15 ms·

The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto (1988)

330 points by SunbroSupreme 9y ago

CJKinni 9y ago
I couldn't tell when this was written. It appears to be from 1993: http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/manifestos/cryptoanarchist.html http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/manifestos/cryptoanarc... Edit: See comments below. Turns out it's from 1988.
- nowherecat 9y ago
  1988, actually: The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto by Timothy C. May - http://nakamotoinstitute.org/crypto-anarchist-manifesto/ http://nakamotoinstitute.org/crypto-anarchist-manifesto/
- _jal 9y ago
  Yep. I remember when it was published. I was on the Cypherpunks list back then, and it was a fascinating group for a while. Tim May was a vocal, eloquent proponent of anarcho-capitalism[1], and believed that crypto and the net were crucial tools that would tip the balance of power between the individual and the state, cause an erosion of tax-collection powers, and eventually tip the world into a mode of 'voluntary' interaction that others, myself included, argued is indistinguishable from feudalism. [1] For those of you who are aware of the various minute distinctions made around these schools of thought, May proposed a very "hard" form, arguing that 'voluntary' agreement to slavery and whatnot were perfectly acceptable.
  - rama_dan 9y ago
    > a mode of 'voluntary' interaction that others, myself included, argued is indistinguishable from feudalism Good thing you've got The State extorting and enslaving you then, to protect you from that "feudalism".
    - vippy 9y ago
      Good thing you've got The State to provide a mechanism for non-owner interests to be represented.
    - bjl 9y ago
      I'd rather a democratically elected state than a cabal of wealthy warlords.
      - dwe3000 9y ago
        Interesting that you see a difference. Who do you think the democratically elected are? "Wealthy ..."
        bjl 9y ago
        Its telling that you don't see a difference. And An-Caps never seem to understand why nobody takes them seriously.
      - clarkmoody 9y ago
        What about a democratically elected state that creates wealthy warlords with tax dollars and then wages war on their behalf?
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        I'm not an anarchist myself. But what exactly do you think we have now, in many Western countries? There is more than one way to end up with a Rumsfeld or Cheney in power.
        _jal 9y ago
        I'm actually sympathetic to your viewpoint, but there is a very real difference between hereditary despots-for-life and imperfectly-constitutionally constrained, term-limited assholes-in-chief.
        9y ago
- cortesoft 9y ago
  Yeah, the mention of 'ISDN' kinda threw me off at first; I was wondering if there was some new ISDN acronym that I was unaware of. Nope, they mean the old school ISDN.
macawfish 9y ago
I don't understand the barbed wire metaphor. Couldn't crypto have the effect of putting content that would otherwise be freely available in the current internet behind monetary barriers? Couldn't cryptocurrencies enable further control by monopolizing media industries? The technology is powerful, whether or not it will be liberating is to be determined. Edit: didn't realize this was from 1993! Amazing to read that perspective!
- kang 9y ago
  Crypto would enable inbuilt content use payment system if the user wants to pay, and reap additional benefits - freemium model Industries wont be monopolized cause forking and launching decentralised code would be free and instant.
  - MacsHeadroom 9y ago
    Tell that to email. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge cryptonerd. But open source is not a panacea against monopolization.
    - andreasgonewild 9y ago
      Tell what to email? I'm deep into the process of telling it to shut up and forward the anonymous, encrypted data here: https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis. It's still an excellent transport for async messaging.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  It was very interesting! They nailed a number of points there in terms of the prominence of certain techs. They missed a big one, though. Today it was announced in the New York Times that Goldman Sachs is backing a payment fintech startup that operates on a public blockchain. JP Morgan, BNY Mellon, Credit Suisse, ING, are all involved in the EEA. Big money is making its way into cryptocurrencies presently. Groups like GS are fairly responsible for a lot of those barbed wire fences, and usually for their own gain.
d0ne 9y ago
"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial." - Arthur Schopenhauer, 1819
- majewsky 9y ago
  I wonder which truths he's referring to there, considering how every truth that was already known in that time seems even more trivial today. In other words: Which truths were just passing the threshold from paradoxical to trivial? (Or maybe he's just referring to political truths which are coming to light at about the same pace at all times.)
nannal 9y ago
> The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders... Bitcoin Silkroad The crypto wars The crypto wars 2: The empire strikes back and that's just one poignant sentence in the fairly small but very accurate manifesto.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  Also this bit: > An anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements will be active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of crypto anarchy. See Silk Road, Bitcoin, Monero
  - swordswinger12 9y ago
    Some IC3 people at Cornell have been looking at this in the context of smart contracts: http://www.initc3.org/files/Gyges.pdf http://www.initc3.org/files/Gyges.pdf
- matt4077 9y ago
  It's quite funny to see people promoting such conspiracy theories, considering they've already been proven wrong by reality. Apart from some banana republics, governments around the world have been incredibly relaxed with regards to Bitcoin. The rules that have been established are as favourable as anyone could imagine (i. e. trading being exempt from VAT etc.). Yes, they have insisted on existing rules, mostly of the know-your-customer variety. It's funny you're citing "national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders", as if those were just talking points to hide the real reasons. Because for the life of me I can't think of any other, legal, activity governments are trying to suppress by regulating bitcoin. What exactly is that killer app of bitcoin that so frightens the establishment?
