
The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto (1988) - SunbroSupreme
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/may-crypto-manifesto.html
======
macawfish
I don't understand the barbed wire metaphor. Couldn't crypto have the effect
of putting content that would otherwise be freely available in the current
internet behind monetary barriers? Couldn't cryptocurrencies enable further
control by monopolizing media industries? The technology is powerful, whether
or not it will be liberating is to be determined.

Edit: didn't realize this was from 1993! Amazing to read that perspective!

~~~
Ajedi32
As the saying goes: information wants to be free. In a world where everyone
can interact with each other completely anonymously that becomes even more
true, since governments cannot effectively penalize people for distributing
said information.

For example, imagine a version of The Pirate Bay hosted as a Tor hidden
service, combined with a completely anonymous torrent-like P2P file sharing
system.

~~~
optimuspaul
Ugh, I hate that "information wants to be free" nonsense. Information doesn't
want anything, it isn't a thing that can want. People want information and
very rarely do people actually want it to be free.

~~~
dragonwriter
People generslly want information they don't currently have but want to be
free for then to acquire. People often also want information they do currently
have to be expensive to other people to acquire.

~~~
Ajedi32
> People often also want information they do currently have to be expensive to
> other people to acquire.

I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, pirated copies of media
are typically created when someone legally purchases a copy of the work and
then publishes it for others to use entirely for free. I find it very hard to
believe that the people posting these pirated works want those works to be
expensive for others to acquire.

~~~
dragonwriter
> > People often also want information they do currently have to be expensive
> to other people to acquire.

> I don't think that's necessarily true.

You seem to have mistaken “often” for “always”.

------
Mc_Big_G
Relevant:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hbis7/us_congress...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hbis7/us_congress_going_full_1984_on_bitcoin_and_assets/)

TLDR; There's currently a bill to make cryptocurrencies illegal. (and other
stuff that the government can't control)

~~~
igk
Honestly, this seems like a reasonably sane bill. IANAL but it does not seem
to make cryptocurrencies illegal, more the opposite: it recognizes them as
cash and places the same requirements that other financial instruments have on
them...with a review period of 18 months. That seems _good_ for crypto more
than anything else.

If anyone knows more about this and wants to explain why I'm misunderstanding
this I'd be thankful :-)

~~~
skynode
Don't know what the _HN_ abbreviation, IANAL, means but in my ignorance it
just looks quite distasteful. :\

~~~
grkvlt
It isn't really specific to HN, It's been in use since the days of Usenet, as
I recall.

------
nannal
> The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology,
> citing national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and
> tax evaders...

Bitcoin

Silkroad

The crypto wars

The crypto wars 2: The empire strikes back

and that's just one poignant sentence in the fairly small but very accurate
manifesto.

~~~
matt4077
It's quite funny to see people promoting such conspiracy theories, considering
they've already been proven wrong by reality.

Apart from some banana republics, governments around the world have been
incredibly relaxed with regards to Bitcoin. The rules that have been
established are as favourable as anyone could imagine (i. e. trading being
exempt from VAT etc.).

Yes, they have insisted on existing rules, mostly of the know-your-customer
variety. It's funny you're citing "national security concerns, use of the
technology by drug dealers and tax evaders", as if those were just talking
points to hide the real reasons. Because for the life of me I can't think of
any other, legal, activity governments are trying to suppress by regulating
bitcoin. What exactly is that killer app of bitcoin that so frightens the
establishment?

~~~
tudorconstantin
"What exactly is that killer app of bitcoin that so frightens the
establishment?"

Right now in order to spend ones bitcoins (with a few exceptions) one has to
change them into fiat currency and that's where the establishment can monitor
and control the money flow.

What will happen when a critical mass of service providers and product sellers
will gladly accept crypto coins? That's when one can hide his cash reserves
from the prying eyes of the state. And they'll be able to pay smaller and
smaller taxes.

And I doubt that the establishment will be happy to have smaller and smaller
budgets at their disposal.

~~~
matt4077
Yes, probably. It's just slightly insane to think you can opt-out of paying
taxes via technology, or that taxes are somehow for the benefit of some
nebulous "establishment".

That's empirically true, for only a tiny sliver of very strange people still
fantasise about some Randian utopia of every-man-for-himself. And it's
logically inescapable, since there's no way to sustain today's societies
without the cooperation established by taxes.

