Re: Is Cyberspace Rich Enough?

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Wei Dai wrote:

> I agree that cyberspace is certainly becoming more complex and
> interconnected.  However, just as a complex ecosystem is not necessarily
> more stable than a simple one, and a complex cipher is not necessarily
> more secure than a simple one, greater complexity in cyberspace does not
> necessarily imply that it is less vulnerable to to centralized control.

No, it doesn't ncecessarily imply less vulnerability, but the two are
empirically correlated. Monocultures are usually easier to control
than in systems where the citizen-units have rich connections and
diverse options.

> But if you wanted to exert greater control over others, you would also
> be pushing for increased dimensionality, because that shrinks the world
> and moves everyone closer to you.  If you look at history, increased

It's always dangerous reasoning from imprecise analogies, and all the
more dangerous reasoning about the mental images others have of such
analogies. Thus, I won't dispute Wei Dai's image of "moving closer" to
the government except to say that as the space shrinks, _many people_
move closer...and this means transactions not visible to the
government _also_ become more common.

In other words, one may be only "2 Internet handshakes from Al Gore,"
but this doesn't give Al Gore control over Joe User's encrypted
transactions with Ivan Hackerovich. 

> connectivity has always been necessary for increased central control.
> What I am saying is that increased connectivity alone does not
> necessarily favor decentralization.  What makes the difference is the
> details -- the nature of the connectivity.

Yes, of course. The nature is critical, and I would not claim
otherwise. (This is another reason long posts are often losers in the
Ratings Game: the longer the post the more nits can be picked. And so
threads often devolve into word games. And if I try to fix things by
writing even _more_, it just gets worse! :-} )

> I'm not quite so optimistic.  One way to control a distributed system
> such as the Internet would be to use a distributed method.  I.e., use
> something like the Internet Worm, but a thousand times subtler and more
> powerful.  There is no need for them to "stop the Net", just to subvert
> a substantial part of it.

In fact, I almost mentioned the Morris Worm, but held back. For one
thing, in a crypto-dominated, reputation-centered era, such rogue
programs are probably less likely. Safe computing, etc.

I'm less fearful that the Net will be attacked in this way than that
liability laws will be used to try to scare people into compliance. 

But these are other topics, which I'll treat separately.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay