Cypherpunks & cypherwonks, we have all witnessed first hand a great tension in our groups from the beginning, and I am sincerely upset by this wretched animosity. Someone is bouncing my postings to cypherpunks to the cypherwonks list anonymously, and it appears that other cypherpunks have surreptitiously infiltrated the cypherwonk list to promote pseudospoofing. Cypherpunks, I think we can get along if we both continue to observe courtesy and honor, as your leader E.Hughes requested some time ago in a message to both groups. This is my own attempt to resolve some of the friction, and I hope you will receive it in the best of spirits. I believe this will better aid everyone on both lists in choosing which to contribute to, and to avoid being publicly stigmatized or widely ignored for violations in the charters. Let me remind everyone on both lists the general purpose of both: The cypherpunks are interested in identity camouflage techniques in the name of `privacy', such as pseudospoofing. Members are highly suspicious of any government structure or any identification scheme whatsoever, to say the least, and are in general interested in evading and subverting these mechanisms. They are seeking to develop or press completely untraceable transactions into all realms of human endeavor, *particularly* economic ones. Traditionally this has been called `black marketeering' and `tax evasion' but the Cypherpunks object to these terms. Toward this goal, Cypherpunks are promoting Chaumian systems, in mostly very secretive development projects. In fact, Mr.Hughes recently met with Chaum in Dallas, I understand, so that both may further progress in this area, including setting up a credit union (credit unions are exempt from many banking restrictions the cypherpunks consider oppressive and invasive of privacy). Finally, the cypherpunks are also interested in infiltrating the media with accounts of their movement, as long as they are wholly complimentary and do not reveal the underlying libertarian extremist philosophy. The catchwords are `privacy for the masses' and `the cryptographic revolution.' Cypherwonks find identity camouflage techniques such as pseudoanonymity extremely dangerous, although we believe there is a place for straight anonymity in certain forums, where lack of identitification is not sensitive (such as outside of serious project development and our own list). We are interested in developing new structures that allow us to distinguish between fake and real identities and screen out the the former, using such things such as voluntary identity registration servers. We believe that all human interaction is based to some degree on trust, and this frequently involves the necessity of traceable transactions in most realms, *particularly* economic ones. We think that `black marketeering' and `tax evasion' are quite toxic for social harmony, and are quite aghast to see these dangerous philosophies promoted in Cyberspace to advocate `cryptoanarchy', or, simply, lawlessness. Toward our goals, we have started our new list and are building up new infrastructures for `Electronic Democracy' and other systems to help ensure that trust is not betrayed in Cyberspace. We see Cyberspace as an untamed wilderness that must be ridden of its more anarchic and pathogenic features before anyone can begin living here. We are open to everyone who is interested, no projects are kept secret from anyone, and to the contrary we abhor any sort of conspirational secrecy on the Internet, which we think is highly destructive to its essential nature. We are working toward systems such as `Internet mercantile protocols' that may not necessarily ensure total anonymity in all transactions (it is not our major design criteria, contrary to the cypherpunks). Finally, we are horrified to hear of a lie of any sort, whether it be from a fake identity, from a leader, or in the media, and we will even attempt to expose lies where we stumble on them, sometimes tenaciously if necessary. Media exposure and credit are not our main goals, but as this will inevitably appear, we will make our intentions clear. We are more conservative than radicals; we are not ourselves extremists, but moderates. The slogan is, `Civilizing Cyberspace'. I hope that Mr. Hughes or other cypherpunks do not object to the summarization above of the purpose of his mailing list. He and Mr. May have been sensitive in the past on topics that appear there and I assume they will correct it if it has erroneously characterized the official cypherpunk group agenda. Another statement on `privacy' can be found in soda.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks/rants. The summary above is based on my own extensive experience on the list and intense research involving ~5000 messages I have traded with perhaps hundreds of different cypherpunks and the leaders over approximately a year now (I will present more documentation on the Cypherpunk agenda and culture in the future). Those who question this characterization of the directions of the Cypherpunks should read the message appended to the end of this letter below. * * * I list the cypherpunks and cypherwonk group charters so that everyone in both groups can clearly understand the purpose of both, and perhaps in the future we can avoid conflicts due to a lack of understandings in the charters. If these arise, I have the following recommendations to all members of both groups. If you see something you might consider `flamebait', or deliberately provocative text that violates the charter, the most devastating response is to completely *ignore* it both publicly and privately. Imagine that