~~~
cinquemb
> _since there 's no way to sustain today's societies without the cooperation
> established by taxes._

To the degree one can differentiate societies sustained by taxes from
sustained by lines of credit extended to societies in promise of future taxes
of which are now under question…

New "establishments"[0] will form that better serve those who reap the
benefits of engaging in crypto-economic behaviors, Old ones will die/become
obsoleted/increasingly ineffective at enforcing their diktats, some overlap of
functionalities may exist/remain between such. Same as it ever was.

10k software engineers effectively dodging/avoiding taxes on 100k/y of income,
who can organize/allocate resources to some other ends seems like a plausible
block of people to put up some effective asymmetrical resistance against taxes
to governments of various sizes over the world. Yet still a drop in the bucket
in terms of population size.

Do a few engineers who are unable to imagine such, really pose a threat
agaisnt people are/trying to create something new?

[0] I use this very loosely, could be traditional meat spaces ones, or
decentralized digital networks with active and passive mechanisms for ensuring
survival.

------
hownottowrite
And the follow-up: The Cyphernomicon (1994)
[http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.t...](http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.txt)

Ah memories...

~~~
komali2
Reminds me of the title my favorite book: cryotonomicon. Highly recommend it.

~~~
dredmorbius
Typo.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon)

------
davidw
If you haven't read it, there are some great bits in Cryptonimicon that kind
of captures the spirit of some of that crowd. Great book in any event.

~~~
INTPenis
What gets me is that I read that book before I discovered bitcoin. So when
bitcoin was brand new and worth only cents I looked at it like sci-fi and
doubted it would ever take off.

I'm still kicking myself over that.

~~~
davidw
Maybe there's something to learning about the tech itself, but actual bitcoins
seem like tulip bulbs to me.

------
CJKinni
I couldn't tell when this was written. It appears to be from 1993:

[http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/manifestos/cryptoanarc...](http://www.alamut.com/subj/ideologies/manifestos/cryptoanarchist.html)

Edit: See comments below. Turns out it's from 1988.

~~~
_jal
Yep. I remember when it was published. I was on the Cypherpunks list back
then, and it was a fascinating group for a while.

Tim May was a vocal, eloquent proponent of anarcho-capitalism[1], and believed
that crypto and the net were crucial tools that would tip the balance of power
between the individual and the state, cause an erosion of tax-collection
powers, and eventually tip the world into a mode of 'voluntary' interaction
that others, myself included, argued is indistinguishable from feudalism.

[1] For those of you who are aware of the various minute distinctions made
around these schools of thought, May proposed a very "hard" form, arguing that
'voluntary' agreement to slavery and whatnot were perfectly acceptable.

~~~
rama_dan
> a mode of 'voluntary' interaction that others, myself included, argued is
> indistinguishable from feudalism

Good thing you've got The State extorting and enslaving you then, to protect
you from that "feudalism".

~~~
bjl
I'd rather a democratically elected state than a cabal of wealthy warlords.

~~~
dwe3000
Interesting that you see a difference. Who do you think the democratically
elected are? "Wealthy ..."

~~~
bjl
Its telling that you don't see a difference.

And An-Caps never seem to understand why nobody takes them seriously.

------
andreasgonewild
It's an ongoing battle, even if eventual victory is inevitable. Plenty of work
remains to put convenient, strong encryption; not to mention anonymity; in the
hands of everyone all the time.

[https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis](https://github.com/andreas-
gone-wild/snackis)

------
hoistbypetard
I clicked thinking "I bet that's Tim May." I was not disappointed.

Some of his posts in the '90s were tough to read, but they were interesting
without fail. Anyone know if/where he posts nowadays?

------
raintrees
An entertaining exploration of this was recently written in "A Lodging of
Wayfaring Men" by Paul Rosenberg.

Those who fear the loss of the freedom that the Internet once represented (in
relation to recent battles of net neutrality, tor monitoring/capturing, fear
of brutal regimes' scrutiny and persecution, etc.) have yet another avenue of
hope.

I have a basic inspiration and hope in humans growing and learning, increasing
our ethics to begin to catch up to our technology.

------
DonCarlitos
And still, the rich get richer, the powerful even more so... cutting barbed
wire hasn't changed anything. Casts some serious shade on the power of crypto-
anarchy to change anything. Anarchy, like libertarianism, are lovely notions
with no direct roots in reality. Here's hoping blockchain democratizes and
makes more transparent at least part of the puzzle.

~~~
19eightyfour
It's not that there's anything wrong with the technology. It's just that
people can be exploited. And they get exploited. So the hierarchical power
structures remain in place.

Seriously, what better dream to plant in the slaves' minds but the idea that
"a simple little computer program" can set you free? And what better way to
control them and stifle their rising-up than by the constant deception that
they have more power than they do? Fools. They're all god-damned fools.

