Silk Road forums

I am changing my password to something long and random that even I don't know. If anybody comes around here as kmfkewm in the future, it is not me. If I get in touch with any of you via some other means in the future, which may or may not happen, you will know it is me via shared knowledge between us or something. But I have no GPG key and don't plan to use this name anywhere else. So good bye everybody .

Quote from: kmfkewm on September 28, 2013, 04:53 am

welcome to two months ago. Also glad to see you included your mandatory "I am not a pedophile" disclaimer.

+1

trolling at its finest.

No I was being dead serious actually. This shit was news two months ago. And I am glad he included the mandatory disclaimer or else everybody would think he is a pedophile. Sometimes I even spontaneously say "I am not a pedophile" just to let people know. If you don't say it every so often people start to wonder.

Anarchists use really poor language. They say they don't want a government, but in reality the private defense agencies essentially act as governments. I guess we would need to define the word government to really argue about this point, would anybody like to give it a shot? I know that Anarchists don't like taxation, and that governments usually tax, but I don't think taxation is the characteristic that defines government, although in the past I argued it was a defining characteristic of government I was convinced otherwise. I guess a definition of government could be those with a monopoly on the use of force, but in reality even in the USA the government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force. Look at that Zimmerman guy, he shot and killed somebody and the government didn't care about it. In the USA at least, in many states, the government doesn't have a monopoly on force, although they come close to it. We could say that the government has a monopoly on determining when someone else can use force, but this isn't really the case in the USA either because they have juries who decide if the use of force is a crime or not. However, the government does have a monopoly on charging somebody with a crime, and they have close to a monopoly on deciding if some action is a crime or not, with limited input from the people in some cases. I think the private defense agencies in an Anarchist world come really close to being small governments. They utilize force in the name of their customers, they decide if something should be a crime or not, they assist in the prosecution of people who commit crimes, etc. Essentially at this point I don't think of Anarchists as really being against government, but rather as being in favor of highly decentralized libertarian mini-governments.

I, on the other hand, freely admit that I do want a government. I want a single world all powerful government with a dictator, but I don't want the dictator to be a man but rather an ideology. I want an ideocracy. I want men to be ruled by an idea rather than by a man or group of men, and the idea I want men to be ruled by is libertarianism. I want the idea of libertarianism to be the dictator that rules over all men, and I want its' rule to be totalitarian in nature. I do not want a man with an ideology to rule men, I want an ideology with men to rule mankind. I think anybody should be free to act in the name of the ideology, if they truly act in ways that are accepted by the ideology. If you see a person being raped, you can use force to stop the rapist. If you see a person being robbed, you can use force to stop the robber. We can still have private defense agencies, but they must be bound by the ideology as well, ruled by the same dictator. Any agency that goes against the rule of the ideology becomes an enemy of it, a dissident if you will, and therefore they should be crushed.

If we can learn anything from religion it is that it is possible for humanity to be ruled over by an idea rather than a man. And ideas have many advantages over men. Ideas do not become corrupted, but men do. Sure, a person can interpret an idea incorrectly, but they do not kill the original idea rather they just begin to go against it. This is the corruption of man, not the corruption of the idea. Ideas do not die, but men do. Sure, ideas can fall out of favor, those holding the ideas can die, but these are flaws of men not flaws of ideas. Just look at the modern religions of today, these are ideas ruling men that came from long ago. You know why many people hate homosexuals? Because some thousands of years ago men made an idea that convinced people that homosexuals were bad, and the idea still rules the minds of many today, despite the men who came up with the idea all being dead today! Talk about lasting power! An idea can outlive hundreds of men and still have influence on the world. So ideologies certainly make the best dictators, they are impossible to kill or corrupt, only those who claim to follow them can die or be corrupted.

We need to put the ideology over the people. We don't need a human dictator to tell people what to do, we need to ingrain in the minds of people the idea we want them to live by, and then the people will act in the name of the idea rather than in the name of a man. What would Jesus do? It needs to be, what would a libertarian do? What would somebody who loves freedom do? The religious people really hit the nail on the head when they found this out, because they were able to surpass the inherent flaws of humans by constructing an idea that transcended human limitations. A general cannot quickly send a message to his troops on the other side of the world telling them what to do, but Jesus can tell a person what to do no matter where they are, and if Jesus is the concept that was created by the general, the general can control his troops no matter where they are!

