From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Adam Back speaks out on AP / was: Jim Bell? Never heard of him.
In-Reply-To: <199704080100.VAA21197@dhp.com>
Message-ID: <199704082109.WAA00568@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Anonymous writes:
> Adam Back wrote:
> > It is almost as if they are afraid to discuss openly their views on
> > the subject.
> 
>   This doesn't stop them from castigating those who post 
> anonymously in regard to this subject.
>
>   (As if not wanting to face 20 armed government agents who
> consider you "armed and dangerous" {i.e. shoot first and ask
> questions later} somehow negates their facts and logic.)

A very good reason to post anonymously, agreed.  There is a cost with
anonymity: people take you less seriously, none of your reputation is
on the line.  Anonmous persistent personas might be better as they
allow reputation to be tracked.  However persistent personas open
themselves to writing style analysis attacks.

> > Democracy is one person one vote, however this is skewed in most
> > democracies by numerous factors: corporate lobbying, media influence,
> > and people who are easily influenced by media.
> > 
> > AP is one $ one vote.  Theoretically rich people could out-vote their
> > rivals. 
> 
>   So the end result might well be, not the assassination of those
> involved, but the lessening of their power by virtue of depleting
> their funds, which leads to a more equal playing field.

I'm not sure this follows.

If a corporate can use it's wealth to influence other groups, for
example by assasinating key employees of opposition company, it may
well get richer as a result.  People do things for their own benefit,
and to the extent that their predictions are accurate, those who
participate will fare better than those who do not (modulo the chance
of reprisals, if it is apparent who is doing the attacking, and if the
attacked organisation survives to retaliate).

> > We have no way of knowing whether the outcome would be "a good
> > thing" by any chosen metric.
> 
>   But the results would be a far cry more interesting than
> reruns of Gilligan's Island.

Yeah, but if the premises required for AP to exist at all are true
(government-proof anonymous payment system), and if it doesn't turn
out to be much fun, you'll have a job getting out of it.

Adam

-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`