  - 9y ago
Gackle_Murderer 9y ago
I've lived it for several decades. It's a very exciting time to be alive!
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
raintrees 9y ago
An entertaining exploration of this was recently written in "A Lodging of Wayfaring Men" by Paul Rosenberg. Those who fear the loss of the freedom that the Internet once represented (in relation to recent battles of net neutrality, tor monitoring/capturing, fear of brutal regimes' scrutiny and persecution, etc.) have yet another avenue of hope. I have a basic inspiration and hope in humans growing and learning, increasing our ethics to begin to catch up to our technology.
hownottowrite 9y ago
And the follow-up: The Cyphernomicon (1994) http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.txt http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.t... Ah memories...
- komali2 9y ago
  Reminds me of the title my favorite book: cryotonomicon. Highly recommend it.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Typo. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon
- rurban 9y ago
  And of course Detweiler :) http://borg.uu3.net/ldetweil/medusa/detweiler.html http://borg.uu3.net/ldetweil/medusa/detweiler.html
moneytide1 9y ago
While I do agree with this article's identification of the primary utility of crytpocurrencies, we should consider the optimizations that it can provide through a more effective use of resources. I'll go ahead and TL;DR here before the succeeding wall of text: Crypto currency will result in a net gain of useful resources by using pulses of electrical current. Silver and gold are more useful for their elemental properties rather than their primitive use as trading mediums. The Physical and Socioeconomic Properties of Elements and Compounds Gold, silver, platinum, and diamond. For the past ~6000 years, these three elements and one carbon structure have been sought after mostly as mediums of trade. “Various forms of livestock, in particular cattle, and grains were the earliest forms used to settle trades and payment for good goods and services. Cattle are hard to carry in your pocket and grains spoil so an alternative currency was needed”. The value of these elements during the early economic development is attributed to their scarcity, resistance to corrosion/oxidization, tensile strength (except Au/Ag, which are very malleable), structural integrity under extreme conditions (a diamond is forever, just like the love between two people). These can thus be relied upon to transfer value between two parties. Advancements of the past 100 years have suggested new uses for these materials. Certainly diamond will continue to be sought after for its utility in drilling and abrasives, but the electrification of civilization has suggested new uses for these materials. Silver has the highest electrical conductivity of any element, but tarnishes easily when exposed to oxygen. It replaced copper as a conductor during early 20th century war-time resource rationing. Platinum has an extraordinary resistance to corrosion, and can be used to coat electrodes to split water for hydrogen and oxygen extraction (though extracting hydrogen from methane is more economical, but carbon monoxide is a byproduct). These materials are too expensive to replace copper, but why are they expensive? Thousands of years of economics. Silver dining utensils aren’t valued for their superior electrical conductivity. A host/hostess sets out the “good silverware” for special occasions when it would be advantageous to advertise wealth to others, or because it comforting to hold value while eating a meal. “Solid state electronic devices use very low voltages and currents which are easily interrupted by corrosion or tarnish at the contact points.” The gold stored in sovereign vaults guarded by pensioned government employees 24/7 is not secured under these conditions because of its capacity to increase the durability of electrical contacts. It is valuable because of it, but expensive only because we are delaying the retirement of traditional mediums of resource exchange. The abrupt arrival of the digital age has produced technologies that continue to eliminate the middlemen and inefficiencies that are parasitic to the process of transferring value. Web payment services do much to reduce physical transportation of metal and paper currencies, which saves energy and time and therefore creates more value because it directly contests systems that were already in place (though the modern currency thief is going to exploit network vulnerabilities, in the same way train robbers would exploit vast, unsecured distances between towns during the westward expansion of early America). The blockchain is an even newer technology that is continuing to be refined, and is expected to be immune to counterfeit and centralized control. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the most widely used cryptocurrencies that use the blockchain, and their value remains constant across all currencies. These concepts (especially Ethereum) are the digital manifestations of the theory of democracy - unhindered by loopholes, corruption, indecision, and private-interests. A re-evaluation of value transfer mediums is necessary because of things like supercapacitor technology. Energy storage is the primary bottleneck in the implementation of energy harvesting mechanisms, as the sun only gives usable energy to a region for ~8 hours a day, and the rate at which the wind blows is inconsistent, albeit predictable. Silver is a useful material, not because of its electrical conductivity (which is on par with copper), but because its unmatched ionic conductivity. The Lithium-ion battery functions because of the exchange of ions between two conductive materials, and the energy density of a cell relies on the composition of the anode, cathode, and electrolyte. The primary determinant of this composition is the balance of value versus performance. Prohibitive value only exists when there is competition for the uses of a resource. Reduce this competition, and gain new utility.
davidw 9y ago
If you haven't read it, there are some great bits in Cryptonimicon that kind of captures the spirit of some of that crowd. Great book in any event.
- sleavey 9y ago
