Snowden on the Lightning Network on Nostr(iris.to)
iris.to
Snowden on the Lightning Network on Nostr
https://iris.to/#/post/note1scags6u8fre3rhyc9h457wdrhu0r2c0h4t4e4d4nrwsjj6mcg2qqc2k7am
93 comments
> A relay doesn't talk to another relay, only directly to users.
Is this universally the case? I'm sure a relay could be built that pulls messages from other relays and shares them with its own clients.
Is this universally the case? I'm sure a relay could be built that pulls messages from other relays and shares them with its own clients.
They could, but it would be against the fundamental philosophy:
> Relays don't talk to each other. Only the relays you are connected to will receive and store your events. This is an important aspect of Nostr. Relays don't communicate between them. For this reason, you should connect to as many relays as you want to send your data to.
> Relays don't talk to each other. Only the relays you are connected to will receive and store your events. This is an important aspect of Nostr. Relays don't communicate between them. For this reason, you should connect to as many relays as you want to send your data to.
Yes relays could talk also serve as a client and subscribe to other relays. Nothing stopping them from doing this
I'm really bullish on nostr: https://krisconstable.com/check-out-the-nostr-protocol/
If nothing else, know these two things:
1) It's a decentralized protocol, not a company or app -- there are man different clients that do completely different things on nostr, try them all and see which works best for you.
2) Unlike Twitter and Mastadon, the relay admins can not read your private DMs.
If you want to generate a key pair, including a vanity one, and/or know how to NIP-05 validate it, to use nostr: https://krisconstable.com/generating-a-key-pair-with-nostr/
If nothing else, know these two things:
1) It's a decentralized protocol, not a company or app -- there are man different clients that do completely different things on nostr, try them all and see which works best for you.
2) Unlike Twitter and Mastadon, the relay admins can not read your private DMs.
If you want to generate a key pair, including a vanity one, and/or know how to NIP-05 validate it, to use nostr: https://krisconstable.com/generating-a-key-pair-with-nostr/
>Anyone can go to Damus Web for a world view...
"Damus Web is down because there is someone trying to exploit browser loopholes to steal private keys. I would not recommend using a web client at this time. Damus iOS is not affected."
>...or to give you a unique idea around things this protocol offers that others don’t, you can go to Damus webv2 and enter my public key
"404 Not Found"
Not an ideal onboarding experience.
"Damus Web is down because there is someone trying to exploit browser loopholes to steal private keys. I would not recommend using a web client at this time. Damus iOS is not affected."
>...or to give you a unique idea around things this protocol offers that others don’t, you can go to Damus webv2 and enter my public key
"404 Not Found"
Not an ideal onboarding experience.
I see a lot of question here and will try to answer them all in one big go:
1. What is Nostr?
> Nostr is short for "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays". Nostr is the simplest open protocol that can create a censorship-resistant global “social” network once and for all. See also https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr
2. How do I start using Nostr?
> Since it's an open protocol, everyone could (and quite a few people and teams do) build their own client for using Nostr.
> If you want to try it out on an iPhone, iPad or macOS, try Damus. It's a Twitter-style iOS client. Link: https://testflight.apple.com/join/CLwjLxWl
> Or simply log-in via one of several frontends what work in a browser, such as: https://hamstr.to/home
3. Nostr is new and small, does anybody really use it?
> From December 13th to January 10th, the number of public key identities interacting with Nostr jumped from ~700 to ~250,000 Yes, you read that right, the number of identities increased >30,000%. You can check for yourself current statistics on usage here: https://nostr.io/stats
4. How does it differ from ActivityPub?
> ActivityPub, and especially Mastodon, have been in the news a lot lately as possible replacements for, among other things, Twitter. The problem with ActivityPub is that you need to have an account on a instance that can censor contend and even block a user. When you are kicked off an ActivityPub instance, all your data is gone as well. Nostr is much simpeler: every post you make is encrypted via public key cryptography. You can either run your own relay or hook into one of several existing once. Even if a relay were to block you, it's trivially easy to switch to another one. Since you can post messages via multiple relays in one go, you might not even realise one has gone off-line or started blocking you.
For a comparison with ActivityPub, Twitter, Secure ScuttleButt, see also: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr#this-is-needed-becau...
1. What is Nostr?
> Nostr is short for "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays". Nostr is the simplest open protocol that can create a censorship-resistant global “social” network once and for all. See also https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr
2. How do I start using Nostr?
> Since it's an open protocol, everyone could (and quite a few people and teams do) build their own client for using Nostr.
> If you want to try it out on an iPhone, iPad or macOS, try Damus. It's a Twitter-style iOS client. Link: https://testflight.apple.com/join/CLwjLxWl
> Or simply log-in via one of several frontends what work in a browser, such as: https://hamstr.to/home
3. Nostr is new and small, does anybody really use it?
> From December 13th to January 10th, the number of public key identities interacting with Nostr jumped from ~700 to ~250,000 Yes, you read that right, the number of identities increased >30,000%. You can check for yourself current statistics on usage here: https://nostr.io/stats
4. How does it differ from ActivityPub?
> ActivityPub, and especially Mastodon, have been in the news a lot lately as possible replacements for, among other things, Twitter. The problem with ActivityPub is that you need to have an account on a instance that can censor contend and even block a user. When you are kicked off an ActivityPub instance, all your data is gone as well. Nostr is much simpeler: every post you make is encrypted via public key cryptography. You can either run your own relay or hook into one of several existing once. Even if a relay were to block you, it's trivially easy to switch to another one. Since you can post messages via multiple relays in one go, you might not even realise one has gone off-line or started blocking you.
For a comparison with ActivityPub, Twitter, Secure ScuttleButt, see also: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr#this-is-needed-becau...
