The 1944 CIA Guide to Sabotaging Meetings (2021)(authenticcomms.co.uk)
authenticcomms.co.uk
The 1944 CIA Guide to Sabotaging Meetings (2021)
https://www.authenticcomms.co.uk/blog/the-1944-cia-guide-to-sabotaging-meetings
29 comments
All of that is also an effective way for middle management to create bottlenecks, thus "requiring" more staff, thus growing power. I've seen that in several companies.
I can only assume they weren't all feds.
I can only assume they weren't all feds.
Imagine what they have today with the advance in behavioral science
(A) Forget to unmute yourself in meetings as much as possible.
Or leave yourself off mute the whole time in a noisy environment.
@dang Was this post hidden? I can only find it through my history anymore
Was going to ask that. I had the tab open but couldn't find it on HN anymore.
I think it was at least in 5th place on the front page when it suddenly disappeared.
Wasn't there a tool to monitor HN article rankings?
I think it was at least in 5th place on the front page when it suddenly disappeared.
Wasn't there a tool to monitor HN article rankings?
I've always wondered if this document was originally written in jest.
I just read the entire guide. The section about meetings is only a small part; there’s much more about sabotaging buildings, manufacturing, transportation, etc. It looks to me to be a genuine document, prepared when much of Western Europe was occupied by Germany and the U.S. Office of Strategic Services was trying to encourage civilian resistance to that occupation.
The Project Gutenberg version is probably the easiest to read:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184
The very end of the document is also entertaining:
“(12) General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion
(a) Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned.
(b) Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police.
(c) Act stupid.
(d) Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
(e) Misunderstand all sorts of regulations concerning such matters as rationing, transportation, traffic regulations.
(f) Complain against ersatz materials.
(g) In public treat axis nationals or quislings coldly.
(h) Stop all conversation when axis nationals or quislings enter a cafe.
(i) Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks.
(j) Boycott all movies, entertainments, concerts, newspapers which are in any way connected with the quisling authorities.
(k) Do not cooperate in salvage schemes.”
The Project Gutenberg version is probably the easiest to read:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184
The very end of the document is also entertaining:
“(12) General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion
(a) Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned.
(b) Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police.
(c) Act stupid.
(d) Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
(e) Misunderstand all sorts of regulations concerning such matters as rationing, transportation, traffic regulations.
(f) Complain against ersatz materials.
(g) In public treat axis nationals or quislings coldly.
(h) Stop all conversation when axis nationals or quislings enter a cafe.
(i) Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks.
(j) Boycott all movies, entertainments, concerts, newspapers which are in any way connected with the quisling authorities.
(k) Do not cooperate in salvage schemes.”
The end of the article was bizarre. This did not remind me of Trump at all. Most of it is the exact opposite of Trump who is usually criticized for being rash and not picking his words carefully enough.
Reminds me Bitcoin discussions, circa 2013 - 2015, on the direction of protocol development.
The bizarre campaign to prevent the formation of a consensus around executing on Bitcoin's roadmap to become scalable began with this professionally produced video in 2013:
https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I?si=A2n8LZfVoxioPJNx
The bizarre campaign to prevent the formation of a consensus around executing on Bitcoin's roadmap to become scalable began with this professionally produced video in 2013:
https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I?si=A2n8LZfVoxioPJNx
Could you provide more context on this?
[deleted]
Bitcoin had a 1 MB block size limit put in place in its early life as an anti-DOS measure.
The plan was to raise the limit as the block size, from genuine usage, came up against it. The problem is that it requires a hard fork to raise the limit, so there needed to be near-unanimous agreement to go through with it.
While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, a small but dedicated group worked to undermine the efforts to reach a consensus. This article, published in 2015, provides a window into the politics surrounding the issue, and how the block size limit increase was ultimately sabotaged:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830
The plan was to raise the limit as the block size, from genuine usage, came up against it. The problem is that it requires a hard fork to raise the limit, so there needed to be near-unanimous agreement to go through with it.
While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit, a small but dedicated group worked to undermine the efforts to reach a consensus. This article, published in 2015, provides a window into the politics surrounding the issue, and how the block size limit increase was ultimately sabotaged:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830
> While the vast majority of people in the Bitcoin space wanted to follow through with raising the limit,
[citation needed]
And even if it were true, there's very good reasons for not doing it that have been argued about at length. It's also curious the article has a section on "conflicts of interest" while the author is themselves a proponent of the big-block Bcash fork. The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
[citation needed]
And even if it were true, there's very good reasons for not doing it that have been argued about at length. It's also curious the article has a section on "conflicts of interest" while the author is themselves a proponent of the big-block Bcash fork. The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
The fact that r/Bitcoin had to resort to censorship to stop the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT is one indication that the majority wanted a hard fork.
Industry wanted one as well, considering the industry letter signed by most major industry actors, like Coinbase. [1]
And the vast majority of miners signaled support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit.
As for Bitcoin Cash, that was created long after the author of that article penned the article, so could not possibly have created a conflict of interest when he was writing it.
>>The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
Bitcoin Cash didn't have any network effects. Crypto users adopt the network with the largest user base and most liquidity. That's why a hard fork that is only supported by an economic minority is always facing an uphill battle in superseding the original fork.
[1] https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-le...