  Seconded. Great book set both in the present and in WW2.
- INTPenis 9y ago
  What gets me is that I read that book before I discovered bitcoin. So when bitcoin was brand new and worth only cents I looked at it like sci-fi and doubted it would ever take off. I'm still kicking myself over that.
  - mpfundstein 9y ago
    its not too late. 3k per coin is nothing. expect 10k or more in the coming years. Not necessarily in BTC though (Hint: August 1)
  - davidw 9y ago
    Maybe there's something to learning about the tech itself, but actual bitcoins seem like tulip bulbs to me.
Gene5ive 9y ago
Is this the new Neal Stephenson?
- duskwuff 9y ago
  At the time this manifesto was written, Stephenson was just publishing his first serious novel, Zodiac. He wasn't yet a well-known writer.
  - Gene5ive 9y ago
    oh shit you're right 0_0
andreasgonewild 9y ago
It's an ongoing battle, even if eventual victory is inevitable. Plenty of work remains to put convenient, strong encryption; not to mention anonymity; in the hands of everyone all the time. https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis
Mc_Big_G 9y ago
Relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hbis7/us_congress_going_full_1984_on_bitcoin_and_assets/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hbis7/us_congress... TLDR; There's currently a bill to make cryptocurrencies illegal. (and other stuff that the government can't control)
- KGIII 9y ago
  Alright, I waded through the salient sections. It doesn't appear to be making it illegal, at least not outright prohibiting it. It also includes some verbiage for some research to be done - basically a feasibility study. It looks like they're going to treat cryptocurrencies like cash. Somehow, it looks like they think they are going to be able to detect it at the border. I have no idea how they think they are going to do that. If you want to get around it, just don't leave evidence of it on your devices when you cross the border. Dropbox exists. Other than that, they've already made it so that it is illegal to do certain transactions, over $10,000, without notifying the government. My understanding is that exchanges already follow this rule, but I bet there are some .onion sites that beg to differ, just a hunch. But, it doesn't look like they are making them illegal. It almost looks like they are recognizing it as legitimate. If you read the proposal, treat it like a find/replace. It is modifying existing laws.
- declan 9y ago
  Not quite illegal, but not quite legal (in the current relatively unregulated sense) either. I did a writeup of the Senate bill in the HN thread on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567005
- igk 9y ago
  Honestly, this seems like a reasonably sane bill. IANAL but it does not seem to make cryptocurrencies illegal, more the opposite: it recognizes them as cash and places the same requirements that other financial instruments have on them...with a review period of 18 months. That seems good for crypto more than anything else. If anyone knows more about this and wants to explain why I'm misunderstanding this I'd be thankful :-)
mempko 9y ago
The comments here mention crypto currencies. However, currency is anathema to anarchist societies and isn't mentioned in the manifesto. Anarchists recognize that currencies and markets are products of the state and using this tool in a stateless society makes no sense. A currency and markets primary purpose is to provision the state. What would a crypto currency without a state provision? Who does it serve? Bitcoin makes it clear it is the FPGA and ASIC operators consuming vasts amount of energy.
- tomrod 9y ago
  Crypto currency was created to be decentralized, requiring no state to back it.
  - mempko 9y ago
    bitcoin is not decentralized because all transactions are on a single public ledger. How the ledger is computed and verified is distributed however the product is a single central source of truth. There is nothing centralized about having a single objective "reality". Decentralized systems do not have a single source of truth and by their very nature are inconsistent. In other words, whether the blockchain was computed by one central bank or individual miners doesn't change the nature of bitcoin in it's use. Which is a centralized public ledger. I wouldn't be surprised if bitcoin was an attempt to shine a light on the black market. Similar to how Tor was created to hide the activities of state spooks.
    - FooHentai 9y ago
      >bitcoin is not decentralized because all transactions are on a single public ledger. Immediately not following you here. The singular ledger you refer to is in fact stored (and modified) by many different actors and agreed to on a majority basis. There are absolutely different versions of the ledger in existence, but the majority chooses to move forward temporally on the basis of majority consensus. That version of the ledger becomes the basis for future records, and so on. It is an agreement between parties, in the same way that having other people refer to you by your chosen name is 'a single truth' which is actually just majority agreement. >the product is a single central source of truth. I can't see this aspect of your argument panning out to anything other than complete absurdity, to be honest. >There is nothing centralized about having a single objective "reality". Was this a typo? It appears to contradict the rest of your post. If it wasn't, I agree with this point.
tomrod 9y ago
Information isn't sapient. People want information, which gives information value.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  People want information. But the people who want the information want it to be free, so that they can get it for free. The people who create that information usually want it to be expensive, and also to be controlled (so that they can get paid). But all it takes is one person who paid for the information to decide to redistribute it for free, and the game is over for that bit of information. Thus "freeing" is a one-way function for information. It's easy for information to go from non-free to free, but it's almost impossible for information to go from free to non-free. In that sense, information, by its nature, "wants" (if we can anthropomorphize a bit) to be free, in the same sense that matter "wants" to move to a lower energy state.
  - tomrod 9y ago
