On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Tim May wrote:
> You're naively accepting what this anonymous poster claimed.
At this point I accept that it might be a good idea to ask on those lists
as well. As far as I'm concerned, I've already raised my question about
digital donations here and I'm looking for responses.
(I suppose I should respond to the rest of the anonymous poster's points,
but that's in progress. Short summary : this kind of protocol
is not particularly "cypherpunk" - no restrictions on donations are. It
still strikes me as an interesting question with a fun adversary model.
Think about the parties involved for a minute -- the donor, the candidate,
some third party or a payment mix, maybe the IRS if we're giving tax
credits for donations...
Creating a protocol which handles this situation is likely to take all
the tools for providing anonymity that I can think of. Plus maybe some
new ones as well, which is why it's interesting. )
[history of lists omitted]
Thanks for the history and framing. I vaguely remember coderpunks forming
when I first started lurking on cypherpunks...
> If you retreat to one of these lists, David, it is...a good thing.
> People who elect to be in censored lists have made the right decision.
I have no intention of "retreating." Thanks!
It's just that if the topic has already been discussed there, I'd like to
know what was said. If I can avoid retreading tired arguments, this
strikes me as a plus.
Then if someone is on one of those lists who wants to keep discussing
this particular question there, instead of here, then that's his or
her perogative. There are certainly other topics here to be pursued...
Thanks,
-David
