log☇︎
560400+ entries in 0.396s
mircea_popescu: then again, the number of people people know is, from memory 1-200.
mircea_popescu: artifexd a 1mbps connection, which is reasonably common in households, should be able to support maybe a few hundred connections.
asciilifeform: that will have to be re-shaped into something quite else (his words) when enemy is dead
asciilifeform: naggum had a piece where he confessed to thinking of 'open source' as a weapon, purpose-built for the destruction of a particular evil (microshit) ☟︎
mircea_popescu: ie, the police state only exists now and again, when the state of technology is poor enough.
asciilifeform would much like to hear more about this later
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform that's a subplot i dun wanna enter into now - this is complex enough as it is - but suffice to say i am persuaded such situations are thermodynamiocally bound to narrow timespaces.
asciilifeform rather thinks that this is a military matter, where adversary can afford to ransack and search 100 houses but not 100,000, and hence his gathering bits of info - matters ☟︎
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i am not thinking of an adversary. i am designing things correctly.
mircea_popescu: artifexd anywhere between a few dozen and a few thousands.
asciilifeform gets a distinct impression that mircea_popescu is still thinking of the adversary as being bound by laws, courts, procedures of evidence-gathering.
artifexd: How many connections to other servers do you imagine that you will have? You as in you mircea_popescu.
mircea_popescu: as far as it's in the form "either you or A X" the only answer is "i don't care."
asciilifeform is transported to grade school mentally
asciilifeform: that's what 'deniability' means, unless i catastrophically misunderstand the concept
mircea_popescu: but i also have little interest in fighting the narrowing down. that's not really a good use of time.
mircea_popescu: i dun see how that'd be answered.
asciilifeform: to how many possible pubkeys (and presumably, but not automagically, people) can he narrow down the 'brezhnev sucks' ?
asciilifeform: if he were to put a node in his pocket
mircea_popescu: not with the spec as given, imo.
mircea_popescu: high time computers conform.
asciilifeform: 'absolutes' are tricky.
mircea_popescu: which is exactly how speech has functioned, since the dawn of time, to create what is known as the free world.
mircea_popescu: i want exactly what chat is : absolute deniability to the entire world, save your friends.
asciilifeform: as i reckon, same degree as the unsigned-message scenario
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i do not wish to stay unmarked.
mircea_popescu: artifexd suppose you don't reg your name, and someone comes in as artifexd and says things. should you be forced somehow to say if this is the case or not ?
asciilifeform: we thus have a degree of deniability, about the same as in the case of no messages carrying signatures
asciilifeform: say mircea_popescu wishes to deniably utter the words 'brezhnev sucks'. he then asks me to utter, 'my friend, who wishes to stay unmarked, wishes to inform the ladies and gentlemen of this network that brezhnev sucks'
asciilifeform: but this is inescapable
asciilifeform: the ears - can choose to believe, or not, naturally
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: consider: a subclass of private message where you ask a friend to pass along, to the 'room', some words.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: there is another way to bake it in.
artifexd: Hmmm.... this is not the project that I thought it was.
mircea_popescu: artifexd my argument is that deniability must be baked in or not had.
artifexd: Your argument is that you WANT deniability?
asciilifeform: imho it is far from a sure thing that this will so much as add one drop of sweat to a usg inquisitor's work
mircea_popescu: "and then you said so and so" "um how you know this ?" "from node C" "well it lied to you"
asciilifeform: the only possible solution to preet signing as asciilifeform, or mircea_popescu, or whoever, is to pull the pin when he comes uninvited.
mircea_popescu: that's what that is. "signed, but for friends only"
mircea_popescu: there is no such thing as "sign for friends" outside of the model detailed in my spec.
mircea_popescu: which is why this is an ircd fork rather than whatever, just apt-get it.
asciilifeform: sigs are pure win, for a creature like myself, just about everything that comes out of my mouth is 'signed' enough for inquisitor!
mircea_popescu: you do not wish to make preet any gifts.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i think you misrepresent the importance of this. currently, I can tell. *I*. Because i'm me, specifically. if you signed, so could preet.
asciilifeform: hence the 'adverse identity' thing
artifexd: dubious? huh? how? the maths are the maths.
asciilifeform: when i grunt on the impalement pole, i will probably not be able to deny these words either, to the inquisitor, for the same reason
mircea_popescu: what, you just bathed in the same bath twice ?
asciilifeform: but this is an 'informal bug-ridden implementation' of message signing.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i can tell, you sound just like him.
asciilifeform: how many of the folks present are ready to believe that this 'asciilifeform' is the same animal they are accustomed to enduring the company of in #b-a ?
artifexd: The system would, without your interference, label the things I say and the things your artifex say as said by seperate entities.
artifexd: But *you* have to make the choice to be confusing.
artifexd: Sure. If you have two keys in your wot and you want to give them both the same name. Knock yourself out.
kakobrekla: yeah but you are just weird like that.
mircea_popescu: artifexd that's entirely up to me.
