m0wer's avatar
m0wer
m0wer@sgn.space
npub1w3va...4c5c
JoinMarket NG
m0wer's avatar
m0wer 11 hours ago
m0wer's avatar
m0wer 3 days ago
Privacy-preserving license plates using blind signatures License plates are crazy from a privacy standpoint. We'd riot if the government made us wear a badge with our name on it every time we left the house. But bolting a permanent unique identifier to our car? Totally normal. Now there are ALPR (automatic license plate reader) networks everywhere, public and private, logging everything. Check for the USA picture. From plate data + camera feeds (public or insecure private ones) you can infer where someone lives, works, when they're not home, who they meet. Some countries even let you query the vehicle registry directly from the plate. I don't think accountability for cars is necessarily wrong. If you rear-end someone and flee, it's fair they can identify you. I just don't think we need to trade mass surveillance for that. Cryptography exists. A basic scheme: Every day you generate a random string r, compute H(r), and get it blind-signed by an issuing authority (they sign without learning what they're signing: Chaumian blind signatures, same as ecash). You put r on your e-ink plate as a QR code, along with the signature. Anyone can verify: hash the preimage, check the signature. If you cause an accident, the witness notes r and can prove they saw your plate. To find out who you are, they go to court, the authority looks up who requested the blind signature for H(r). No public link between your plate and identity. Already way better than today. Problems and improvements: Daily rotation is too slow: Cameras still build a full-day profile. Rotate every 5–10 minutes instead. Eric Rescorla arrived at a similar scheme: and explores the tradeoffs well, including how the authority can precompute a lookup table for all vehicles and time windows cheaply enough that de-anonymization doesn't require your cooperation. The authority is still a chokepoint: Whoever registers you and creates the H(r) -> identity link already knows both sides. Threshold encryption of the stored record is a governance improvement (requires k-of-n parties to cooperate, auditable) but not a fundamental one. The registrar still has the information at creation time. The real protection is legal process + the fact that passive surveillance is broken. That's already a big deal compared to today, but it's not zero-trust. The cryptography is production-ready. The gap between "solved" and "deployed" is almost entirely political. Posted to
m0wer's avatar
m0wer 3 days ago
Rewrote the "JoinMarket Maker Clustering and Taker Anonymity-Set Reduction" article with a clear example as introduction, a glossary, and trimming most sections. Published at (same URL, old version preserved in git). The discussion about possible mitigations is ongoing at BTW the JM protocol is not broken, just improvable.
m0wer's avatar
m0wer 1 week ago
Max Hillebrand: The Praxeology of Privacy - YouTube Timothy Allen speaks with Max Hillebrand. Max joins me to explore freedom, privacy, and property rights in the free market of ideas. We discuss Cypherpunk strategies, the appeal of Bitcoin, Free Cities, and digital nomadism as ways to resist creeping socialism and surveillance. Drawing on Lockean ownership theory, Austrian economics, and praxeology, Max makes the case for combining decentralization, community, and technology to defend liberty in both physical and digital realms. TIMESTAMPS: 0:00:00 — Coming up 0:00:41 — Veritas Village preview 0:01:27 — Start of conversation 0:10:02 — Triangular Interventions of the State 0:11:26 — The banning of VPNs 0:16:27 — Mean Time To Harassment 0:24:43 — The Cypherpunk Ideal: Increasing the Cost of Attack 0:30:38 — Dragnet Surveillance & Privacy 0:36:48 — Free Cities and The Importance of Freedom in Meatspace 0:44:04 — There are No Frontiers Left 0:53:08 — Conscription is Coming Back 1:00:57 — There are Many More Good People Than Bad 1:06:53 — AI and Robots of Convenience in the Dystopian Future 1:18:25 — Bitcoin Proves John Locke's Theory of Property Rights 1:25:29 — Proving Economic Reasons 1:31:40 — The Cypherpunks Don't Know How Fundamentally Correct They Are 1:36:47 — Freedom is Correct. The State is Evil 1:49:22 — AI Will Remove Scarcity from the World 1:53:50 — Keynsian Bullshit 1:58:08 — Tik Tok Will Eventually Generate 100% AI Content 2:10:35 — Rally Cry for Freedom Lovers NOSTR: Max Hillebrand: npub1klkk3vrzme455yh9rl2jshq7rc8dpegj3ndf82c3ks2sk40dxt7qulx3vt Timothy Allen: Search '[timothy@nostr.com](mailto:timothy@nostr.com)' on your Nostr app Free Cities Foundation: npub1lsj8pmgedqqamt89c27tzjjnlf0wn7q7udjm7j2cl9xxz97eacns2mwpee
m0wer's avatar
m0wer 1 week ago
Been digging into JoinMarket maker clustering on mainnet. the short version: yes you can cluster makers by fee fingerprint from onchain data alone, and yes it reduces taker anonymity sets. But JM holds up pretty well in practice. mean anonset goes 7.6 -> 6.9, and the mitigation (fee policy homogenization) *can* be a client default change, no protocol surgery needed. The counterintuitive part: some "obvious" countermeasures like makers avoiding change as input actually make things worse. Rough draft, not peer reviewed, happy to get feedback:
m0wer's avatar
m0wer 1 week ago
Texas sues Meta, WhatsApp over encryption privacy claims https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-sues-meta-whatsapp-over-encryption-privacy-claims-2026-05-21/ Texas’ lawsuit cites news reports about a federal investigation into ‌claims ⁠that Meta had access to unencrypted WhatsApp messages and a whistleblower report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
m0wer's avatar
m0wer 1 week ago
Lightning Network privacy is real. But "better than on-chain" isn't the same as "private." View article →