[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
Responding to msg by [email protected] (Black
Unicorn) on Sun, 17 Sep 6:39 PM
>If some other 'punks want to get together and fund such
>projects, I will participate. However, putting the
>burden of financing this venture (which will have no
>immediate economic return, as I will support no venture
>which does not result in fully public software)
What are the prospects of privacy-enhancing programing funded
by contributors for non-commercial, non-governmental, "fully
public software?" I would tithe, modestly but durably, to such
work if I believed the promise. They call me Ishmael Sixpack.
John Gilmore's (and others'?) underwriting toad is impressive.
Along with the voluntary (?) effort of Hugh Daniels (and
others, I don't know how toad survives).
What else might be done cypherpunk-wise if material resources
were available? And under what conditions and arrangements? The
discussion of Mixmaster commercialization is instructive. And
Julf's and the other remailers survivability and longevity in
the face of attacks.
How could the contributions be made without contaminating the
product? No joke.
Or, are only individually initiated and self-funded programs
trustworthy, when all is said and done? And no planned program
as rewarding as the eclectic irregulated.
And bartering and bickering and rending and mending the only
reputable method of exchange of the tumultuous souk.