Usage numbers to me mean nothing here because in my mind it’s the same 1,000,000 people using Nostr, setting up Mastadon instances, running crypto mining nodes, whatever else. There are two kinds of users - people who care about what window system their OS uses, and people who don’t even know what that means. One group uses every FOSS tool they can, the other doesn’t care at all. You don’t need to get the one kind of user, you need the other.
This is true, for a while. Those hard core geeks occasionally incubate technologies to the point that they become easy and useful enough that they break out into the mainstream. See: World Wide Web, eMail, etc.
Yep. This may be it. In my initial test I went from mild interest to posting in minutes. So far, the questions for mainstream people likely will be:
-Can I delete it? -Can I cancel it? -Who do I complain to if things go wrong?
I am not entirely sold yet, but the potential is definitely there.
-Can I delete it? -Can I cancel it? -Who do I complain to if things go wrong?
I am not entirely sold yet, but the potential is definitely there.
How does someone use lightning on Nostr? I see a lightning link marked "Tip" on his profile page, but that seems to point to a plugin that you have to install in your browser: https://getalby.com/.
Is there some lower-level integration with lightning within Nostr, or is this it?
Is there some lower-level integration with lightning within Nostr, or is this it?
It depends on which Nostr client you use? When you click on the "Tip" button it should give you couple options, like showing lightning QR code that you can scan with any lightning wallet, opening your wallet directly, or opening the extension (Alby is the main one).
It would make sense that it requires a browser plugin to make integration seamless. Theres a popular plugin for Ethereum too.
Anyone have a nice an easy explanation of whatever this is? Sounds like ActivityPub, but it’s also used as an extra layer on top of Bitcoin’s Lightning Network? Someone in the comments also mentions onion routing?
It's not like ActivityPub, and it doesn't use lightning as part of the transport on the network.
It's basically a public key addressed messaging protocol that uses relays to complete transport.
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr
It's basically a public key addressed messaging protocol that uses relays to complete transport.
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr
This blog posts gives and introduction to Nostr and how to use it: https://blog.getalby.com/how-to-use-nostr-with-the-alby-exte...
It is recommended to managed your private key externally (e.g. with a browser extension) and not hand it over to a Nostr app for signing messages on the network.
Every time he opens his mouth, I understand why he so completely misunderstood the PRISM slides he leaked. The future of money isn't going to be based on a system that requires 7 billion people to set up a lightning channel at a throughput of 3 transactions per second, unless this future of money is ~100 years from now.
It's utterly naïve to expect that cross-border payments will remain unregulated on these networks, given how straightforward it is to regulate.
It's utterly naïve to expect that cross-border payments will remain unregulated on these networks, given how straightforward it is to regulate.
The Bitcoin base chain can handle about 7 transactions per second, lighting theoretical upper limit is up to 1,000,000 transactions per second. You can use lighting without managing a node yourself. There are even projects[0] in development that allows for community custody, so it stays trustless even when using a custodian.
0: https://fedimint.org/
0: https://fedimint.org/
I think what OP is saying is that onboarding all of humanity onto the lightning network would exceed the capacity of the Bitcoin network.
Yes, once everyone is onboarded onto lightning the 1,000,000 tps bandwidth would apply. But to benefit from that, at least one payment channel per person would have to be written to the Bitcoin blockchain—a process that would take at minimum 30 years if all of humanity is to be on-boarded—and would more likely take several centuries, considering that those payment channels would also be competing with other bitcoin traffic.
Also consider that the security model of the lightning network requires that fraud penalties need to be written to the blockchain within a certain time window if a fraud is to be reversed. A clogged Bitcoin network where transactions are waiting too long to be added to the blockchain—or where blockchain fees are too high to justify adding a fraud-penalty transaction to the blockchain—would result in the entire security model breaking down.
Yes, once everyone is onboarded onto lightning the 1,000,000 tps bandwidth would apply. But to benefit from that, at least one payment channel per person would have to be written to the Bitcoin blockchain—a process that would take at minimum 30 years if all of humanity is to be on-boarded—and would more likely take several centuries, considering that those payment channels would also be competing with other bitcoin traffic.
Also consider that the security model of the lightning network requires that fraud penalties need to be written to the blockchain within a certain time window if a fraud is to be reversed. A clogged Bitcoin network where transactions are waiting too long to be added to the blockchain—or where blockchain fees are too high to justify adding a fraud-penalty transaction to the blockchain—would result in the entire security model breaking down.
Most small transactions would be via lightning channels between exchange providers. Basically, whomever was running the backend of the wallet app would be an exchange provider. In an ideal world, people would keep their long term savings in other instruments like bonds or even gold and keep day to day cash in exchange providers. Yes, they would be trusted, but not a lot. I think the fees on the Blockchain would be substantial enough that most people wouldn't be using it for coffee and it would only be for bank to bank transactions of these exchange providers.
7 transactions a second would mean 604k transactions a day which is a reasonable number for major counterparties with more than about 35 btc each. (21M/604k)
7 transactions a second would mean 604k transactions a day which is a reasonable number for major counterparties with more than about 35 btc each. (21M/604k)
The craziest part is that no other cryptocurrency has this problem. It is entirely self inflicted that bitcoin has 1 KB/s throughput for the entire world and everyone else just didn't cripple themselves.
Does everyone need a payment channel written directly onto the btc blockchain?
There’s no theoretical limit to LN transaction numbers because there’s no shared global state. You could have many very high throughput channels processing payments in parallel.
Any transaction still has to make it on to the chain. A side chain would be like us playing catch in the back yard and thinking we will somehow be padding our major league baseball stats. It doesn't matter until something happens where it counts.
If you find someone to play catch with, that's great, but the whole point of a global transaction network is that anyone can send a balance to anyone else.
If you find someone to play catch with, that's great, but the whole point of a global transaction network is that anyone can send a balance to anyone else.