I put more faith in the ideology to bring about a better world than I do in the government or the market or the people, the ideology can guide the government and the market and the people, and become one with all of these things. Again, I point to religion as a prime example of this. And I think that there can only be one good ideology that guides these things. There is one precise and exact belief system, political, economical, social, that is good, and all others are bad, and their badness depends on the degree they are away from the one that is good. So we need to have the one good ideology to rule over mankind, and it needs to be totalitarian because anything that falls away from it is bad, and the more it falls away from it the worse it gets.

So I think that the Anarchists are confused. I still love Anarcho-capitalism and agorists, but I hate the words they use. I am an Agorist, but I do not define myself with the same words as most of them do. So since I use different words to describe myself, I really feel I should have a word for my own belief system, and I think Totalibertarianism captures it perfectly. And that is why I have abandoned anarchy and embraced Totalibertarianism, the Libertarian Totalitarian Ideocracy.


 

Ah yeah I forgot all about privnote since it is so retarded it brings my IQ down so much every time I think about it that I forget it. Stop fucking using privnote!

The primary new bit of information I see in this article is that they are focusing on the IRC server.

Roads, other infrastructure, legal system and enforcement. It is not possible for the two systems you describe to share territory. If a dispute arises between a tax payer and a libertarian, to who do they appeal to justice?

The tax payer can appeal to the police, and if the libertarian defense agency disagrees with what happens (because the person appealed to the police to arrest a person for using drugs, without harming anybody), then it can be dealt with in various ways, up to and including the libertarian defense agency bombing the police station.

As far as roads go, feel free to force the libertarians to pay for the roads that they use. 

I  can't envision any society coping with a  large  group of people deciding they will no longer be subject to its laws, even where some of those laws are clearly wrong. 

The great thing about libertarianism is that most of the laws they don't want to follow are laws that have absolutely no affect on a single other person. Not many people are going to care if libertarians use drugs, most of them will never even know it is happening! The main difference is that the police cannot arrest the libertarians for using drugs. The crimes libertarians engage in are all victimless crimes, they are only prosecuted because the police hunt them down, as there is not a victim involved to call the police. Of course, there are many snitches who give intelligence to the police, but they act as an extension of the police and are not victims of libertarians.

PS: Silk Road is a large group of people deciding they will no longer be subject to the laws of society. Silk Road is a private defense agency. Look who is winning so far? Are the police and politicians throwing a fit trying to shut SR down? Is SR down? Libertarians are already saying fuck the state, and the private defense agencies that are willing to protect us for a fee are already starting to emerge. In the future the defense agencies will be even more powerful. Hell, look at all the money SR has made, many millions of dollars. If they invested that in running a market for the assassinations of political officials who are for the war on drugs, we would have an entire army of independent soldiers willing to take our fight for freedom to the level of offensive instead of defensive. I don't think SR has any plans to do this, but in the future there will be offensive defense agencies as well. Defensive defense agencies are willing to use security etc, to protect their customers, for a fee, but if the customers are arrested there is nothing they can do to help them. An offensive defense agency would be willing to do the same things as a defensive one perhaps, but once the customer is arrested the police who arrested them would end up with their brains blown out as well. And the offensive defense agencies are going to be just as effective at telling the state to fuck off as the defensive ones have already proven themselves to be. Make no mistake, the libertarian revolution is already here and the private defense agencies have already risen up to the state and have thus far defeated them without even the need for violence. But to fully defeat them it will likely require violent agencies as well, protecting innocent people from a ruthless attacker is great, but at some point the attacker will hurt one of the innocent people, and the market still demands an agency that will bring justice to the attacker in such cases.

Plus if 'my ' group were  'choosing to pay taxes' then we too would be libertarians, as we would be choosing to pay for services we require. I can't stress this enough; the system you describe is not libertarians and tax payers coexisting, it is simple libertarianism, and kind of inadvertently makes my point.

Sure, you can choose to pay taxes and still be a libertarian. But the current system is not libertarianism, because people who do not want to pay taxes are being forced to. So the system we have now is not libertarians and statists existing together, it is statists forcing everybody to toe the party line.

I get it. Drug prohibition is an outrageous restriction of personal freedom. But using this as the well built base of a flimsy straw man woven to include redistributive taxation and states reserving use of force to itself is not going to scare many crows.

It is far from only drug prohibition. Taxation is outrageous restriction of personal freedom as well. So are laws against people viewing CP. So are laws regarding the regulation of products and medicines. Essentially every single thing the government does is a full on assault against personal freedom. And the government does a lot of things, and it tries to do many more things. Government is a cancer, it will grow and grow up to the point it has killed the host.