People talk about VR being 10 years away. We've already been living in it for
ages. The Matrix. Democratic Theatre. We've all been living in a dream world.
I think we like it here. Because, IMHO, most people would rather blame a
higher power for their sh*t than take responsibility to control their own
lives.

And whether that higher power's the state or some religion, doesn't matter. It
still sets up the same power dynamic that makes most people, IMHO, slaves.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> what better dream to plant in the slaves' minds but the idea that "a simple
> little computer program" can set you free?

Yet when people overthrow tyrannical governments to then establish democracy
the planning is done secretly.

And when tyrannical governments come to power the first thing they do is
monitor and restrict communication.

This has been true many times in history in the last hundreds years.

~~~
19eightyfour
I don't believe in encryption as a tool that can give any real asymmetry to an
individual or conspiracy against the State. I get that you do believe it can.

Another point is -- all governments monitor communications and we don't call
them tyrannical. Take the Germans. They're notorious. But people consider the
Germany government quite liberal.

Restricting communications does not have to be a tool of "cruel, unreasonable,
oppressive or arbitrary use of power or control." It can be deliberate,
reasoned and helpful. China restricts their communications and they enjoy a
lot of civil harmony, and a huge amount of national pride.

The media in the US practice a form of "information restriction and control"
by tightly directing the narratives, and editorial perspective ( and sometimes
even the facts ) that people are consuming. That's been the case for a long
time. No one's calling it a tyranny, even tho plenty of Americans distrust
authority.

I think your model of tyranny and your belief in crypto are unrealistic.

The reason I don't believe in crypto is because I consider everything as
"security theatre." IMHO, every single cryptosystem that exists has already
been broken. The pretense that it hasn't is just a charade.

Note: I believe in the _strong_ version of the above statement. That RSA / EC
/ AES / DES and so on are broken. But the weak version, that protocols,
physical monitoring, side channel attacks, and other vectors make every
practical cryptosystem broken is kind of born out by the events of the last
few years.

Whether you believe in the strong or the weak version of that statement the
net result is the same, no? I think so, anyway.

~~~
robotiamsowhat
Few loose marbles for your jigsaw, use as you please.

Lucky unhappy creature, you nailed it (at least if you ask me). Twice.

Circles of dreamers, merrily dancing around technodgod of their choice. Hail
Crypto!

"Optimism is cowardice", Spengler.

I am afraid that most people only care about just one thing, and dreaming does
not stand in a way of it, maybe even helps.

Feels terrible, to be shaken out of the dream, eh? OTOH, a real porridge, poor
smell but what an honor!

Universe goes towards maximum entropy, so reason is, in fact, against the
odds. Squared, if it happens on top of life.

It might be good nobody takes words too seriously. Blaming the messenger is
not nice on the receiving end. The species is going to harvest all that it
saws, both short and long term.

------
ehrtt
Another prescient text about how the internet and cryptography will change the
logic behind the existence of nation states as we know them today is: The
Sovereign Individual (James Dale Davidson & William Rees-Mogg) - highly
recommend it, I felt like I was pulling back the curtain on the true workings
of the world.

------
n8n3k
Anyone starting a discussion about libertarianism and anarchism or Bitcoin in
general in this thread is probably trolling and not interested in a serious
discussion, so don't waste your time.

(Maybe HN should have 1 Mega-Thread for all this stuff, like many subreddits
have?)

------
mempko
The comments here mention crypto currencies. However, currency is anathema to
anarchist societies and isn't mentioned in the manifesto. Anarchists recognize
that currencies and markets are products of the state and using this tool in a
stateless society makes no sense. A currency and markets primary purpose is to
provision the state. What would a crypto currency without a state provision?
Who does it serve? Bitcoin makes it clear it is the FPGA and ASIC operators
consuming vasts amount of energy.

~~~
AYBABTME
> A currency and markets primary purpose is to provision the state.

Not at all. "State" is a political constructions while currencies are a value
transport mechanism and markets are a network of those, both of which, as
"pure" concepts, arises pretty quickly when one starts to ponder how to model
"actors in need to exchange and use scarce resources which have alternative
uses".

In that sense, saying that "currencies and markets" have any particular
purpose (political at that) is like saying that someone invented the
concept/idea of "hash functions" for the purpose of serving P2P piracy, which
isn't the case: "hash functions" just are a thing that arises in the universe.
Same with currencies and markets, they're just pretty arbitrary, easy to come
up with, concepts.