> I understand why he so completely misunderstood the PRISM slides he leaked.
I wouldn't hold it against him, most of the tech community completely misunderstood those slides, too.
PRISM was... A web front-end that would produce warrants, that would be served to the various internet companies, who would respond to them by providing the information requested. [1]
But half the people in the tech community seem to think that it was some magical all-seeing-eye-of-Sauron that had backdoors and zero-day-exploits embedded in every webservice we use, where some spook could press a button, and your texts and emails and photos would immediately appear for him.
The NSA also did things like spy on unencrypted cross-data-center traffic (SSL added and removed here ;-) ), and use zero-days against people and organizations, but that wasn't part of PRISM.
[1] There's a lot to complain about, here, but its all splitting hairs about particular legal questions (FISA courts, whether the firms in question were pushing back on these warrants enough, etc), and agency mandates.
I wouldn't hold it against him, most of the tech community completely misunderstood those slides, too.
PRISM was... A web front-end that would produce warrants, that would be served to the various internet companies, who would respond to them by providing the information requested. [1]
But half the people in the tech community seem to think that it was some magical all-seeing-eye-of-Sauron that had backdoors and zero-day-exploits embedded in every webservice we use, where some spook could press a button, and your texts and emails and photos would immediately appear for him.
The NSA also did things like spy on unencrypted cross-data-center traffic (SSL added and removed here ;-) ), and use zero-days against people and organizations, but that wasn't part of PRISM.
[1] There's a lot to complain about, here, but its all splitting hairs about particular legal questions (FISA courts, whether the firms in question were pushing back on these warrants enough, etc), and agency mandates.
PRISM wasn't even that. It was an ingestion pipeline for data that was collected by the FBI (which is shown right there on the slide, already having the systems integrations with the providers to collect this data for warranted wiretaps on specific Americans) via Section 702 orders for the data of specific accounts known to belong to non-US citizens living outside the US suspected of being of national security interest. Snowden thought it allowed the NSA to read anybody's email, which of course is nonsense. He insisted that Gellman print those slides immediately, thinking he had discovered something obviously illegal, but Gellman wanted to verify his understanding first (https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2020/05/11/2013-edwa...), causing Snowden to panic and bring in the undereducated Greenwald, who is prone to believe any conspiracy. In the meantime, his location had been discovered, so he shared information with the Chinese government about which Chinese networks had been compromised and when in a failed attempt to get asylum in Hong Kong (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusiv...).
This peabrain now finds himself stuck in Russia because he couldn't understand basic concepts spelled out in the documents he had access to (and had failed a test on those concepts not very long before, so the fact that he didn't understand them wasn't news to him). Now he's here again telling us about the future of money without understanding how any of it works.
This peabrain now finds himself stuck in Russia because he couldn't understand basic concepts spelled out in the documents he had access to (and had failed a test on those concepts not very long before, so the fact that he didn't understand them wasn't news to him). Now he's here again telling us about the future of money without understanding how any of it works.
This is incredibly misleading. The NSA itself stated in the documents quoted in the Washington Post story you yourself link that PRISM was its number one source of reporting (“The subtitle of this slide deck called PRISM the source “used most in NSA reporting.”).
In a single year 702 was used to collect 250 million American communications (https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download). Yes individual foreigners and foreign groups are certified (in an annual hearing, technically for a bulk warrant, at a secret court no one is allowed to attend). But 702 goes hops out from the original target to people they talk to and the people those people talk to. “Incidental” collection on Americans is expressly allowed. The FBI routinely uses 702 collection to build cases against Americans. It is a staggering program.
>Snowden thought it allowed the NSA to read anybody’s email
- source please.
> causing Snowden to panic and bring in the undereducated Greenwald
First of all, the “undereducated” part is a strange assertion because it’s well established that Greenwald went to NYU law and worked for the prestigious white shoe firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz afterward. He had also at that point been writing (for the Guardian, Salon) specifically about NSA surveillance for many years. By what measure is an NYU trained lawyer with years of experience as a legal and surveillance journalist “undereducated?”
But also, the Washington Post has itself reported that Gellman’s contact with Snowden began in May 2013 - Greenwald has said his started in February. So the timeline does not add up here. Even in the piece you link he acknowledges working with another journalist Snowden worked with (Poitras) at the time he was trying to persuade his editor to publish the first story.
> he shared information with the Chinese governmen
This is false and defamatory (and invites a lawsuit, although you’re picking on someone who faces shall we say challenges defending himself this way). Snowden has repeatedly denied this (plainly baseless) assertion (eg https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowde...) and the article you link shows just the opposite - that he provided information openly to journalists (SCMP was famously independent at the time and routinely on the bad side of mainland government though that sadly changed years later).
In a single year 702 was used to collect 250 million American communications (https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download). Yes individual foreigners and foreign groups are certified (in an annual hearing, technically for a bulk warrant, at a secret court no one is allowed to attend). But 702 goes hops out from the original target to people they talk to and the people those people talk to. “Incidental” collection on Americans is expressly allowed. The FBI routinely uses 702 collection to build cases against Americans. It is a staggering program.
>Snowden thought it allowed the NSA to read anybody’s email
- source please.
> causing Snowden to panic and bring in the undereducated Greenwald
First of all, the “undereducated” part is a strange assertion because it’s well established that Greenwald went to NYU law and worked for the prestigious white shoe firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz afterward. He had also at that point been writing (for the Guardian, Salon) specifically about NSA surveillance for many years. By what measure is an NYU trained lawyer with years of experience as a legal and surveillance journalist “undereducated?”
But also, the Washington Post has itself reported that Gellman’s contact with Snowden began in May 2013 - Greenwald has said his started in February. So the timeline does not add up here. Even in the piece you link he acknowledges working with another journalist Snowden worked with (Poitras) at the time he was trying to persuade his editor to publish the first story.
