~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Doug Cutrell offered some well thought out speculations on the social consequences of "crypto anarchy" in an essay he just posted to the list. I would like to respond to a few of his comments. Doug wrote: ... it is imperative that cypherpunks,... consider carefully what social impact these changes may have.... cypherpunks should examine ways to influence the deployment and patterns of use of strong crypto tools in society, and not merely consider the construction of the tools alone.... With all due respect, I think this has already been done by most Cypherpunks. We have looked at societal trends, seen problems, posited strong crypto as the solution to some of those problems and examined the consequences of strong crypto solutions. No one is writing code just to write code. The Cypherpunks list has always been ideologically driven. Though Cypherpunks cover the political spectrum, they have put aside sectarian differences to work towards the narrow ideology of personal privacy. At the same time, we have always thought about crypto "side effects." ... man is a social animal. We are evolved to survive through cooperative interactions with each other.... There are universal properties of interaction which create the social body in these species, and in all human societies throughout history. These properties depend fundamentally on the publicly visible nature of most social interactions.... Well, here I must disagree. While there is no disputing that man is a social animal, I find the last claim untenable. There are numerous historical forms of cooperative interaction that do not depend--"fundamentally" or otherwise--on a "publicly visible" interaction (e.g., postal mediated relationships, private clubs and other private relationships and most aspects of the market). Individual social animals exist in a relationship to the social body deriving from the visibility of their actions to others. This *defines* individuality.... While this is an interesting concept of individuality, it doesn't jive with any definition I've ever heard. If you were the only person on the planet, you would be just as much an "individual" (perhaps MORE so) than you are with 5.5 billion other folks blocking your view of the parade. ... Strong crypto -- the tools of crypto anarchy -- represents a break in these primal functions upon which the social body is based.... it is not only a first for human societies, but a first for all of biological evolution.... nodes -- "individuals" -- may appear and disappear over extremely short time periods, as anonymous identities come and go. All nodes may have any number of unknowable links, or links which are unknowable by arbitrarily large sections of the net. Links may have new properties, such as asymmetry of identity. Individual nodes may "unknowably" represent (equate with) entire collections of other nodes. The point is that the social structure is altered along dimensions that have been constant since the dawn of the evolution of social animals. Here is the crux of the matter. Doug obviously believes that crypto anarchy represents a paradigm shift or quantum leap in human interaction. I don't think so. every one of the "unique" properties Doug claimed existed for crypto anarchy already exists in the non-crypto society. I won't (unless asked) enumerate such analogs, but I will give two "clues" as an exercise for the student: John Paul Jones and Delaware corporations. [1] This picture implies the development of something radically different than what we now think of as a social body. [2] It is far more complex, with new types of basic components and operations. [3] There is no reason to expect it to resemble any society in the history of man, or to bear any resemblance to any social body which has evolved to date... [1] Only if the picture is correct, which has not been shown. [2] Granted, it is more complex, but really "new components" has yet to be demonstrated. [3] I most heartily disagree. Humans are conservative; when they make progress, it usually looks like an extension of what went before. (Ever notice how the first autos looked like buggies? Why do computer graphic interfaces use "desk" and "folder" metaphors?) There is *every* reason to expect crypto anarchy will resemble historical social models. ... For my purposes, desirable changes would include an increased standard of living for all humans, increased communications ... undesirable changes would include ... Crypto anarchy is coming whether we like it or not. With it, your hopes and fears are much more in your hands then they have ever been before. I hope we all use our super powers for good rather than evil. In any event, the cat is out of the bag. ... it seems that a reasonable approach would be to conduct computer simulations of the spontaneous forms of self organization that occur in populations participating under various game-theoretic and economic models, when these populations have access to strong crypto.... In my opinion (offered without a shred of proof), (1) it ain't gonna happen, (2) wouldn't work even if it did happen. In closing, I want to thank Doug for refocusing discussion of social implications in such organized and thoughtful way. I want to reiterate, this is not something that Cypherpunks have not thought about and discussed before. Nevertheless, it is always good to go over old ground if it can be done in a reasoned and comprehensive manner. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~