I've been engaged in a background discussion with some folks about how to treat a new protocol, when to speak, etc. Elements of that discussion have become relevant to the list widely. The situation is thus. Ian Goldberg et al. have developed a protocol for simultaneous payer and payee anonymity. It appears to be novel, albeit not entirely unanticipated. The protocol works with the existing bank signing oracle and could interoperate with Mark Twain's current system. The suggestion was made, paraphrasing -- couldn't we just not talk about this too loudly yet? ... NO! Perhaps the single most important lesson I've learned from cypherpunks is that code alone doesn't cut it. Not code alone, not code widely distributed, not even code widely used. Some measure of toleration in society for activities conducted in private is _necessary_ for long term success. Not convenient, not easier, but necessary. The whole Clipper situation testifies to this. Unless there is a public concensus that people generally should be able to use their own cryptography, then such use will become marginalized. Legislatures will outlaw, the public will disapprove, and vigilantes will hunt down improper use. That, in my book, means we've lost. Code is clearly still necessary. Code demonstrates what actually happens. To write code is to invoke and evoke the latent and insufficiently articulated desires for privacy in the world at large. Similarly with anonymous transactions. Unless a similar concensus exists, we will have another marginal activity. Again, I count this a loss. Backlash will result from later disclosure that the payment systems we generally as cypherpunks have undisclosed properties, that we as a loose group have dissimulated and even lied outright about the capabilities of the systems we advocate. This backlash will wipe away many gains we might have made and eliminate the possibility of future ones. The backlash will be justified, because it will be the natural result of a demonstration of bad faith. One such demonstration now, and who would know when the next was coming, or that we had not hoarded encrypted agendas all along in our hearts? And then, since we would not be believed, all the propaganda of our opponents will triumph. The Four Horsepersons will come trotting out in grand inquisitional spectacle, and there will be no counterpoint, because the devil's advocate will have been discovered to have been guilty himself. It is foolishness itself to deceive a public which is substantially in favor of the program of complete privacy. We must appeal to the public that finally will decide, not to some officials today who have power and tomorrow who will not. Clipper itself was not defeated by constructive engagement with the Clinton wiretap administration. Clipper was defeated by a general call to arms. Therefore, shout out to the world that payee anonymity is possible with ecash(TM)! Eric