> he shared information with the Chinese governmen
This is false and defamatory (and invites a lawsuit, although you’re picking on someone who faces shall we say challenges defending himself this way). Snowden has repeatedly denied this (plainly baseless) assertion (eg https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowde...) and the article you link shows just the opposite - that he provided information openly to journalists (SCMP was famously independent at the time and routinely on the bad side of mainland government though that sadly changed years later).
> The NSA itself stated in the documents quoted in the Washington Post story you yourself link that PRISM was its number one source of reporting (“The subtitle of this slide deck called PRISM the source “used most in NSA reporting.”).
It turns out that data collected in targeted wiretaps of some non-US citizens living outside the US who are believed to have foreign intelligence value is useful for intelligence reports. Who'd've thunk?
> In a single year 702 was used to collect 250 million American communications (https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download).
That's not what that document says. It says 250 million communications total were collected (across all programs that use Section 702, not just the wiretaps that feed into PRISM). Section 702 allows collection of foreigners' data if they have foreign intelligence value, not Americans'. From the document: "However, a declassified 2011 opinion of the FISA Court notes that 250 million internet communications were acquired the previous year under Section 702."
> But 702 goes hops out from the original target to people they talk to and the people those people talk to.
Not only does this misinterpretation of the phone metadata collection program have nothing to do with PRISM, but it's false as well. The government is not allowed to wiretap Americans even a single hop away from a foreigner with national security value without a warrant.
> “Incidental” collection on Americans is expressly allowed. The FBI routinely uses 702 collection to build cases against Americans. It is a staggering program.
This doesn't mean that Americans' communications are collected, as Snowden ignorantly claimed. This means that if a foreigner with foreign intelligence value who is being wiretapped under 702 authorization talks about an American who is helping them, that can be used to build a case against the American.
>> Snowden thought it allowed the NSA to read anybody’s email
> - source please.
I gave it to you in my previous comment. He told Gellman as much.
> causing Snowden to panic and bring in the undereducated Greenwald
> First of all, the “undereducated” part is a strange assertion because it’s well established that Greenwald went to NYU law and worked for the prestigious white shoe firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz afterward. He had also at that point been writing (for the Guardian, Salon) specifically about NSA surveillance for many years. By what measure is an NYU trained lawyer with years of experience as a legal and surveillance journalist “undereducated?”
By the measure that he knows absolutely nothing about computers and was widely derided on Twitter by people who know better but instead of educating himself, he doubled down on his claims. Later, the New York Times, CNET, and others reported on these programs accurately, even interviewing people who worked at the tech companies on how the data was sent, and Greenwald continued to not understand it.
> But also, the Washington Post has itself reported that Gellman’s contact with Snowden began in May 2013 - Greenwald has said his started in February. So the timeline does not add up here. Even in the piece you link he acknowledges working with another journalist Snowden worked with (Poitras) at the time he was trying to persuade his editor to publish the first story.
Poitras isn't Greenwald. Gellman and Snowden have both said that Snowden contacted Greenwald after being frustrated with Gellman's fact-checking pace.
>> he shared information with the Chinese governmen
> This is false and defamatory (and invites a lawsuit, although you’re picking on someone who faces shall we say challenges defending himself this way). Snowden has repeatedly denied this (plainly baseless) assertion (eg https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowde...) and the article you link shows just the opposite - that he provided information openly to journalists (SCMP was famously independent at the time and routinely on the bad side of mainland government though that sadly changed years later).
SCMP is in China and therefore its data is China's data. To say otherwise is to be as naïve as Snowden.
It turns out that data collected in targeted wiretaps of some non-US citizens living outside the US who are believed to have foreign intelligence value is useful for intelligence reports. Who'd've thunk?
> In a single year 702 was used to collect 250 million American communications (https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download).
That's not what that document says. It says 250 million communications total were collected (across all programs that use Section 702, not just the wiretaps that feed into PRISM). Section 702 allows collection of foreigners' data if they have foreign intelligence value, not Americans'. From the document: "However, a declassified 2011 opinion of the FISA Court notes that 250 million internet communications were acquired the previous year under Section 702."
> But 702 goes hops out from the original target to people they talk to and the people those people talk to.
Not only does this misinterpretation of the phone metadata collection program have nothing to do with PRISM, but it's false as well. The government is not allowed to wiretap Americans even a single hop away from a foreigner with national security value without a warrant.
> “Incidental” collection on Americans is expressly allowed. The FBI routinely uses 702 collection to build cases against Americans. It is a staggering program.
This doesn't mean that Americans' communications are collected, as Snowden ignorantly claimed. This means that if a foreigner with foreign intelligence value who is being wiretapped under 702 authorization talks about an American who is helping them, that can be used to build a case against the American.
>> Snowden thought it allowed the NSA to read anybody’s email
> - source please.
I gave it to you in my previous comment. He told Gellman as much.
> causing Snowden to panic and bring in the undereducated Greenwald
> First of all, the “undereducated” part is a strange assertion because it’s well established that Greenwald went to NYU law and worked for the prestigious white shoe firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz afterward. He had also at that point been writing (for the Guardian, Salon) specifically about NSA surveillance for many years. By what measure is an NYU trained lawyer with years of experience as a legal and surveillance journalist “undereducated?”
By the measure that he knows absolutely nothing about computers and was widely derided on Twitter by people who know better but instead of educating himself, he doubled down on his claims. Later, the New York Times, CNET, and others reported on these programs accurately, even interviewing people who worked at the tech companies on how the data was sent, and Greenwald continued to not understand it.
> But also, the Washington Post has itself reported that Gellman’s contact with Snowden began in May 2013 - Greenwald has said his started in February. So the timeline does not add up here. Even in the piece you link he acknowledges working with another journalist Snowden worked with (Poitras) at the time he was trying to persuade his editor to publish the first story.
