From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:21:03 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Untraceable Payments, Extortion, and Other Bad Things
In-Reply-To: <v03007801aee25b84a198@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <c80cZD16w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


See what jerk tcmay(fart) is: he sends crypto discussions to the "cypher
punks" mailing list, where crypto is off-topic now.

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> I've noticed a few references in the press, and maybe on this list, to the
> idea that because some bad things may be done with untraceable payments
> (true Chaumian digicash, not the watered down version offering only
> one-sided untraceability), that governments will "not allow" such
> untraceable payments.

Fuck the gubmint. Fuck the patent law. Patent law, copyright law, libel
law - none of that shit has any relevance in the cyberspace. Do I understand
right that David Chaum no longer runs ecash? Then I see no ethical reason
not to implement his original ideas with full anonymity *NOW*.

...
> "Untraceable payments" refer to payer- and payee-untraceable Chaum-style
> cash. Although for the discussions here of extortion, payee-untraceable
> (the person being paid would not be traceable is my sense of this term)
> digital cash would be sufficient; that the payment originated from XYZ
> Corporation or some account at the Bank of Albania would not stop the acts.
>
> Chaum has in recent years attempted (I have to presume) to take the "edge"
> of fully-intraceable digital cash by making it only partly untraceable.
> Many of us hypothesized that "mixes" (as in remailers) could be used to
> fully-untraceabalize (?) even partly-traceable systems. I recall Lucky
> Green, Hal Finney, and others in such discussions. "Banks" were proposed to
> do this. Recently, Ian Goldberg claims to have a system which formally
> accomplishes this.

So instead of shooting your stupid mouth, issue some ecash and promise to
exchange it for real US$ upon bearer's demand. Do you have the balls for it?

> Suppose there exists a supplier of fully-untraceable (or payee-untraceable
> at least) cash *somewhere* in the world. It could be a physical bank, a la
> the Bank of Albania, or it could be an underground payment system, a la the
> Mafia, the Tongs, the Triads, whatever. A reputation-reliant system which
> says "Present us with the proper set of numbers and we will provide money
> to the bearer, or follow instructions, and so on." (I'm informally
> describing the process of "redeeming" a digital bearer instrument,
> converting the set of numbers into some other form of specie, or item of
> value, whatever. Maybe gold, maybe dollars, maybe an entry into an account
> somewhere. The "untraceability," via the blinding operation, means that the
> bearer is not linked to the transaction made earlier, so there is not risk
> at the bank or Triad. I'm also not distinguishing between offline and
> online clearing here...my feeling for a long time has been that online
> clearing has many advantages, but I suspect it does not work too well in
> the extortion case described here, until something like PipeNet can be used
> as part of the process.)

Translation: you don't have the balls to do this yourself.

See, "cypher punks" can only while and flame, and they don't have the
guts to issue ecash and to say: this token will be exchanged for $1 by
Lucky Green; and that token will be exchanged for $10 by Hall Filly.

> This is why I look forward to this Brave New World of fully untraceable
> communications and fully untraceable economic transactions.

But you don't have the balls to bring it any closer, you airbag parasite.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps