-- James A. Donald: > > Since cryptography these days is routine and > > uncontroversial, there is no longer any strong > > reason for the cypherpunks list to continue to > > exist.
John Kelsey > The ratio of political wanking to technical posts and > of talkers to thinkers to coders needs to be right for > the list to be interesting. These days, if one is seriously working on overthrowing the state by advancing to crypto anarchy (meaning both anarchy that is hidden, in that large scale cooperation procedes without the state taxing it, regulating it, supervising it, and licensing it, and anarchy that relies on cryptography to resist the state) it is not necessary or advisable to announce what one is up to. For example, Kerberos needs to be replaced by a more secure protocol. No need to add "And I am concerned about this because I am an anarchist" And so one discusses it on another list. (Kerberos tickets are small meaningful encrypted packets of information, when they should be random numbers. Being small, they can be dictionary attacked.) --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Y068Cy3Zv9GExXRbP24QJP5WmHGLz5VKyqNYFKbx 45fkOIGeiTkFnaM7p/URjB/kgn+0mcg8fMsMLmDy7