Poitras isn't Greenwald. Gellman and Snowden have both said that Snowden contacted Greenwald after being frustrated with Gellman's fact-checking pace.
>> he shared information with the Chinese governmen
> This is false and defamatory (and invites a lawsuit, although you’re picking on someone who faces shall we say challenges defending himself this way). Snowden has repeatedly denied this (plainly baseless) assertion (eg https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowde...) and the article you link shows just the opposite - that he provided information openly to journalists (SCMP was famously independent at the time and routinely on the bad side of mainland government though that sadly changed years later).
SCMP is in China and therefore its data is China's data. To say otherwise is to be as naïve as Snowden.
[deleted]
> PRISM was... A web front-end that would produce warrants, that would be served to the various internet companies, who would respond to them by providing the information requested. [1]
> But half the people in the tech community seem to think that it was some magical all-seeing-eye-of-Sauron that had backdoors and zero-day-exploits embedded in every webservice we use
Those two are literally the same. The former is worse even, since there is no escaping from it - one way or the other they will get your data over some service you used or had to use at a point in history. The latter can be avoided in many ways.
Those two are literally the same. The former is worse even, since there is no escaping from it - one way or the other they will get your data over some service you used or had to use at a point in history. The latter can be avoided in many ways.
No, one of them is done through the framework of law, the other one is just banditry.
Like, you may not like the idea that the police can serve warrants, or that there are NSLs or a FISA court, but the agency was very much following the rules there. Rules can be challenged in court, rules can be changed.
Like, you may not like the idea that the police can serve warrants, or that there are NSLs or a FISA court, but the agency was very much following the rules there. Rules can be challenged in court, rules can be changed.
Misunderstanding intentional zero days for one secretive government agency, sure.
PRISM doesn't have anything to do with zero days.
Sorry confused that with something else.
Still mass surveillance is OK for you?
Still mass surveillance is OK for you?
PRISM doesn't have anything to do with mass surveillance.
Um.. I nodded with your first response ( zero days ) as it was accurate, but this may be taking it a little too far. If PRISM has nothing to do with mass surveillance, how would you define it?
A data ingestion system for targeted (not mass) surveillance of particular Internet communication accounts (on US service providers) belonging to non-Americans living outside the US believed to have foreign intelligence value: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34510696
I am hesitating to make a guess, but given various existing public lists of 'bad guys', it would be silly of me to assume that the targeted population has a smaller head count than those lists combined ( if not drastically extended ). If that is the case, the sheer number of those likely caught in that particular surveillance would likely be categorized as mass surveillance as opposed to targeted. I get that each industry likes to play with definitions, but you don't get to throw a grenade into lake and call it traditional fishing as it was always intended.
Or are they are considered targeted, because they are on the list and the list just keeps growing?
The whole conversation is silly. If you even buy this particular story ( we only look at accounts of non-Americans ), it gets dismantled rather quickly the moment you try to go through a basic thought exercise of how you would sift that data and ensure no 'foreign intelligence of value' was lost. The how is simple. We take everything in. That is the definition of mass surveillance.
And before we get into 'well, none of that was ever disclosed', I would like to turn your attention to the one of those few times, when IC had a chance to come clean and chose not to[1] and lie in front of congress. Good times. In other words, I can't really take their words at face value.
All this is before we get to Snowden and his revelations.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james...
Or are they are considered targeted, because they are on the list and the list just keeps growing?
The whole conversation is silly. If you even buy this particular story ( we only look at accounts of non-Americans ), it gets dismantled rather quickly the moment you try to go through a basic thought exercise of how you would sift that data and ensure no 'foreign intelligence of value' was lost. The how is simple. We take everything in. That is the definition of mass surveillance.
And before we get into 'well, none of that was ever disclosed', I would like to turn your attention to the one of those few times, when IC had a chance to come clean and chose not to[1] and lie in front of congress. Good times. In other words, I can't really take their words at face value.
All this is before we get to Snowden and his revelations.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james...
> If that is the case, the sheer number of those likely caught in that particular surveillance would likely be categorized as mass surveillance
No need to speculate. The internet companies that provide this data publish transparency reports showing ranges for how many accounts are affected. It's a small fraction of a percent.
> The how is simple. We take everything in.
That is illegal, and there is no evidence of that happening. PRISM, the program that we're talking about in particular, explicitly isn't that according to Snowden's documents and the declassified documents.
> when IC had a chance to come clean and chose not to
He came clean right after and declassified a bunch of documents on that phone metadata program (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...). Remember, the line of questioning was about if the NSA builds dossiers on Americans, which it doesn't do. The questions then pivoted to whether it collects any information at all about Americans, which would include the phone metadata collection
> I can't really take their words at face value
You don't have to. There have been several leaks, including Snowden's massive leak, showing that the NSA doesn't do this. There is also the law, which says the NSA can't do this, and there is congressional oversight from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which ensures that the NSA doesn't do this. If what you claim was happening, leakers would be sure to leak that first over anything else because it is unquestionably illegal.
No need to speculate. The internet companies that provide this data publish transparency reports showing ranges for how many accounts are affected. It's a small fraction of a percent.
> The how is simple. We take everything in.
That is illegal, and there is no evidence of that happening. PRISM, the program that we're talking about in particular, explicitly isn't that according to Snowden's documents and the declassified documents.
> when IC had a chance to come clean and chose not to
He came clean right after and declassified a bunch of documents on that phone metadata program (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...). Remember, the line of questioning was about if the NSA builds dossiers on Americans, which it doesn't do. The questions then pivoted to whether it collects any information at all about Americans, which would include the phone metadata collection
> I can't really take their words at face value
You don't have to. There have been several leaks, including Snowden's massive leak, showing that the NSA doesn't do this. There is also the law, which says the NSA can't do this, and there is congressional oversight from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which ensures that the NSA doesn't do this. If what you claim was happening, leakers would be sure to leak that first over anything else because it is unquestionably illegal.
