At 02:19 PM 12/22/2001 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>Yes. The best work has always been done by one or two people at a time.
>This applies to software as well. (Not so much to chips anymore,
>at least not for the past 20 years. Another topic.)
>A person with the dedication and skill of a Stallman could
>>>The reasons for this have been debated over and over. We're at an
>impasse.
Its not possible for the mousetrap builders to generate interest
in the better stopping of mice. We don't control the silos of grain
nor the investors therein. Do not thrash your soul over this.
D.Honig
Thanks d
--
On 20 Dec 2001, at 21:00, Steve Schear wrote:
> We should all be ashamed. The main reason we don't have
> the private payment system many have discussed is
> lazyness/"better things to do with their time" by those
> with the technical ability to create the SW (if I were one
> of them t
--
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Len Sassaman wrote:
>
> > The user would purchase remailer tokens (digital cash) from a
token vendor
> > (the bank). This is an exchange similar to car wash tokens or
> > TicketMaster[tm], where the seller receives "real cash" and the
buyer
> > receives a tangible pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
anonymous wrote:
>Proposing that the remailer network would benefit more from 10 reliable,
>properly configured and legally secure remailers than 50 "mosquito
>remailers" is a pure statement of fact. Mix-nets need stable nodes. You're
>welcome to des
At 06:54 AM 12/21/2001 +, you wrote:
>Quoting Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I don't run a mixmaster because:
> > - its not been easy to get running
> > - it uses SMTP ports which are filtered on my AT&T cable system. The
> > remailer reference lists need to include port number r
Ryan Lackey writes:
> 1) We don't yet *have* an electronic cash system with sufficient volume to
> cover this -- you'd want a general-use electronic cash system where
> purposes like this were a small part, otherwise the billing records
> show all remailer users.
It's largely a myth that the set
Quoting Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I don't run a mixmaster because:
> - its not been easy to get running
> - it uses SMTP ports which are filtered on my AT&T cable system. The
> remailer reference lists need to include port number references so users on
> these "restricted" ISPs c
At 11:52 PM 12/20/2001 +, Ryan Lackey wrote:
>As much as I love the idea of using electronic cash for remailers,
>given the current state of things, I think it's not the first thing
>which should be done for remailers.
>
>1) We don't yet *have* an electronic cash system with sufficient volume
At 05:54 PM 12/20/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>At 09:30 PM 12/20/01 -, Dr. Evil wrote:
> >> A token-based remailer system, while an "obvious" system, would be a
> >> major accomplishment.
> >
> >Any kind of privacy-enhanced token/payment/value system would be a
> >major accomplishment at this point
At 09:30 PM 12/20/01 -, Dr. Evil wrote:
>> A token-based remailer system, while an "obvious" system, would be a
>> major accomplishment.
>
>Any kind of privacy-enhanced token/payment/value system would be a
>major accomplishment at this point. The c'punks have been in biz for
>almost ten yea
As much as I love the idea of using electronic cash for remailers,
given the current state of things, I think it's not the first thing
which should be done for remailers.
1) We don't yet *have* an electronic cash system with sufficient volume to
cover this -- you'd want a general-use electronic c
> A token-based remailer system, while an "obvious" system, would be a
> major accomplishment.
Any kind of privacy-enhanced token/payment/value system would be a
major accomplishment at this point. The c'punks have been in biz for
almost ten years now, and private payments have always been prob
At 04:51 PM 12/19/2001 -0800, Len Sassaman wrote:
>"Digital cash" in the traditional sense isn't necessary for a pay-per-use
>remailer system. Like MojoNation, I am going to refer to the digital cash
>coins as something that has no monetary value in the traditional sense.
>Tim pointed out at th
>>A token-based remailer system, while an "obvious" system, would be a
major accomplishment.
--Tim May
"As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone
with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later
convinces himself." -- David Friedman
A majo
On Wednesday, December 19, 2001, at 04:51 PM, Len Sassaman wrote:
> Dear Cypherpunks and other unsavory characters,
>
> I was recapping for some other remops a conversation that Tim sparked at
> the last cypherpunks meeting regarding pay-per-use remailers, and I had
> some additional thoughts. I'
On 19 Dec 01 Len Sassaman wrote:
>(This isn't exact either. Failure, in this case, is pinpointed at the link
>between two remailers, rather than at a given remailer. If a user queried
>the bank and discovered that, out of a 5 remailer chain, remailers A, B,
>and C redeemed the tokens but D did not
17 matches
Mail list logo