    > But the people who want the information want it to be free, so that they can get it for free. Yes, and I also want every economic transaction in which I am demand side to be priced at zero. That doesn't mean that because I deign to buy something that I am unwilling to pay for it. Quite the opposite! I will pay for it up to what I value it. > But all it takes is one person who paid for the information to decide to redistribute it for free, and the game is over for that bit of information. Yes, and that is a problem with non-exhaustive consumption of a resource. This duplicatible nature of data is why data firms have contracts when they sell information. The information existing in their databases has no anthropomorphic yearning for liberty.
antihero 9y ago
It's lovely to think that our abilities allow us to have this comfort that no matter what the dumb slow paced governments will do, we will run circles around them, and as an anarchist that's never really found my self at peace with the authorities that be, it's comforting to read some vague prose that harps on about the things we can do because we're comfortably many steps ahead, but I think there is a) I don't think we're beyond social responsibility. We can't leave people behind, even if they are dumb and ignorant, if we are escaping this horror that is a moronic attempt to dictate our actions, we should at least try to drag our friends out of the path of their ridiculous flamethrower. b) Complacency. I've always figured as long as I can SSH, set up an OpenVPN, get to a server...I can do anything I like. This isn't always certain, nothing is certain. Just going onto a guest network at some shit company you are interviewing for and not getting shit past anything that doesn't pass DPI is like whoa dude, given enough time we could crack it but it isn't quite so easy. c) Inclusion...we make code, we do cool shit, there are lots of people who have so many important things to do without the technological upbringing we have that are so much easier for governments to extinguish.
DonCarlitos 9y ago
And still, the rich get richer, the powerful even more so... cutting barbed wire hasn't changed anything. Casts some serious shade on the power of crypto-anarchy to change anything. Anarchy, like libertarianism, are lovely notions with no direct roots in reality. Here's hoping blockchain democratizes and makes more transparent at least part of the puzzle.
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  It's not that there's anything wrong with the technology. It's just that people can be exploited. And they get exploited. So the hierarchical power structures remain in place. Seriously, what better dream to plant in the slaves' minds but the idea that "a simple little computer program" can set you free? And what better way to control them and stifle their rising-up than by the constant deception that they have more power than they do? Fools. They're all god-damned fools. People talk about VR being 10 years away. We've already been living in it for ages. The Matrix. Democratic Theatre. We've all been living in a dream world. I think we like it here. Because, IMHO, most people would rather blame a higher power for their sh*t than take responsibility to control their own lives. And whether that higher power's the state or some religion, doesn't matter. It still sets up the same power dynamic that makes most people, IMHO, slaves.
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    > what better dream to plant in the slaves' minds but the idea that "a simple little computer program" can set you free? Yet when people overthrow tyrannical governments to then establish democracy the planning is done secretly. And when tyrannical governments come to power the first thing they do is monitor and restrict communication. This has been true many times in history in the last hundreds years.
    - 19eightyfour 9y ago
      I don't believe in encryption as a tool that can give any real asymmetry to an individual or conspiracy against the State. I get that you do believe it can. Another point is -- all governments monitor communications and we don't call them tyrannical. Take the Germans. They're notorious. But people consider the Germany government quite liberal. Restricting communications does not have to be a tool of "cruel, unreasonable, oppressive or arbitrary use of power or control." It can be deliberate, reasoned and helpful. China restricts their communications and they enjoy a lot of civil harmony, and a huge amount of national pride. The media in the US practice a form of "information restriction and control" by tightly directing the narratives, and editorial perspective ( and sometimes even the facts ) that people are consuming. That's been the case for a long time. No one's calling it a tyranny, even tho plenty of Americans distrust authority. I think your model of tyranny and your belief in crypto are unrealistic. The reason I don't believe in crypto is because I consider everything as "security theatre." IMHO, every single cryptosystem that exists has already been broken. The pretense that it hasn't is just a charade. Note: I believe in the strong version of the above statement. That RSA / EC / AES / DES and so on are broken. But the weak version, that protocols, physical monitoring, side channel attacks, and other vectors make every practical cryptosystem broken is kind of born out by the events of the last few years. Whether you believe in the strong or the weak version of that statement the net result is the same, no? I think so, anyway.
emmelaich 9y ago
The author was a senior scientist at Intel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May
hoistbypetard 9y ago
I clicked thinking "I bet that's Tim May." I was not disappointed. Some of his posts in the '90s were tough to read, but they were interesting without fail. Anyone know if/where he posts nowadays?
ehrtt 9y ago
Another prescient text about how the internet and cryptography will change the logic behind the existence of nation states as we know them today is: The Sovereign Individual (James Dale Davidson & William Rees-Mogg) - highly recommend it, I felt like I was pulling back the curtain on the true workings of the world.
n8n3k 9y ago
Anyone starting a discussion about libertarianism and anarchism or Bitcoin in general in this thread is probably trolling and not interested in a serious discussion, so don't waste your time. (Maybe HN should have 1 Mega-Thread for all this stuff, like many subreddits have?)

