What are Appropriate Topics?

[Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>]

From: Timothy C. May

"As for pure crypto being discussed on the list, there's a fair amount
of that. I've posted my share of explanations of zero knowledge proof
systems, dining cryptographers protocols, complexity theory, etc. I'm
not saying this to defend myself, per se, but to note that these
topics produced almost no discussion, almost no interest. Make of this
what you will."

	I would say some reasons for the silence are that:

	.  those who have read your comments have not thought
	   extremely much about these themselves, so are not	
	   ready to add anything at the time.

	.  your treatment of the subject matter was thorough enough
	   that others don't feel the need to add further to your points.

	.  you presented some deep thoughts that require time to
	   digest & process.

	.  the ideas you have about future events may have no
	   present means to carry them out, good as they may be,
	   and the way from point A to point B is not yet possible
	   to achieve, as no practical method or system could yet
	   be constructed.

"* what happens to tax collection in an era of unbreakable cyphers?
  * how will the state react?"

	I would add:  how will the general population react,
	when their security blanket is rendered ineffective?
	(* crypto anarchy issues from the perspective of the
	    other side)

* what's really holding back the spread of digital cash?

	What is the status of the work on this?  I would like to keep
	up with its progress, if there are sources for the information.
	(besides The Economist)

* where do we go from here?

	[Who's 'we', Kimosabe?  :>) ]
	Where was anyone planning to go? There isn't anywhere
	else to go, physically, so it's necessary to resolve the
	problem of interacting in the same place at the same
	time with opposing methodologies.  How does that work?
	(You aren't going to be invisible all the time, nor to everyone.)
		
"..."Cypherpunks write code" is just one manifestation of the idea that 
we can actually change the world through the technological development 
of privacy-enhancing systems..."

	And privacy-enhancement isn't the *only* thing which
	will change the world, is it?  There are other forces of
	cause-effect and influence which determine people's
	reactions to each other and to the problems of living.

	It lies within the broader subject of 'control':  self-control,
	self-determination, as managed by the individual.  This is where
	the controversy occurs - whether any or only some individuals
	shall be 	"permitted" to excercise it, and to what tolerable degree,
	and who shall be the "authority" that makes that decision.
	Much as some on the list would wish otherwise,
	"privacy-enhancement" goes in the direction of favoring the
	individual above the group, and this is difficult for some people
	to live with.

I have seen some of Tim's ideas for future possibilities in terms of 
things which could come to pass or could be achieved, but I realized 
that I have not seen anything from him to indicate any projects which 
he is actually working on to bring these about.  You do communicate a 
lot of information & ideas and do much work of explaining & clarifying 
fuzzy areas, which is excellent & valuable, but it still waits for 
others to put together the actual parts & pieces of things, if they are 
to be brought into actual existence as functional systems which can be 
employed and which can affect future conditions. "For want of a 
horseshoe, the war was lost."

I would like to read more on what you have to say about this, as you 
are the pre-eminent poster on the list who likes to digress into 
abstract discussion.

Blanc