~~~
mempko
You are wrong, they are inventions used for a political purpose. Try making
your own currency and markets if you want proof. Bitcoin is a perfect example.
Required millions of dollars to get off the ground, provisioned early adopters
like a ponzi scheme. Likely has state backing though I have no proof it's a
honey pot. Just gut feeling.

~~~
thephyber
> they are inventions used for a political purpose

I think you are conflating "fiat currencies" with "currencies". US Dollars are
a currency. Gold is a "currency". Bitcoin is a currency. Calling card credits
are a currency. Cigarettes in prison are a currency. Any store of value is a
currency -- whether created / authorized by a state or not.

If anarchists go back to a barter system, there will always be asymmetric
transactions that will require some sort of value store (basically an IOU for
a transaction that already happened) or cause inefficiencies in the market
(the buyer or seller would have to take a hit in order to complete a
transaction). Currency always has been to fill this purpose.

> Required millions of dollars to get off the ground

I would argue that if you chose to try and replace the old Gold System with
your Widgets System, you would also need lots of resources to convince others
to buy into your new currency. It's not about state power as much as other
people having faith in your currency keeping value, which is the only purpose
of a currency.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Any store of value is a currency

No, any medium of exchange is a currency. (That and the unit of account
function of money are deeply tied; while store of value is often cited as a
function of money, it's not deeply tied to the other two, and lots of things
that aren't money/currency fill it; the essential feature of currency is being
a medium of exchange.)

------
emmelaich
The author was a senior scientist at Intel.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_C._May)

------
antihero
It's lovely to think that our abilities allow us to have this comfort that no
matter what the dumb slow paced governments will do, we will run circles
around them, and as an anarchist that's never really found my self at peace
with the authorities that be, it's comforting to read some vague prose that
harps on about the things we can do because we're comfortably many steps
ahead, but I think there is a) I don't think we're beyond social
responsibility. We can't leave people behind, even if they are dumb and
ignorant, if we are escaping this horror that is a moronic attempt to dictate
our actions, we should at least try to drag our friends out of the path of
their ridiculous flamethrower. b) Complacency. I've always figured as long as
I can SSH, set up an OpenVPN, get to a server...I can do anything I like. This
isn't always certain, nothing is certain. Just going onto a guest network at
some shit company you are interviewing for and not getting shit past anything
that doesn't pass DPI is like whoa dude, given enough time we could crack it
but it isn't quite so easy. c) Inclusion...we make code, we do cool shit,
there are lots of people who have so many important things to do without the
technological upbringing we have that are so much easier for governments to
extinguish.

------
d0ne
"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long
periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as
trivial."

\- Arthur Schopenhauer, 1819

~~~
majewsky
I wonder which truths he's referring to there, considering how every truth
that was already known in that time seems even more trivial today. In other
words: Which truths were just passing the threshold from paradoxical to
trivial?

(Or maybe he's just referring to political truths which are coming to light at
about the same pace at all times.)

------
tomrod
Information isn't sapient. People want information, which gives information
value.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
People want information. But the people who want the information want it to be
free, so that they can get it for free. The people who create that information
usually want it to be expensive, and also to be controlled (so that they can
get paid). But all it takes is one person who paid for the information to
decide to redistribute it for free, and the game is over for that bit of
information.

Thus "freeing" is a one-way function for information. It's easy for
information to go from non-free to free, but it's almost impossible for
information to go from free to non-free. In that sense, information, by its
nature, "wants" (if we can anthropomorphize a bit) to be free, in the same
sense that matter "wants" to move to a lower energy state.

~~~
tomrod
> But the people who want the information want it to be free, so that they can
> get it for free.

Yes, and I also want every economic transaction in which I am demand side to
be priced at zero. That doesn't mean that because I deign to buy something
that I am unwilling to pay for it. Quite the opposite! I will pay for it up to
what I value it.

> But all it takes is one person who paid for the information to decide to
> redistribute it for free, and the game is over for that bit of information.

Yes, and that is a problem with non-exhaustive consumption of a resource. This
duplicatible nature of data is why data firms have contracts when they sell
information. The information existing in their databases has no
anthropomorphic yearning for liberty.

------
Gene5ive
Is this the new Neal Stephenson?