330 points by SunbroSupreme 9y ago

I couldn't tell when this was written. It appears to be from 1993: http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/manifestos/cryptoanarchist.html http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/manifestos/cryptoanarc... Edit: See comments below. Turns out it's from 1988.

nowherecat 9y ago
1988, actually: The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto by Timothy C. May - http://nakamotoinstitute.org/crypto-anarchist-manifesto/ http://nakamotoinstitute.org/crypto-anarchist-manifesto/
_jal 9y ago
Yep. I remember when it was published. I was on the Cypherpunks list back then, and it was a fascinating group for a while. Tim May was a vocal, eloquent proponent of anarcho-capitalism[1], and believed that crypto and the net were crucial tools that would tip the balance of power between the individual and the state, cause an erosion of tax-collection powers, and eventually tip the world into a mode of 'voluntary' interaction that others, myself included, argued is indistinguishable from feudalism. [1] For those of you who are aware of the various minute distinctions made around these schools of thought, May proposed a very "hard" form, arguing that 'voluntary' agreement to slavery and whatnot were perfectly acceptable.
- rama_dan 9y ago
  > a mode of 'voluntary' interaction that others, myself included, argued is indistinguishable from feudalism Good thing you've got The State extorting and enslaving you then, to protect you from that "feudalism".
  - vippy 9y ago
    Good thing you've got The State to provide a mechanism for non-owner interests to be represented.
  - bjl 9y ago
    I'd rather a democratically elected state than a cabal of wealthy warlords.
    - dwe3000 9y ago
      Interesting that you see a difference. Who do you think the democratically elected are? "Wealthy ..."
      - bjl 9y ago
        Its telling that you don't see a difference. And An-Caps never seem to understand why nobody takes them seriously.
    - clarkmoody 9y ago
      What about a democratically elected state that creates wealthy warlords with tax dollars and then wages war on their behalf?
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      I'm not an anarchist myself. But what exactly do you think we have now, in many Western countries? There is more than one way to end up with a Rumsfeld or Cheney in power.
      - _jal 9y ago
        I'm actually sympathetic to your viewpoint, but there is a very real difference between hereditary despots-for-life and imperfectly-constitutionally constrained, term-limited assholes-in-chief.
        9y ago
cortesoft 9y ago
Yeah, the mention of 'ISDN' kinda threw me off at first; I was wondering if there was some new ISDN acronym that I was unaware of. Nope, they mean the old school ISDN.

macawfish 9y ago

I don't understand the barbed wire metaphor. Couldn't crypto have the effect of putting content that would otherwise be freely available in the current internet behind monetary barriers? Couldn't cryptocurrencies enable further control by monopolizing media industries? The technology is powerful, whether or not it will be liberating is to be determined. Edit: didn't realize this was from 1993! Amazing to read that perspective!

kang 9y ago
Crypto would enable inbuilt content use payment system if the user wants to pay, and reap additional benefits - freemium model Industries wont be monopolized cause forking and launching decentralised code would be free and instant.
- MacsHeadroom 9y ago
  Tell that to email. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge cryptonerd. But open source is not a panacea against monopolization.
  - andreasgonewild 9y ago
    Tell what to email? I'm deep into the process of telling it to shut up and forward the anonymous, encrypted data here: https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis. It's still an excellent transport for async messaging.
52-6F-62 9y ago
It was very interesting! They nailed a number of points there in terms of the prominence of certain techs. They missed a big one, though. Today it was announced in the New York Times that Goldman Sachs is backing a payment fintech startup that operates on a public blockchain. JP Morgan, BNY Mellon, Credit Suisse, ING, are all involved in the EEA. Big money is making its way into cryptocurrencies presently. Groups like GS are fairly responsible for a lot of those barbed wire fences, and usually for their own gain.

d0ne 9y ago

"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial." - Arthur Schopenhauer, 1819

majewsky 9y ago
I wonder which truths he's referring to there, considering how every truth that was already known in that time seems even more trivial today. In other words: Which truths were just passing the threshold from paradoxical to trivial? (Or maybe he's just referring to political truths which are coming to light at about the same pace at all times.)

nannal 9y ago

> The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders... Bitcoin Silkroad The crypto wars The crypto wars 2: The empire strikes back and that's just one poignant sentence in the fairly small but very accurate manifesto.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Ajedi32 9y ago
Also this bit: > An anonymous computerized market will even make possible abhorrent markets for assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign elements will be active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of crypto anarchy. See Silk Road, Bitcoin, Monero
- swordswinger12 9y ago
  Some IC3 people at Cornell have been looking at this in the context of smart contracts: http://www.initc3.org/files/Gyges.pdf http://www.initc3.org/files/Gyges.pdf
matt4077 9y ago
It's quite funny to see people promoting such conspiracy theories, considering they've already been proven wrong by reality. Apart from some banana republics, governments around the world have been incredibly relaxed with regards to Bitcoin. The rules that have been established are as favourable as anyone could imagine (i. e. trading being exempt from VAT etc.). Yes, they have insisted on existing rules, mostly of the know-your-customer variety. It's funny you're citing "national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders", as if those were just talking points to hide the real reasons. Because for the life of me I can't think of any other, legal, activity governments are trying to suppress by regulating bitcoin. What exactly is that killer app of bitcoin that so frightens the establishment?
- 9y ago

Gackle_Murderer 9y ago

I've lived it for several decades. It's a very exciting time to be alive!