That guy is not objective as his life depends on good will of russian govt. I think he is playing "nicest" possible according to conditions he lives in, but at the end he has to "bend".
Russia have a lot of difficulties with transferring money to and from abroad so it is kind of "natural" way for them to go into "promoting" something that can't be that easily controlled and tracked (yet).
Russia have a lot of difficulties with transferring money to and from abroad so it is kind of "natural" way for them to go into "promoting" something that can't be that easily controlled and tracked (yet).
Eh. Sure, but do you remember why he was effectively forced to stay in Russia ( although with the benefit of hindsight, this may have worked out better for him than he initially anticipated ). Do you remember how US, allegedly, forced down an airplane over EU[1]?
None of this happened in a vacuum and while I do not automatically subscribe to this particular 'app', I do not dismiss it purely based on the messenger.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
None of this happened in a vacuum and while I do not automatically subscribe to this particular 'app', I do not dismiss it purely based on the messenger.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
Eh. Right but in this case you still have to take into account the messenger. He lives in a sobering reality and I'm sure everything he promotes and communicates he knows must walk a certain line.
Reality is we are in a proxy war with Russia ( some would argue we are past that ). The same reality that guides his actions guide actions of many entities in US ( note recent discussion of banning TikTok, but not FB, LinkedIn or other social media ). Naturally, some would argue that the comparison is not apt, but I would invite those to indicate why the comparison fails to expose the hollowness of those arguments.
Naturally, others may feel a tinge of 'national fervor' and proclaim that no one tells me what to say, while immediately noticing that those that do not toe the official government line are brought to heel via more subtle means of coercion[1]. Those typically ask questions along the lines of whether I somehow equate US with Russia or China and suggest that , clearly, this is false equivalency. To those people I ask, how so? If we are all expected to toe the line, is it false at all?
In short, I am not dismissing what you are saying, but how exactly is it that different from US? There are topics that were entirely verbotten not that long ago ( Foreign Policy discussions were fairly carefully left undebated with exceptions of professional diplomats ) and even today there are topics you simply cannot discuss openly, because you will be automatically banned/shadow banned/restricted/ridiculed in the digital world if you are lucky and doxxed in real world along with other nasty real world consequences if you are not.
If anyone lives in a sobering reality, it is anyone looking at the world through the lens of an alien, who is slowly wondering if he belongs to the same species.
edit: changed professional diplomats line; reads a little better
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
Naturally, others may feel a tinge of 'national fervor' and proclaim that no one tells me what to say, while immediately noticing that those that do not toe the official government line are brought to heel via more subtle means of coercion[1]. Those typically ask questions along the lines of whether I somehow equate US with Russia or China and suggest that , clearly, this is false equivalency. To those people I ask, how so? If we are all expected to toe the line, is it false at all?
In short, I am not dismissing what you are saying, but how exactly is it that different from US? There are topics that were entirely verbotten not that long ago ( Foreign Policy discussions were fairly carefully left undebated with exceptions of professional diplomats ) and even today there are topics you simply cannot discuss openly, because you will be automatically banned/shadow banned/restricted/ridiculed in the digital world if you are lucky and doxxed in real world along with other nasty real world consequences if you are not.
If anyone lives in a sobering reality, it is anyone looking at the world through the lens of an alien, who is slowly wondering if he belongs to the same species.
edit: changed professional diplomats line; reads a little better
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
Yes it is. And yes it will.
The future of the global economy is being actively shaped in emerging power centers in Eurasia/BRICS+, not by idealistic libertarians in the West.
Power centers have to contend with the largest source of power, the human population of the world. They go to great lengths to prevent it from being coordinated by dividing populations, and they do exercise true power, but at the end of the day they still have to react to what people want and do. If people begin to use bitcoin and the like, they'll find a way to preserve what they can of their power in that environment. They're not omnipotent, they don't win every fight they take on.
There are all sorts of ideologies (including the one you describe) contingent on the masses spontaneously, and effectively, coordinating in pursuit of a common goal.
However, they never describe how this will occur, except by some miracle. Practically, you'd need to control a sizeable chunk of the global media, internet, etc.
It's especially ironic coming from libertarian circles, because hyperindividualists pride themselves on not participating in mass psychology.
However, they never describe how this will occur, except by some miracle. Practically, you'd need to control a sizeable chunk of the global media, internet, etc.
It's especially ironic coming from libertarian circles, because hyperindividualists pride themselves on not participating in mass psychology.
Care to elaborate? What activities or policies from Eurasia/BRICS+ are you referring to?
Zoltan Poszar lays it out clearly: https://plus2.credit-suisse.com/shorturlpdf.html?v=5h1o-8SW-...
The url/page looks dodgy but you can confirm it's CS.
The url/page looks dodgy but you can confirm it's CS.
Huh, didn't know that Nostr already had a UI, and good looking one too.
Is snowden also on Activitypub?
Is snowden also on Activitypub?
Nostr is just a protocol, and there are already many different implemented clients to interface with it. https://github.com/aljazceru/awesome-nostr#clients
Uh I'm sorry but what makes you claim that that is Snowden?
I see a rambling post by "Curly Cockroach". Nothing there says Snowden or I'm missing it.
I see a rambling post by "Curly Cockroach". Nothing there says Snowden or I'm missing it.
I think it's because Snowden sent out his public key to this account, on his twitter account:
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1617623779626352640
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1617623779626352640
It looks like this particular client gives account random names until it resolves their chosen name. It took several seconds for me for the name Snowden and his picture to pop up.
Nostr is still quite rough, but improving fast.
Nostr is still quite rough, but improving fast.