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla you know on reflection i'm the other way around ? i wouldn't irc with anyone i put my penis into
artifexd: Nothing I, as artifexd with my key, say will ever show up as said by the same entity as whatever you say with your artifex key.
mircea_popescu: it's exactly the scenario you're proposing.
artifexd: What does that have to do with anything>?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform lives in a submarine and never connects to you or your friends. i give him my own version of the "Artifex" key. he signs it.
mircea_popescu: according to whom ?
artifexd: I have a fingerprint. Or a public key. I give that fingerprint or key a name. Anything not that key or fingerprint won't match to the name.
mircea_popescu: computer only finds through a direct connection.
mircea_popescu: if i get a fake key of you and sign it... it's good as far as the computer is concerned.
mircea_popescu: artifexd the computer wouldn't know.
mircea_popescu: for that matter, if we keep the A B C D ; X Y Z K convention, then A can impersonate K to Y only provided B isn't linked to C that is linked to D.
artifexd: That's why the fingerprint and the alias, right? Let the computer notice that the numbers don't match the the numbers that I identify as mircea.
mircea_popescu: so what if it's the wrong numbers ?
mircea_popescu: or care to get one or know how.
artifexd: He can only impersonate me to people who don't have an absolutely direct connection to me.
mircea_popescu: he can only impersonate you to folk that don't know you.
mircea_popescu: artifexd this prevention is guaranteed by design as is.
kakobrekla: no sorry needed, its just that i dont put my penis into everyone that i would like to irc with.
mircea_popescu: we were discussing why it is good, and it turns out it isn't particularly, and so parsimony dictates it stays out.
artifexd: Fuck. What are we discussing.... Oh yeah. Why automatically adding any type of verification to a message is bad.
kakobrekla: actually snatched from irc not a bar and our gfs make bad examples for this.
mircea_popescu: but it'll look like obama[via lampelina] to kako. who can then go gtfo wtf you smokin beich ?!
artifexd: You have to beg for a chance to demonstrate the ability to be interesting before you get a chance to get judged.
mircea_popescu: if she starts doing evil shit like forwarding messages from obama, it'll look like obama: hey dudes, i smoke the c0k! to us,
mircea_popescu: how did lampelina come in ? kako added her to his node and said "hey, lampelina is this hot blondy I met in a bar."
mircea_popescu: artifexd either that, or otherwise getting into a relationship with one of the people in
artifexd: After the thing is up and running for 6 months. How does some insightful dude off the street get in? Look for a public (and thus completely untrusted) access ircd that will let him connect and hope to build an identity to the point that you say "hey insightful_dude_from_the_street", what's your ip address? I'll let you connect to me because you say useful
mircea_popescu: if you trust whoever maintains it... go ahead.
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: what would the result of someone forking the WoT be?
artifexd: Is that the start?
artifexd: How do you imagine bootstrapping this thing?
mircea_popescu: they even say this, the various random guys the wind blows in. "who are you ?" "nobody in particular".
mircea_popescu: in the case at hand, i'd know you are you, but i wouldn't know dddddd is anyone in particular.
mircea_popescu: it does, if the sender is in your list.
mircea_popescu: such ability is not taken away.
artifexd: The key in the wot has no relation AT ALL to the message I just received with a fingerprint.
mircea_popescu: there's a great progression at work there.
mircea_popescu: it does, and that's exactly what;s happening, in the proper model. people chat. on that chat they build contracts. their contract history is fixed in a wot.
artifexd: Take away the ability to build an identity and what's left?
artifexd: As you have preached in the past, the identity built over time, secured by wot, has value.
mircea_popescu: this is pointedly against the purpose of chat.
mircea_popescu: but more's the point : signed messages allow the world to build an adversative identity of someone.
mircea_popescu: sure, they do.