the poster is advocating something completely depraved like child molesting. You do not want to have any such association with such a person, and perhaps the only response, if any, is a few lines `your posts are not welcome here' or `please seek counseling' sent in private email. If you can be provoked into childish retributions in response to childish provocations, it only unequivocally demonstrates your own childishness. The agent provacateur measures success by his perception of the depth of the damage he causes. Bouncing posts (either to individuals or mailing lists), mailbombs, and screeching obscenities in email are unjustified in any case. Your task is to embody the courtesy and politeness that your attacker lacks to effectively neutralize the attack. A vicious counterattack only leads to further escalation, perhaps to very unpleasant circumstances to all parties involved. This, to me, is the true spirit of humanity. Shouts are not neutralized with other shouts but compassion or *silence*. I sincerely hope that members of both groups can help develop systems that minimize the disruptions of the disreputable postings we both have been tormented by, e.g. those that are anonymous, pseudonymous, or pseudoanonymous. I think that we will all be far more productive and far less paranoid when we work in a cyberspatial atmosphere that by enforcing rules of courtesy, trust, and honor, basks in all. * * * Now, I have a few thoughts about `animosity' and `enmity' that I would like to share with both groups in the holiday spirit. I think we all recognize that the most noble human virtues are likewise the most difficult to consistently practice, particularly in situations that would seem to have plummeted into mudslinging in the gutter. But I would advise everyone that enmity and hatred, like love, are in the eyes of the beholder. Or, perhaps, rather, they are in the stomach, and they will eat away like an ulcer until you realize that hatred is never an appropriate human emotion, and enmity is inherently abnormal and unnatural. If you have any enemies, something is remiss in the world such that this venemous hatred developed. When we love or hate others, we are reacting to the essential characteristics of our own nature that are assuaged or attacked in others' presence. Furthermore, everyone should recognize the sort of `cosmic link' that you share with your enemies and loved ones. You are fated to be drawn to them over you lifetime because of the resonance between you. It is a natural law as inescapable as magnetism. I am reminded of the utterly despondent situations of war and violence in the world, of bitter racism and vicious nationalism that chain the peoples of the world to their personal hells. These are all cycles that replay over lifetimes unless broken by developing a strong aversion to strong hatreds of any kind. I remember when I was young, maybe somewhere around eight years old, I had misbehaved for some unremembered reason and my parents made me go to my room for several hours. I felt absolutely betrayed, disgusted, and viciously revengeful. I can remember thinking that I would never forget the appalling affront to my independence as long as I lived, and hoping something evil would happen to my parents -- literally, that they would die. I don't know where this poisonous anger came from. I was quite an angry kid in my younger years, and I remember episodes of my past with great shame and embarrassment now, and this one stands out strongly among all. I have heard of similar anecdotes from others, perhaps it is part of the underside of many people's childhoods. I hope that the consequences of my hatred have been erased just as my memory of the episode has faded despite my vow. But I shall never forget what black evil my mind had been polluted with for some hours. If the memory fades but the frustration persists, it is poisonous hate. I tell this story not so that you can quote me and ridicule me and throw this back in my face to prove that I am a dangerously, mentally unbalanced individual. I am telling you this to say that I am ashamed of vicious hatred in any form, and that my own animosities rarely last longer than a single letter. If they continue and persist, it is because something in the world is seriously awry, that the source of my frustration persists. When our attempts to resolve that which troubles us meet impregnable brick walls, one's frustration mounts. If anyone has been erecting these barbed wire fences in anyone's path, I ask you to stop the bleeding and take them down. In some ways, I have learned more over the last few months about fellow human beings than I have learned in my whole lifetime. It makes me nauseous to realize that I have ever made an enemy. But on the other hand, I have recognized in my short existence as a human being that many of the other passengers on Earth actually hate people for their better accomplishments, and use the slightest excuse to erect a barbed wire fence of enmity. They hate anyone who takes a strong stand on any issue, particularly if it involves their own most sacred vices. They will subject that person to the most scathing, vicious ad hominem attacks conceivable to he and his circle of friends and associates, even while they know that person is doing nothing but holding a mirror to their own deceptions and hypocrisies. But we cannot escape our own vices in the presence of others. Only sociopaths do not ever constructively criticize or listen to each other. And every extent and manifestation of social stigma is due a true sociopath by a society with any integrity. One of the consequences of hatred is `demonizing' someone, which Mr. T.C.May has advised against on numerous occasions, and his words drip with profundity. To all those who demonize anyone (including myself), I ask-- is it frustration or enmity? The difference is that if what you are railing against was resolved, and a window or doorway suddenly appeared in the brick wall, you would be elated and delighted if you were satirizing or constructively criticizing someone, and you would immediately forgive them. But if what you have is poisonous enmity, you would like to see this person die a cruel death no matter what switch in fortune or rays of light the future brings. ``They cannot ever be forgiven.'' This is hatred. And it burns like some insidious virus invading the flesh; it is fed by the creep of corruption and destruction. It replicates, it propagates, it reaches critical mass, it inevitably explodes like a nuclear bomb. Think about that a moment. Do you really want to see your enemies die? Imagine that some catastrophic misfortune visited your most hated enemy, that he *did* die a cruel death. Would you be intensely sorry or elated? Imagine that your enemies die the death of Marie Antoinette, Joan of Arc or Jesus Christ. Their grisly fates were the logical conclusion of the guillotine, fires, and spikes of your hatred. When your enemy *does* die a grisly death, beware of public backlash against the beheadings, stake-burnings, or crucifixions you watched, sanctioned, or championed. Be careful that your Movement or Revolution is inherently moral, controlled, and restrained, that thieves, criminals, psychopaths, and traitors are not hiding within it, that you are not warping the ideals you claim to embrace, that your excesses are not sowing the seeds of your own destruction, and that your own head is secure from the bloody blade. He who lives by the Guillotine will die by it. Sometimes, in retrospect, silence is seen as complicity. Sometimes, the riotous mob turns to feed on itself. Sometimes, when the prey dies, the predators become the hunted. * * * In the true spirit of Christmas, I would like to `unilaterally' forgive anyone and everyone who has attacked me in the past months. I feel no bitterness over your 4 or 5 letters to my postmaster, your massive sendsys and mail bombs, your harassment of those in the cypherwonks group, your lies, your treacheries, your betrayals, your treasons against friends, followers, and bystanders, and enemies alike. But forgiveness is futile unless the feelings of remorse are mutual and not unilateral. I ask others to forgive me for whatever ways I have truly wronged you, and you to cease and apologize for whatever ways you have wronged me (I have apologized to all cypherpunks in my posting, Embarassment, Humiliation, Shame, and an Apology). I ask you to distinguish between a vicious, spiteful attack and a message that actually hides the concern, `I am doing absolutely everything conceivable to prevent you from walking off a cliff, and if that makes me your enemy for doing so, so be it, because, as painful as my words and actions are for both of us, to me your life is more valuable than our friendship. To me your life *is* our friendship.' I ask all the Cypherpunks and Cypherwonks to find virtue in this tumultuous world we call home, to find some kind of moderation, sensibility, and virtue where it is desperately needed. I pray that we will all help bring not the world's darkness, but its light, to Cyberspace. Following is a letter from an eminent, avuncular cypherpunk, which helped me to release some of my own pent up frustration that has been bubbling and churning for many weeks now. This was written in response to my posting to the Cypherpunks, `Humility, Embarrassment, Shame, and an Apology.' Merry Christmas Happy Holidays Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Men L.Detweiler ===cut=here=== To: L.Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu> Subject: Re: Embarrassment, Humiliation, Shame, and an Apology

Above all, please do not construe my heartfelt sincerity as ... satire.

It _is_ difficult. What it does sounds like ... is the result of brainwashing. I have no interest at all in a thoughtless follower, and whatever faults your postings exhibited, lack of reconceptualization was not among them. Mind you, I thought most of those rethinkings were incorrect, yet I never faulted you for being uncreative. Democracy is the best way yet discovered for controlling centralized power, yet it is my opinion that the way to proceed is to eliminate the central powers and replace them with distributed powers. Therefore I disagree that the best goal is the extension of democracy into every realm. In deciding what mix of products an economy makes, for example, only dollar-votes make sense; to democratize production by one-person/one-vote would lead to a command economy similar to the ex-Soviet Union. I consider there to be an underexplored realm of distinctions between what systems are only amenable to centralized power (in which we choose democracy) and what systems may support distributed power (in which we may choose markets or other systems). You are interested in democracy; perhaps you could think about what systems still require centralization, and why.

I think that ... tentacle S.Boxx has demonstrated the damage that can be done with pseudoanonymity. He ought to be [viciously, violently punished] ...

If one can avoid the thought of violence in the pit of one's despair, then one is well on the way to a peacable nature. Whatever the faults the postings of S. Boxx may have had, the physical body behind the pseudonym is in no way deserving of violence.