I believe that laws that can imprison me for drug use are wrong, and  resent contributing to pay for them. I believe laws that can imprison me for violently assaulting people with knives or guns to be reasonable, if not perfect, and don't object to funding them.

Wouldn't it be great if you could pay to prevent people from violently attacking others without paying for the drug laws to be enforced? The biggest trick the government has mind fucked you with is the notion that you need to pay for both. Nothing prevents a society where people pay for what they want and don't pay for what they don't want, it is called fucking libertarianism.

Another way to characterise libertarianism is 'everyone pays as much/little 'tax' to who/whatever they want. I can see this working very well for the wealthy. The poor will presumably pay no tax at all, however, if supply of labour exceeds demand (usual throughout history, excepting after wars, plagues, andother culls) then wages for  the poor will be driven down to subsistence level, leaving them unable to use the insurance based models of health care and  sickness pay and justice usually envisioned by libertarians.

Nothing stops poor people from forming unions or from pooling their money for insurance. First of all, you are wrong. Second of all, even if you were right, it wouldn't fucking matter, the rich are not the slaves of the poor anymore than the poor are the slaves of the rich.

The stage will be set for the rise of a new plutocracy of the wealthy, and I cannot see how the market will regulate this, unless sufficient poor die to make their labour more valuable, I feel outr current system is basically capitalism regulated by government , and I see no reason to remove the regulation and allow capitalism to follow its relentless logic to its merciless conclusion. Unjust drug laws not withstanding

How about the poor people join unions and demand certain wages? Why don't the poor people pool their money to be able to buy group insurance and such? By the way, I wonder if poor people would rather live as poor slaves in prison or be free and poor? Because the current system right now has enslaved the poor more than any libertarian system will. You think there is not a plutocracy right now? Rich people run the world. The difference is that in a libertarian society, even though they still run the world, they cannot enslave others.

I see, so your are saying its basically guilt by association and unless it is a perfect darknet there is no way to evade both your connection to the network and subsequently your packet flow characteristics at both the entry and exit points that may link you, despite all attempts at obfuscating this.

Well the paper I linked to actually showed that the technique you mentioned (called traffic morphing) is good enough to prevent website fingerprinting attacks. I imagine it is effective, to various degrees, to reduce the effectiveness of interpacket watermarking attacks as well. But it isn't enough to save the day by itself (just like invariant traffic characteristics isn't enough to save the day by itself, it is just one part of the puzzle). I will need to read more papers on traffic morphing to come to any set conclusion on it, it certainly is useful for a variety of things, but it isn't the route I want to go in any case, and it isn't going to be more effective than interpacket timing uniformity.

Well i can certainly say i dont understand how, if some intermediate set nodes takes my unique signature flow, changes it to no longer resemble the original flow and holds onto it for a minute or two, how someone watching the exit traffic can possibly know that that flow is the same flow that i sent into the network. That defies logic.

If your flow is totally morphed they cannot do that. The paper I linked to talked about traffic classifiers, which are used for website fingerprinting and other things. Morphing traffic helped prevent classifier attacks, as their paper shows. So if a relay loads google, and then record the exact stream characteristics, and then when your watermarked traffic passes through them they hold it long enough to modify it so that it looks like the stream they loaded from Google, it should destroy the watermark in the stream and actually make it look like you are loading Google if somebody is running a classifier against that individual stream. But adding random interpacket delays to try to destroy the watermark will be more difficult than morphing the stream to look exactly like another stream, and it has been shown already that attempts to do this in low latency have failed to remove interpacket timing watermarks. The difference is between traffic morphing (making one stream look exactly like another previously seen stream) and adding random jitter (randomly delaying packets for small amounts of time). I think if traffic is perfectly morphed it destroys interpacket timing watermarks, but randomly added jitter can usually be filtered, especially if you want to maintain low latency.

It would be no different than talking to someone over VOIP, you speak clearly into the phone, your unique signature, the VOIP servers mangle your call, and out comes a bunch of static with bits and pieces of your voice. If I were in a room full of people and someone on the other end picked up the phone, even if they knew every person in that room and the sound of their voices, how could they tell it was me based on a the garbled signature of my VOIP'd voice? This of course is assuming that i dont include as part of my conversation my name, address, and social security number, which i presume most Tor users dont. And of course an IP != Person, so where exactly is the risk here with someone monitoring the entire network? Weak correlation and speculative analysis?