Can someone explainlikeimfive please? What is nostr? What is iris? Decentralised matrixy thing? Something else? Should I care?
Thksx
Thksx
This website, Iris.to, is one of several clients that all run on the open protocol Nostr.
Nostr is like SMTP: it's just a protocol that you are free to build software for.
Nostr is like SMTP: it's just a protocol that you are free to build software for.
Ok, thank you, appreciate it :-)
There is an irony here. Because in 2010 Bitcoin said the same that transactions should be cheap and fast, and now you see that they have failed to deliver that ;(
Bitcoin transactions are cheap and fast but they are on Lightning (Layer-2 of Bitcoin stack).
Not this nonsense again... the reason we don't have borderless payments isn't because we don't have the technology. It's because we don't want borderless payments. That's why nations set up borders in the first place.
Who's "we"? Maybe you don't want borderless payments, you're in good company along with Xi Jinping, the Venezuelan government and the Ayatollah of Iran.
Those of us that want to be the arbiters of our own lives are very happy having the capability to transact with whomever we want. I'd wager that that is the majority of human beings on this planet.
Those of us that want to be the arbiters of our own lives are very happy having the capability to transact with whomever we want. I'd wager that that is the majority of human beings on this planet.
Is that how you feel about all the public infrastructure and institutions? It's nice to want no control at all, but then you have... no control at all. Usually that does not benefit the weak either.
"Total control or no control at all" is a false dichotomy. I never said I want no control at all. We have to live amongst each other, and people are sometimes tempted to murder and defraud each other. I'd say the level of control I'd find reasonable is just enough to punish and deter people from murdering and defrauding each other, and we had that without everyone's liquid capital in megalithic institutions a single phone call away from seizure, as recently as the 1990s.
> Xi Jinping, the Venezuelan government and the Ayatollah of Iran
Wow so much more horrible than being in good company with George Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney and the other assorted Anglosaxons. Because only Anglosaxon enemies are horrible people. Even if 75% of the world think precisely the opposite.
Its 23 years into 21st century. Its time for 'white man's burden' mentality to die out in all its incarnations.
Wow so much more horrible than being in good company with George Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney and the other assorted Anglosaxons. Because only Anglosaxon enemies are horrible people. Even if 75% of the world think precisely the opposite.
Its 23 years into 21st century. Its time for 'white man's burden' mentality to die out in all its incarnations.
I never defended any of those people. You're arguing against something you made up in your head.
But you did. Constant lambasting, smearing of an establishment's enemies while not using the scepter of the same criteria against the own establishment makes 'others' evil and the establishment 'not so evil'.
https://i.imgur.com/SCGWd7I.jpg
Your repetition of that establishment's smears against its currently targeted enemies just propagates its propaganda.
https://i.imgur.com/SCGWd7I.jpg
Your repetition of that establishment's smears against its currently targeted enemies just propagates its propaganda.
1) no i didn't, 2) I made one comment, there's nothing constant about it, 3) they're not smears.
I don't like the leadership in the west either, but I don't use them as examples in this case because they're not the obvious examples. The US doesn't have capital flight restrictions the way China does. When we are talking about drone striking civilians I'll be sure to bring up Obama instead of Xi. You really need to not take this stuff so personal.
I don't like the leadership in the west either, but I don't use them as examples in this case because they're not the obvious examples. The US doesn't have capital flight restrictions the way China does. When we are talking about drone striking civilians I'll be sure to bring up Obama instead of Xi. You really need to not take this stuff so personal.
> 3) they're not smears.
They are. Just like how it was with all the US enemies before those, "Every US enemy is Hitler". Because there is no other way to justify atrocious wars.
> I don't like the leadership in the west either
And yet, you dont go around making strong statements filled with emotion about those who murdered 1 million in Iraq etc and pushing for their persecution or their overthrow.
> You really need to not take this stuff so personal.
It is personal. This kind of rhetoric is used to build up public opinion for overseas wars and regime changes, which then come and hit the countries of people like me overseas. There doesn't even need to be a majority opinion for it - the establishment doesnt care about the majority's opinion - its enough if just a percentage of public makes enough noise in the way they want them to. Like how you helped make happen.
...
Actually, its more than personal now - as of this moment the US is pushing war with two superpowers at the same time - Russia and China - using that very rhetoric. It is even easing the public into believing that 'a nuclear war wouldnt be so destructive'. The psychopathy and delirium are now at a civilization-destroying level, not a 'We will have some overseas wars to bash the heads in of some 3rd world countries to rob their oil' level. If things go at the rate they are going, this thing wont remain as a scholarly, no-strings-attached opinion matter for you like how it is now either. Its no longer like a football match played in an away field...
They are. Just like how it was with all the US enemies before those, "Every US enemy is Hitler". Because there is no other way to justify atrocious wars.
> I don't like the leadership in the west either
And yet, you dont go around making strong statements filled with emotion about those who murdered 1 million in Iraq etc and pushing for their persecution or their overthrow.
> You really need to not take this stuff so personal.
It is personal. This kind of rhetoric is used to build up public opinion for overseas wars and regime changes, which then come and hit the countries of people like me overseas. There doesn't even need to be a majority opinion for it - the establishment doesnt care about the majority's opinion - its enough if just a percentage of public makes enough noise in the way they want them to. Like how you helped make happen.
...
Actually, its more than personal now - as of this moment the US is pushing war with two superpowers at the same time - Russia and China - using that very rhetoric. It is even easing the public into believing that 'a nuclear war wouldnt be so destructive'. The psychopathy and delirium are now at a civilization-destroying level, not a 'We will have some overseas wars to bash the heads in of some 3rd world countries to rob their oil' level. If things go at the rate they are going, this thing wont remain as a scholarly, no-strings-attached opinion matter for you like how it is now either. Its no longer like a football match played in an away field...