Industry wanted one as well, considering the industry letter signed by most major industry actors, like Coinbase. [1]
And the vast majority of miners signaled support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit.
As for Bitcoin Cash, that was created long after the author of that article penned the article, so could not possibly have created a conflict of interest when he was writing it.
>>The larger ecosystem has largely abandoned it since it compromises on the values of decentralization, defeating the theoretical purpose of using blockchains in the first place.
Bitcoin Cash didn't have any network effects. Crypto users adopt the network with the largest user base and most liquidity. That's why a hard fork that is only supported by an economic minority is always facing an uphill battle in superseding the original fork.
[1] https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website/blob/master/industry-le...
All of those "industry actors" stand to benefit from increasing blocksizes and pushing users away from running their own nodes. Their shared action and support on this matter is an indictment of their dishonesty and misaligned values.
Industry actors like exchanges and block explorers primarily stand to benefit from more people using the cryptocurrency.
Most users, companies and miners wanted to implement the original scaling plan of raising the block size limit, contrary to your disingenuous initial claim.
Most users, companies and miners wanted to implement the original scaling plan of raising the block size limit, contrary to your disingenuous initial claim.
Of course, but specifically by maintaining custody over those users funds. And increasing the hardware requirements to have full custody of your own funds nudges users in the direction of delegating it to massive corporations.
Also you're arguing along the lines of "the original plan" is just doing unfounded originalism. Satoshi had lots of bad ideas, there's no reason people should try to embody/achieve all the ideas of someone just because he had one good idea.
Which of the claims I made do you think is disingenuous?
Also you're arguing along the lines of "the original plan" is just doing unfounded originalism. Satoshi had lots of bad ideas, there's no reason people should try to embody/achieve all the ideas of someone just because he had one good idea.
Which of the claims I made do you think is disingenuous?
No, exchanges and block explorers benefit from growth in usage regardless of whether self-custody is the norm or not. You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous.
Your original claim, that the majority didn't support large blocks, is also disingenuous, as all facts indicate the contrary.
Your original claim, that the majority didn't support large blocks, is also disingenuous, as all facts indicate the contrary.
> You implying that malevolent motivations is the only plausible explanation for their support for larger blocks is disingenuous.
How is that disingenuous? They stand to benefit from more users and they stand to benefit more from being the gateway for user activity. It's not contradictory for both to be true at the same time. And we know they took steps to make this happen with BitPay saying "this is the new Bitcoin, go download it" and linking the new Bcash client.
> as all facts indicate the contrary.
This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. We'd all want free kittens but that doesn't mean it makes sense to give everyone them.
How is that disingenuous? They stand to benefit from more users and they stand to benefit more from being the gateway for user activity. It's not contradictory for both to be true at the same time. And we know they took steps to make this happen with BitPay saying "this is the new Bitcoin, go download it" and linking the new Bcash client.
> as all facts indicate the contrary.
This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests. And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good. We'd all want free kittens but that doesn't mean it makes sense to give everyone them.
It's disingenuous because there are multiple extremely plausible explanations for them wanting larger blocks, while you imply that your theory that their motivation is that want people to give up custody is the only one.
>>This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests.
It's not hard to determine where majority sentiment lay when:
* the largest Bitcoin forum in the world had to resort to censorship to prevent the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT
* practically every major Bitcoin firm expressed support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit.
* the vast majority of mining power expressed support for larger blocks.
>And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good.
Because you think Bitcoin becoming widely adopted would lead to the decline of USD dominance, and with it, geopolitical stability?
If you oppose Bitcoin mass-adoption, you should admit it instead engaging in attempts to manipulate public opinion with fearmongering about decentralization.
>>This isn't true though. It's very hard to measure these popularity contests.
It's not hard to determine where majority sentiment lay when:
* the largest Bitcoin forum in the world had to resort to censorship to prevent the rank and file from switching to BitcoinXT
* practically every major Bitcoin firm expressed support for a hard fork to raise the block size limit.
* the vast majority of mining power expressed support for larger blocks.
>And again, even if the majority (appears to) want something doesn't necessarily mean it's actually good.
Because you think Bitcoin becoming widely adopted would lead to the decline of USD dominance, and with it, geopolitical stability?
If you oppose Bitcoin mass-adoption, you should admit it instead engaging in attempts to manipulate public opinion with fearmongering about decentralization.
There exists evidence that there was paid shills brigading /r/Bitcoin to try to shift the narrative. Reddit accounts are not a proxy for legitimate users.
The rest of your points are ignoring the realities of corporate strategy in an unregulated market.
Now you're also putting words in my mouth like I'm part of some kind of conspiracy.
Now you're also putting words in my mouth like I'm part of some kind of conspiracy.
Thanks!
> si=
cool tracking code
cool tracking code
https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/...
My read on the section on management has always been that here we moved from theoreticial means of sabotage (cross electrical wires in cable, then plug it into multiple outlets around your apartment to blow as many fuses in the building as possible so that your neighbors can't listen to a propaganda broadcasts) to something that the writers had had deep personal experience with in previous jobs. The OSS was defined by their being outside the old stuffy system, and I'm sure this was a dig at the bureaucracy they were trying to escape from. In the OSS way of making things happen, they didn't want speeches or buck passing.