Because it only takes identification of a very few bits of information to identify a watermark. Even if it is horribly mangled, the few bits of the watermark that get through will betray you. Of course if you morph one stream to have the exact characteristics of another, that will destroy the watermark. But if you just add random noise, that will not usually be enough to save the day and it can often be filtered, just like cryptographic timing attacks can be slowed down by adding random delays to crypographic functions but the random delays can still be filtered. The solution with cryptographic functions is to make them constant time, ie: uniform time to complete regardless of input, the solution with traffic is to make it uniform or to morph it to look exactly like some other traffic. If you perfectly randomized the interpacket timing characteristics it would work perhaps, I will need to try to find some paper on this, but generally you don't want to add noise to gain security, because noise can often be filtered but uniformity cannot. The only time you would want to add noise as your primary security technique, would be in cases where adding noise is required to obtain uniformity. Most of the research I found on traffic morphing is to counter classifiers not to counter watermarks, but I imagine it will work for either.

Really though, tor is only marginally more effective than public wifi at hiding ones identity. What tor is great for has been hidden services. So this discussion should really revolve around "if someone can monitor the entire internet, can they find SR's servers?"

Tor is hopefully a lot more effective than public WiFi at hiding identifies. Tor hidden services have actually been notorious for being the least secure part of Tor.

Well it is nice to know they are focusing on exploiting bugs in IRC software. Time to either isolate the fuck out of your IRC client, preferably loading it from a clean snapshot that you only ever change by updating the underlying chat program, or perhaps consider ditching IRC all together. Although then we are still left with the risk of browser exploits. Attacks like this is why isolation is important, of course the DEA and other feds are going to try to hack us if they cannot get the NSA to share SIGINT with them. I would stay out of IRC if you are not isolating your client, and think of using something more secure than pidgin at that. Also remember that IRC even with OTR is very easy to MITM, don't send sensitive information in plaintext over IRC with OTR unless you have verified key fingerprints through an alternative channel such as SR forum PM system. OTR is super weak to MITM if you use it on an untrusted server, you absolutely need to verify key fingerprints through at least one other channel. Remember to keep browsers hardened, that means fully patched, javascript off for sure, Tor Browser since it has security patches applied as well, and most importantly keep your browser isolated with a virtual machine at all times. Definitely use a 64 bit host and guest OS if your hardware supports it, and if it doesn't consider getting new hardware, with 64 bit OS you can have significant protections from ASLR, provided the OS supports it. If you still use Windows, now is the time to stop. Consider using physical isolation if you can, the best setup would be OpenBSD with another OpenBSD box for routing and physical isolation. Failing that, look into Qubes. Failing that, look into Whonix or possibly even better yet isolating yourself. I don't know how much I trust Whonix honestly, in theory it is based on a good design but in practice we don't know who the fuck it came from, the Qubes people are recognized security researchers. It isn't that hard to isolate yourself with virtualbox, you don't need Whonix to do it for you you can do it in ten seconds yourself.

The feds are not really cracking encryption I am sure of that, what they might be doing is MITM OTR conversations in IRC so remember to verify those fingerprints!

And for all the police keeping watch on us, this is your chance to fight for good. Leak documents, leak the intelligence you have, help us end the war on drugs. Failure to do so makes you an enemy of freedom, and have no doubt that in the end we will win and you will be held accountable for your crimes against humanity long before we are held accountable for our crimes against the state.

And for Alex Rice, you hope it doesn't take someone dying to get it shut down? The war on drugs has led to tens of thousands of people dying and it is still not shut down, so I wouldn't hold your hopes that someone dying will make a difference. Your son almost died from a heroin overdose? Did you know that the cause of most heroin overdoses is the lack of consistency between the purity of different batches of heroin? Another primary cause of heroin overdose is fentanyl being sold as heroin. Both of these things are the direct result of the war on drugs, not the fault of Silk Road. If anything Silk Road will help prevent people from dying, because people get their drugs tested and report on the result, which will stem the flow of fentanyl represented as heroin. Also, the people on Silk Road will leave reports about the strength of different batches of heroin. Also, we have an entire harm reduction forum and even have medical professionals giving free advice on it. You will not find a safer mechanism of drug distribution and use than Silk Road in a world where there is prohibition, but as soon as prohibition ends we will have the ability to self regulate to a much greater extent, and heroin will be sold by companies that have it in their best interests to market it at a correct purity, and who will be legally prevented from selling fentanyl as heroin. So Silk Road did not almost kill your son, the government almost killed your son through the war on drugs. And now you are helping the people who almost killed your son in the fight against the people who gave your son the best chance of using heroin and living. Sorry that the government almost killed your son, hopefully your actions don't now lead to another persons son being killed by them.