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

raintrees 9y ago

An entertaining exploration of this was recently written in "A Lodging of Wayfaring Men" by Paul Rosenberg. Those who fear the loss of the freedom that the Internet once represented (in relation to recent battles of net neutrality, tor monitoring/capturing, fear of brutal regimes' scrutiny and persecution, etc.) have yet another avenue of hope. I have a basic inspiration and hope in humans growing and learning, increasing our ethics to begin to catch up to our technology.

hownottowrite 9y ago

And the follow-up: The Cyphernomicon (1994) http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.txt http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.t... Ah memories...

komali2 9y ago
Reminds me of the title my favorite book: cryotonomicon. Highly recommend it.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Typo. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon
rurban 9y ago
And of course Detweiler :) http://borg.uu3.net/ldetweil/medusa/detweiler.html http://borg.uu3.net/ldetweil/medusa/detweiler.html

moneytide1 9y ago

While I do agree with this article's identification of the primary utility of crytpocurrencies, we should consider the optimizations that it can provide through a more effective use of resources. I'll go ahead and TL;DR here before the succeeding wall of text: Crypto currency will result in a net gain of useful resources by using pulses of electrical current. Silver and gold are more useful for their elemental properties rather than their primitive use as trading mediums. The Physical and Socioeconomic Properties of Elements and Compounds Gold, silver, platinum, and diamond. For the past ~6000 years, these three elements and one carbon structure have been sought after mostly as mediums of trade. “Various forms of livestock, in particular cattle, and grains were the earliest forms used to settle trades and payment for good goods and services. Cattle are hard to carry in your pocket and grains spoil so an alternative currency was needed”. The value of these elements during the early economic development is attributed to their scarcity, resistance to corrosion/oxidization, tensile strength (except Au/Ag, which are very malleable), structural integrity under extreme conditions (a diamond is forever, just like the love between two people). These can thus be relied upon to transfer value between two parties. Advancements of the past 100 years have suggested new uses for these materials. Certainly diamond will continue to be sought after for its utility in drilling and abrasives, but the electrification of civilization has suggested new uses for these materials. Silver has the highest electrical conductivity of any element, but tarnishes easily when exposed to oxygen. It replaced copper as a conductor during early 20th century war-time resource rationing. Platinum has an extraordinary resistance to corrosion, and can be used to coat electrodes to split water for hydrogen and oxygen extraction (though extracting hydrogen from methane is more economical, but carbon monoxide is a byproduct). These materials are too expensive to replace copper, but why are they expensive? Thousands of years of economics. Silver dining utensils aren’t valued for their superior electrical conductivity. A host/hostess sets out the “good silverware” for special occasions when it would be advantageous to advertise wealth to others, or because it comforting to hold value while eating a meal. “Solid state electronic devices use very low voltages and currents which are easily interrupted by corrosion or tarnish at the contact points.” The gold stored in sovereign vaults guarded by pensioned government employees 24/7 is not secured under these conditions because of its capacity to increase the durability of electrical contacts. It is valuable because of it, but expensive only because we are delaying the retirement of traditional mediums of resource exchange. The abrupt arrival of the digital age has produced technologies that continue to eliminate the middlemen and inefficiencies that are parasitic to the process of transferring value. Web payment services do much to reduce physical transportation of metal and paper currencies, which saves energy and time and therefore creates more value because it directly contests systems that were already in place (though the modern currency thief is going to exploit network vulnerabilities, in the same way train robbers would exploit vast, unsecured distances between towns during the westward expansion of early America). The blockchain is an even newer technology that is continuing to be refined, and is expected to be immune to counterfeit and centralized control. Bitcoin and Ethereum are the most widely used cryptocurrencies that use the blockchain, and their value remains constant across all currencies. These concepts (especially Ethereum) are the digital manifestations of the theory of democracy - unhindered by loopholes, corruption, indecision, and private-interests. A re-evaluation of value transfer mediums is necessary because of things like supercapacitor technology. Energy storage is the primary bottleneck in the implementation of energy harvesting mechanisms, as the sun only gives usable energy to a region for ~8 hours a day, and the rate at which the wind blows is inconsistent, albeit predictable. Silver is a useful material, not because of its electrical conductivity (which is on par with copper), but because its unmatched ionic conductivity. The Lithium-ion battery functions because of the exchange of ions between two conductive materials, and the energy density of a cell relies on the composition of the anode, cathode, and electrolyte. The primary determinant of this composition is the balance of value versus performance. Prohibitive value only exists when there is competition for the uses of a resource. Reduce this competition, and gain new utility.

davidw 9y ago

If you haven't read it, there are some great bits in Cryptonimicon that kind of captures the spirit of some of that crowd. Great book in any event.

sleavey 9y ago
Seconded. Great book set both in the present and in WW2.
INTPenis 9y ago
What gets me is that I read that book before I discovered bitcoin. So when bitcoin was brand new and worth only cents I looked at it like sci-fi and doubted it would ever take off. I'm still kicking myself over that.
- mpfundstein 9y ago
  its not too late. 3k per coin is nothing. expect 10k or more in the coming years. Not necessarily in BTC though (Hint: August 1)
- davidw 9y ago
  Maybe there's something to learning about the tech itself, but actual bitcoins seem like tulip bulbs to me.

