Hey Tim.
I've got a great idea. Let's ignore each other.
Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
[...that he wasn't talking about anarchy...]
The only real difference is that the functions of government are
distributed instead of being vested in particular people.
Which is pretty near a definition of anarchy according to my anarchist
friends.
[...]
Bell's AP
Yep. Brands' book is out from MIT Press, so it's even accessible.
(Well, relatively accessible; I keep planning on finishing it RSN.)
For someone to ask on cypherpunks for pointers to basic crypto
concepts and ignoring reading lists is like someone posting to a
political mailing list and asking
At 11:48 PM -0700 4/22/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
I have been studying cryptographic protocols for consensus action
of late, and I have come to a somewhat startling conclusion.
If a society is sufficiently rich in cryptographic protocols, there
is no need for anyone to work for a government.
Cf.
into a war against their will if the
laws requiring that get passed.
In nature, a crypto state is not necessarily any more free than
a republic, or a democracy (you use the term sheepocracy to
denote the tyranny of the majority problem), or even a centrally-
planned socialist state. It *has
others.
In fact, acts
of rebellion and rage are the single worst possible thing that
could be done, and will actively prevent a crypto state from
arising.
Bell's AP paper may not have been where the seed came from
originally, but aside from pointers at some science-fiction
books with zero technical
