaction until it's
completed. They then mail the information to the purchaser and send an
ordinary check "for services rendered" to Alice for $30K. She reports
it on her taxes, probably as a "consulting fee" (for which essentially
no government supervision currently exists, nor is likely to), and
the conversion has taken place. (Note: there are still elements of
trust involved, notably involving the escrow agent, but trust works
pretty well for many things, especially when reputations are at
stake. Understanding how real businesses depend on reputations is a
missing part of modern cryptology analyses of transactions...the
protocol analyzers and number theorists almost never take into account
how reputations work in the real world, But I digress.)

-Alice and Bob trade information such that Bob gets the information
worth about $30K, as above, and Alice gets another piece of
information she can use in the "real world" that is worth about $30K.
This might be stock tips, or, better, information she can turn around
and sell in the "open market" of a service like AMIX! There are lots
of wrinkles, inefficiencies, etc., to be worked out.

-And then there is digital money. You all know about this, or should.
David Chaum, DigiCash, blinded notes, credentials, etc. The handout
for the first meeting had a glossary of terms. (IMHO, we should be
spending more of our time at our meeting discussing this, and less in
playing more interations of the Game.)

The fascinating novel "Snow Crash," by Neil Stephenson, makes a
mistake in having Hiro Protagonist a very wealthy man in the Metaverse
(Stephenson's term for the virtual reality cyberspace) but a very poor
man in the Real World. Information _is_ money. Information is liquid,
flows across borders, and is generally convertible into real money.
(One simple conversion strategy, alluded to above, is for Alice to
sell her information for, say, $500K, and then to receive a
"consulting contract," perhaps called a "retainer," of $50K a year for
the next 20 years. Her retainer is fully legal, is perhaps handled
through cut-outs who specialize in this kind of thing, and is