I think this says is that it is important to apply the appropriate tools when it is apropos and the situation calls for it, but not when there isn't sufficient cause to warrant the time & trouble.

Interesting. I beleive this attitude will probably be what the future holds for crypto, just using it when it is necessary, like for carrying out commercial transactions via email. Which is to say crypto will not be in main stream "cypherpunks" usage, but just something extra to use once in a while. And if it only needs to be used once in a while, there will be no good reason to implement some of the more interesting protocols, or implement the "maximum strength" possible. See, the problem with the above attitude (not attacking who wrote it, just the attitude itself!) is that when there is sufficient cause to warrant the time and trouble, there will be an even more appealing alternative, which asks you to trade a bit of the advantages of the former. Months ago, Tim May posted about outlawing cash, and how it may be disguised as an effort to stamp out crime, check on welfare recipients, etc. For the overwhelming majority of people, the benefits of "digital cash" will not be worth the time and trouble over "digital cash with anonimity removed", which is probably what kind of digital cash the future will bring. As for encrypting all email, much like people use envelopes? Be honest, there isn't sufficient cause to warrant the time and trouble. It's easy and convenient for people to use envelopes. But encryption needs to be integrated into mailers and communications software before it will even start to be convenient for everybody to use, and even then the security is an illusion on multi-user systems. I guess crypto suffers from the problem computers had several years ago: they were solutions searching for problems. Time needs to go by, and by then, it will be too late. Nor is there sufficient cause to warrant the time and trouble of signing messages sent to mailing lists or usenet. Nobody cares or will even check the signature of posts; most see signature info as irritating extra lines and wasted bandwidth. Nor is there sufficient cause to warrant the time and trouble of communicating via anonymous remailers, except for say folks like Pr0duct Cypher. Which is one person out of how many people using the internet? Nor is there sufficient cause to warrant the time and trouble for banks and stores to offer digital cash. Where is the advantage for them? The advantages for individuals is clear: keep dossiers and info from being tabulated about them. Jim Choate asked this question a few days ago, and got no responses (or maybe it was drowned out among the atomic bomb posts). I agree with what he said, unless there is some good advantage for the bank or store, it isn't going to happen. As for dc-nets, give me a solid example why you ever need to communicate with one. A good enough example to explain why the man-months or man-years need to be put into developing one. Of course, on a multi-user system, the security is again illusory since the system operator can tap you anyway. A while ago somebody (I think I remember but don't want to put words in their mouth since I'm not 100% positive) doubted the future impact of crypto. Me too, I see a limited deployment, and almost no fundamental restructuring of society. So basically the protocols are interesting in an academic way, and we could sit here and discuss the possibilities, but then I suppose a discussion about atomic bombs will likely be of greater impact on our future than crypto anarchy will. Cypherpunks write code, but if there is sufficient cause to warrant the time and trouble!