~~~
duskwuff
At the time this manifesto was written, Stephenson was just publishing his
first serious novel, _Zodiac_. He wasn't yet a well-known writer.

~~~
Gene5ive
oh shit you're right 0_0

------
moneytide1
While I do agree with this article's identification of the primary utility of
crytpocurrencies, we should consider the optimizations that it can provide
through a more effective use of resources. I'll go ahead and TL;DR here before
the succeeding wall of text:

Crypto currency will result in a net gain of useful resources by using pulses
of electrical current. Silver and gold are more useful for their elemental
properties rather than their primitive use as trading mediums.

The Physical and Socioeconomic Properties of Elements and Compounds

Gold, silver, platinum, and diamond. For the past ~6000 years, these three
elements and one carbon structure have been sought after mostly as mediums of
trade. “Various forms of livestock, in particular cattle, and grains were the
earliest forms used to settle trades and payment for good goods and services.
Cattle are hard to carry in your pocket and grains spoil so an alternative
currency was needed”. The value of these elements during the early economic
development is attributed to their scarcity, resistance to
corrosion/oxidization, tensile strength (except Au/Ag, which are very
malleable), structural integrity under extreme conditions (a diamond is
forever, just like the love between two people). These can thus be relied upon
to transfer value between two parties.

Advancements of the past 100 years have suggested new uses for these
materials. Certainly diamond will continue to be sought after for its utility
in drilling and abrasives, but the electrification of civilization has
suggested new uses for these materials. Silver has the highest electrical
conductivity of any element, but tarnishes easily when exposed to oxygen. It
replaced copper as a conductor during early 20th century war-time resource
rationing. Platinum has an extraordinary resistance to corrosion, and can be
used to coat electrodes to split water for hydrogen and oxygen extraction
(though extracting hydrogen from methane is more economical, but carbon
monoxide is a byproduct).

These materials are too expensive to replace copper, but why are they
expensive? Thousands of years of economics.

Silver dining utensils aren’t valued for their superior electrical
conductivity. A host/hostess sets out the “good silverware” for special
occasions when it would be advantageous to advertise wealth to others, or
because it comforting to hold value while eating a meal.

“Solid state electronic devices use very low voltages and currents which are
easily interrupted by corrosion or tarnish at the contact points.” The gold
stored in sovereign vaults guarded by pensioned government employees 24/7 is
not secured under these conditions because of its capacity to increase the
durability of electrical contacts. It is valuable because of it, but expensive
only because we are delaying the retirement of traditional mediums of resource
exchange.

The abrupt arrival of the digital age has produced technologies that continue
to eliminate the middlemen and inefficiencies that are parasitic to the
process of transferring value. Web payment services do much to reduce physical
transportation of metal and paper currencies, which saves energy and time and
therefore creates more value because it directly contests systems that were
already in place (though the modern currency thief is going to exploit network
vulnerabilities, in the same way train robbers would exploit vast, unsecured
distances between towns during the westward expansion of early America). The
blockchain is an even newer technology that is continuing to be refined, and
is expected to be immune to counterfeit and centralized control. Bitcoin and
Ethereum are the most widely used cryptocurrencies that use the blockchain,
and their value remains constant across all currencies. These concepts
(especially Ethereum) are the digital manifestations of the theory of
democracy - unhindered by loopholes, corruption, indecision, and private-
interests.

A re-evaluation of value transfer mediums is necessary because of things like
supercapacitor technology. Energy storage is the primary bottleneck in the
implementation of energy harvesting mechanisms, as the sun only gives usable
energy to a region for ~8 hours a day, and the rate at which the wind blows is
inconsistent, albeit predictable. Silver is a useful material, not because of
its electrical conductivity (which is on par with copper), but because its
unmatched ionic conductivity. The Lithium-ion battery functions because of the
exchange of ions between two conductive materials, and the energy density of a
cell relies on the composition of the anode, cathode, and electrolyte. The
primary determinant of this composition is the balance of value versus
performance. Prohibitive value only exists when there is competition for the
uses of a resource. Reduce this competition, and gain new utility.

~~~
tlb
This problem is also solved by fiat currency.

~~~
moneytide1
Certainly, but crypto has the advantage of being counterfeit-proof.

~~~
neaden
I have never in my life been concerned about counterfeit dollars. While I may
have unknowingly handled one at some point it's never come up or negatively
impacted me making that benefit marginal at best.

~~~
kleer001
It's not individual law abiding citizens that are worried about counterfeits.
It's a state level concern. Which seems odd to me that crypto's
uncounterfitability would be a selling point for said LACs.

~~~
matt4077
_Yawn_ Nobody cares about counterfeit cash. The technological gap b/w
counterfeiters and national mints has continuously expanded. Today, even most
countries have given up trying to update their technology, and have started
buying their bills from a small number of printers (i.e. Giesecke & Devrient).

More importantly, only a tiny fraction of money in circulation is actually
held in cash. Today, most countries could declare all cash worthless overnight
and it wouldn't have a major effect on the economy. All the infrastructure to
move to electronic payments is already in place, and trade could continue
unharmed.