Okay, but be honest and call it for what it is — a tool to evade financial regulations. 'Borderless payments' is shameless cynicism. It's like calling illegal border crossings 'borderless travel'.
And what of the people who crossed freely before your cabal constructed imaginary "borders" on someone else's land?
Rules and laws are merely suggestions. I think and live on my own, and follow laws insofar as they benefit myself and others. Show me a tool used to undermine an unjust law, and I'll gladly employ it should the need arise. I'll accept the consequences too, in this venture or any other.
Rules and laws are merely suggestions. I think and live on my own, and follow laws insofar as they benefit myself and others. Show me a tool used to undermine an unjust law, and I'll gladly employ it should the need arise. I'll accept the consequences too, in this venture or any other.
Good... I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem with false advertising.
No, for me at least, and for most others I'd bet, it's simply about being able to engage in commerce with other people without an arbiter in the middle. Something like cash or commodity money, which was the norm for all of human history until very recently.
It seems like it would have to be an overstatement to say that any form of money was the norm for “all” of human history. I would think that any form of money (much less something like cash) would be a relatively recent development relative to the emergence of modern humans, though of course no one will ever be able to say for sure.
Well we know money is older than writing, because writing was invented to keep track of money. Prior to that we call "prehistory." Either way, it's an understatement to say that peer to peer money is ancient compared to debit cards.
Is cash "a tool to evade financial regulations"? Did you know that it was the predominant form of money into the 21st century in the developed world, and basically the only option for most people prior to the 1990s?
A tool to work around bureaucracy and a hodgepodge of regulations? Oh. Oh no...
May I ask where you're posting from and why this is your viewpoint?
Nation borders are healthy and good because they set an upper bound on the potential concentration of power that could get into the wrong hands. There's a very good reason tyrants quickly turn to violating national borders.
But decentralized currencies prevent those scenarios by design -- thus protecting them from nation-state-level tyranny (and monetary mismanagement to boot).
Nation borders are healthy and good because they set an upper bound on the potential concentration of power that could get into the wrong hands. There's a very good reason tyrants quickly turn to violating national borders.
But decentralized currencies prevent those scenarios by design -- thus protecting them from nation-state-level tyranny (and monetary mismanagement to boot).
Bold - speaking on behalf of the Lebanese diaspora trying to send dollars to their family in Lebanon.
So you think the rules don't apply to you, because somehow you're special. That's bold, indeed.
Hmm. Which rules are you referring to? International? If so, I think most of this forum agree that realpolitik made those rules amount to 'might is right'. Local government? If so, parent is very much correct indicating local population's willingness and desire to bypass existing systems governed by international parties above.
I have no real stake in this, but the conversation seems very one sided.
I have no real stake in this, but the conversation seems very one sided.
Do you mean the rules that restrict the movement of people, capitals and goods across borders? These are typically national laws. I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
Interesting. Taking this approach to its logical conclusion, one would think national laws stop at the border of a given nation. Clearly, however, they do not, but rather extend based on a given influence sphere with SWIFT network being closest to what we would consider international movement of capital across the borders ( I am skipping people and goods, because that is a whole different animal ) and OFAC being a clear example of what happens when one nation can dictate terms of engagement in the world.
<< I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
It is important, because previous post seemed to indicate that Lebanese diaspora should not dream of being able to send payments ( if I misrepresent your position, please correct me as needed ). Separately, I have personal opinions grounded primarily in the officially espoused promise of the US ( freedom, liberty and all that jazz ). Whether US lives up to those promises varies lately.
<< I have no idea why you think this is important, though.
It is important, because previous post seemed to indicate that Lebanese diaspora should not dream of being able to send payments ( if I misrepresent your position, please correct me as needed ). Separately, I have personal opinions grounded primarily in the officially espoused promise of the US ( freedom, liberty and all that jazz ). Whether US lives up to those promises varies lately.
I think you're misunderstanding how borders work. A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries. It doesn't allow a country to control what goes in and out of another country's geographic boundaries (that would be a blockade).
And I never said that the Lebanese diaspora shouldn't be able to send payments, I don't know where you get this idea from.
And I never said that the Lebanese diaspora shouldn't be able to send payments, I don't know where you get this idea from.
Apologies. Quick recap of the thread so far:
Parent 'jonathan-adly' indicated specific use case for 'Lebanese diaspora', which you then derided. We briefly discussed the 'boundaries' without any real specifics and here we are now.
<< I think you're misunderstanding how borders work.
It is possible.
<< A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries.
And yet countries manage to "control what goes in and out of another country's geographic boundaries" despite that. Asterisk may be needed with something akin to 'to an extent', but it is hard to argue with that simple reality.
Parent 'jonathan-adly' indicated specific use case for 'Lebanese diaspora', which you then derided. We briefly discussed the 'boundaries' without any real specifics and here we are now.
<< I think you're misunderstanding how borders work.
It is possible.
<< A border simply allows a country to control what goes in and out of its geographic boundaries.
And yet countries manage to "control what goes in and out of another country's geographic boundaries" despite that. Asterisk may be needed with something akin to 'to an extent', but it is hard to argue with that simple reality.
So, let me get this straight, your nation should have zero influence/dependence on anything outside of its borders?
* There are two components: clients and relays. Each user runs a client. Anyone can run a relay.
* Every user is identified by a public key. Every post is signed. Every client validates these signatures.
* Clients fetch data from relays of their choice and publish data to other relays of their choice. A relay doesn't talk to another relay, only directly to users.
* For example, to "follow" someone a user just instructs their client to query the relays it knows for posts from that public key.
* On startup, a client queries data from all relays it knows for all users it follows (for example, all updates from the last day), then displays that data to the user chronologically.
* A "post" can contain any kind of structured data, but the most used ones are going to find their way into the standard so all clients and relays can handle them seamlessly.