Gene5ive 9y ago

Is this the new Neal Stephenson?

duskwuff 9y ago
At the time this manifesto was written, Stephenson was just publishing his first serious novel, Zodiac. He wasn't yet a well-known writer.
- Gene5ive 9y ago
  oh shit you're right 0_0

andreasgonewild 9y ago

It's an ongoing battle, even if eventual victory is inevitable. Plenty of work remains to put convenient, strong encryption; not to mention anonymity; in the hands of everyone all the time. https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis

Mc_Big_G 9y ago

Relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hbis7/us_congress_going_full_1984_on_bitcoin_and_assets/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hbis7/us_congress... TLDR; There's currently a bill to make cryptocurrencies illegal. (and other stuff that the government can't control)

KGIII 9y ago
Alright, I waded through the salient sections. It doesn't appear to be making it illegal, at least not outright prohibiting it. It also includes some verbiage for some research to be done - basically a feasibility study. It looks like they're going to treat cryptocurrencies like cash. Somehow, it looks like they think they are going to be able to detect it at the border. I have no idea how they think they are going to do that. If you want to get around it, just don't leave evidence of it on your devices when you cross the border. Dropbox exists. Other than that, they've already made it so that it is illegal to do certain transactions, over $10,000, without notifying the government. My understanding is that exchanges already follow this rule, but I bet there are some .onion sites that beg to differ, just a hunch. But, it doesn't look like they are making them illegal. It almost looks like they are recognizing it as legitimate. If you read the proposal, treat it like a find/replace. It is modifying existing laws.
declan 9y ago
Not quite illegal, but not quite legal (in the current relatively unregulated sense) either. I did a writeup of the Senate bill in the HN thread on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567005
igk 9y ago
Honestly, this seems like a reasonably sane bill. IANAL but it does not seem to make cryptocurrencies illegal, more the opposite: it recognizes them as cash and places the same requirements that other financial instruments have on them...with a review period of 18 months. That seems good for crypto more than anything else. If anyone knows more about this and wants to explain why I'm misunderstanding this I'd be thankful :-)

mempko 9y ago

The comments here mention crypto currencies. However, currency is anathema to anarchist societies and isn't mentioned in the manifesto. Anarchists recognize that currencies and markets are products of the state and using this tool in a stateless society makes no sense. A currency and markets primary purpose is to provision the state. What would a crypto currency without a state provision? Who does it serve? Bitcoin makes it clear it is the FPGA and ASIC operators consuming vasts amount of energy.

tomrod 9y ago
Crypto currency was created to be decentralized, requiring no state to back it.
- mempko 9y ago
  bitcoin is not decentralized because all transactions are on a single public ledger. How the ledger is computed and verified is distributed however the product is a single central source of truth. There is nothing centralized about having a single objective "reality". Decentralized systems do not have a single source of truth and by their very nature are inconsistent. In other words, whether the blockchain was computed by one central bank or individual miners doesn't change the nature of bitcoin in it's use. Which is a centralized public ledger. I wouldn't be surprised if bitcoin was an attempt to shine a light on the black market. Similar to how Tor was created to hide the activities of state spooks.
  - FooHentai 9y ago
    >bitcoin is not decentralized because all transactions are on a single public ledger. Immediately not following you here. The singular ledger you refer to is in fact stored (and modified) by many different actors and agreed to on a majority basis. There are absolutely different versions of the ledger in existence, but the majority chooses to move forward temporally on the basis of majority consensus. That version of the ledger becomes the basis for future records, and so on. It is an agreement between parties, in the same way that having other people refer to you by your chosen name is 'a single truth' which is actually just majority agreement. >the product is a single central source of truth. I can't see this aspect of your argument panning out to anything other than complete absurdity, to be honest. >There is nothing centralized about having a single objective "reality". Was this a typo? It appears to contradict the rest of your post. If it wasn't, I agree with this point.

tomrod 9y ago

Information isn't sapient. People want information, which gives information value.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
People want information. But the people who want the information want it to be free, so that they can get it for free. The people who create that information usually want it to be expensive, and also to be controlled (so that they can get paid). But all it takes is one person who paid for the information to decide to redistribute it for free, and the game is over for that bit of information. Thus "freeing" is a one-way function for information. It's easy for information to go from non-free to free, but it's almost impossible for information to go from free to non-free. In that sense, information, by its nature, "wants" (if we can anthropomorphize a bit) to be free, in the same sense that matter "wants" to move to a lower energy state.
- tomrod 9y ago
  > But the people who want the information want it to be free, so that they can get it for free. Yes, and I also want every economic transaction in which I am demand side to be priced at zero. That doesn't mean that because I deign to buy something that I am unwilling to pay for it. Quite the opposite! I will pay for it up to what I value it. > But all it takes is one person who paid for the information to decide to redistribute it for free, and the game is over for that bit of information. Yes, and that is a problem with non-exhaustive consumption of a resource. This duplicatible nature of data is why data firms have contracts when they sell information. The information existing in their databases has no anthropomorphic yearning for liberty.

