Some non-cypherpunks seem afraid of Tim May's cryptoanarchy, which, to quote Dr. Denning's recent paper, "suggest the impending arrival of a Brave New World in which governments, as we know them, have crumbled, disappeared, and been replaced by virtual communities of individuals doing as they wish without interference." Perhaps these people are worrying needlessly. I don't think cryptoanarchy (in this strong form) is a likely scenario for the future. Even if strong cryptography and anonymous transaction systems are used by everyone, governments can continue to control people's physical actions and properties. The physical world will continue to exist, even if it becomes relatively less important. I think a better prediction for the implications of strong crypto is what I would call "weak cryptoanarchy." That is, cryptography will allow virtual communities the option to exist without the possibility of inteference by force. Certainly some virtual communities, such as moderated discussion groups, will opt to have formal or informal governments. The key is that people will have the choice of participating in communities where physical violence will be absolutely powerless. Stated in this form, cryptoanarchy is hardly controversial. Plus, this weak form of cryptoanarchy has a much better chance of being realized, because it does not require the collapse of existing governments, only the creation of new communities without governments.