Delivery-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:23:49 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC1AA1E0B4B;
	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE2635D6A;
	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:23:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A1435BD9
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:23:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id vXYAmsgYwYoq for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:23:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86B835BBC
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:23:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbiq7 with SMTP id iq7so88737494igb.1
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=t7g+5DMo2g9gsyqDKyLCbgyfg23oY79XEsHL6/p2NVg=;
 b=ary4H7NXtikTemfBE5UKnnJIUwQsym/FBR9VkbCxVSOCsauWnjuI6fHGWbWYjl867F
 YagB0QY5SnrGcgWu5+V7zsLhrBUZrwR/ijlfhaRyVuobfk9N5kGOEx6rndrZCbGsQ3FZ
 WbXKut0EwoteuHG53L0L7d1lJbw3gMML15bko5VyXgf1uONEanSauE3zjjSLAU1CNKgT
 Vz5Pk3VPQP+fxh0LhOuDEZcXzPonWSPAeDbTulNXPr6zVtyQJXQvXl7xJ2Vh7Bduautc
 h+pAEedjl6Y9nN3whJvFg2emY7iLvRGBy84fJyb59GlwktdDSrgiv5aX+Q4IdmfhJj70
 AdIw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.176.228 with SMTP id cl4mr17390568igc.2.1434626616651;
 Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.51.76 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:23:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti2-Aoj6JxB-wjS0LpsA=1HRgyGjtm-LfVJpVKWvrm-ZQwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Cc: cypherpunks@cpunks.org
Subject: [tor-talk] Hearn vs Bitcoin-over-Tor / anonets?
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

Wasn't there a group of folks or posts that were suggesting
colored coins / relay censorship or some other type things
as a good idea?

Hearing people dismiss particular use cases of anonymity
networks as moot, even though such uses are possible and being
done (without need for much code or protocol development), or
suggesting lesser alternatives, well... doesn't seem like words
of support for those users, their principles and needs... and seems
possibly against them.
Of course the interpretation should really be left to others more
closely following these few specific issues than I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w&t=24m00s

Recall that bitcoin-core added support for Tor and I2P a few
years back thus helping to affirm the use case of anonets
by [users of] digital currencies.

And that those running traditional government currencies
usually wish neither privacy or independant currencies,
unless it's for and by themselves.

IBM of course has a digital currency partnership proposition.
Similar issues would apply there as well.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