antihero 9y ago

It's lovely to think that our abilities allow us to have this comfort that no matter what the dumb slow paced governments will do, we will run circles around them, and as an anarchist that's never really found my self at peace with the authorities that be, it's comforting to read some vague prose that harps on about the things we can do because we're comfortably many steps ahead, but I think there is a) I don't think we're beyond social responsibility. We can't leave people behind, even if they are dumb and ignorant, if we are escaping this horror that is a moronic attempt to dictate our actions, we should at least try to drag our friends out of the path of their ridiculous flamethrower. b) Complacency. I've always figured as long as I can SSH, set up an OpenVPN, get to a server...I can do anything I like. This isn't always certain, nothing is certain. Just going onto a guest network at some shit company you are interviewing for and not getting shit past anything that doesn't pass DPI is like whoa dude, given enough time we could crack it but it isn't quite so easy. c) Inclusion...we make code, we do cool shit, there are lots of people who have so many important things to do without the technological upbringing we have that are so much easier for governments to extinguish.

DonCarlitos 9y ago

And still, the rich get richer, the powerful even more so... cutting barbed wire hasn't changed anything. Casts some serious shade on the power of crypto-anarchy to change anything. Anarchy, like libertarianism, are lovely notions with no direct roots in reality. Here's hoping blockchain democratizes and makes more transparent at least part of the puzzle.

19eightyfour 9y ago
It's not that there's anything wrong with the technology. It's just that people can be exploited. And they get exploited. So the hierarchical power structures remain in place. Seriously, what better dream to plant in the slaves' minds but the idea that "a simple little computer program" can set you free? And what better way to control them and stifle their rising-up than by the constant deception that they have more power than they do? Fools. They're all god-damned fools. People talk about VR being 10 years away. We've already been living in it for ages. The Matrix. Democratic Theatre. We've all been living in a dream world. I think we like it here. Because, IMHO, most people would rather blame a higher power for their sh*t than take responsibility to control their own lives. And whether that higher power's the state or some religion, doesn't matter. It still sets up the same power dynamic that makes most people, IMHO, slaves.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  > what better dream to plant in the slaves' minds but the idea that "a simple little computer program" can set you free? Yet when people overthrow tyrannical governments to then establish democracy the planning is done secretly. And when tyrannical governments come to power the first thing they do is monitor and restrict communication. This has been true many times in history in the last hundreds years.
  - 19eightyfour 9y ago
    I don't believe in encryption as a tool that can give any real asymmetry to an individual or conspiracy against the State. I get that you do believe it can. Another point is -- all governments monitor communications and we don't call them tyrannical. Take the Germans. They're notorious. But people consider the Germany government quite liberal. Restricting communications does not have to be a tool of "cruel, unreasonable, oppressive or arbitrary use of power or control." It can be deliberate, reasoned and helpful. China restricts their communications and they enjoy a lot of civil harmony, and a huge amount of national pride. The media in the US practice a form of "information restriction and control" by tightly directing the narratives, and editorial perspective ( and sometimes even the facts ) that people are consuming. That's been the case for a long time. No one's calling it a tyranny, even tho plenty of Americans distrust authority. I think your model of tyranny and your belief in crypto are unrealistic. The reason I don't believe in crypto is because I consider everything as "security theatre." IMHO, every single cryptosystem that exists has already been broken. The pretense that it hasn't is just a charade. Note: I believe in the strong version of the above statement. That RSA / EC / AES / DES and so on are broken. But the weak version, that protocols, physical monitoring, side channel attacks, and other vectors make every practical cryptosystem broken is kind of born out by the events of the last few years. Whether you believe in the strong or the weak version of that statement the net result is the same, no? I think so, anyway.

emmelaich 9y ago

The author was a senior scientist at Intel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May

hoistbypetard 9y ago

I clicked thinking "I bet that's Tim May." I was not disappointed. Some of his posts in the '90s were tough to read, but they were interesting without fail. Anyone know if/where he posts nowadays?

ehrtt 9y ago

Another prescient text about how the internet and cryptography will change the logic behind the existence of nation states as we know them today is: The Sovereign Individual (James Dale Davidson & William Rees-Mogg) - highly recommend it, I felt like I was pulling back the curtain on the true workings of the world.

n8n3k 9y ago

Anyone starting a discussion about libertarianism and anarchism or Bitcoin in general in this thread is probably trolling and not interested in a serious discussion, so don't waste your time. (Maybe HN should have 1 Mega-Thread for all this stuff, like many subreddits have?)