Duncan Frissell wrote:

Did anyone make the point (I gave up on the thread) that we already have a great Crypto Anarchy MUD with lots of the coding already done. We call it the Internet. Digital cash, strong crypto, remailers, everything.

Tim May expressed doubt that it was worth the effort: Not much easier than the real thing, and not as good. That's the closest to your point, I think.

I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on a computer in any case when the whole system is a game. Word processing, spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game. And they pay you to play it.

I've never figured out why anyone would play games at all -- the whole universe is all a game too. For whatever reason, some people (including me) like to play games. I've been working on a MUD anyway, and the question is whether it would be interesting enough to add crypto-anarchy aspects to it to be worth the effort. Obviously you think not. There are a few significant differences: We don't have fully anonymous digital cash, and not everyone can issue it. Strong crypto isn't universally deployed. Remailers don't allow easy two-way traffic. Few employers are willing to pay pseudonymous entites. You don't get imprisioned or killed for too-risky behavior on a MUD. Running a MUD invites less unwelcome attention than do some of the services discussed on cypherpunks. Finally, a MUD has the potential to spread crypto-anarchic ideas to people who would not otherwise have considered them. It may be that I'm wasting my time, but I could come up with some useful new crypto protocol too.

DCF

Jon Leonard