Philosophy/1994-The-Cyphernomicon
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

First draft formatting of Introduction

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Sam Patterson 2014-04-15 21:00:39 -04:00
parent 00fd524e97
commit 0b629dfaed
1 changed files with 176 additions and 174 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

350
01-Introduction/01-Introduction.md
View File

@ -71,191 +71,193 @@ THE CYPHERNOMICON: Cypherpunks FAQ and More, Version 0.666, 1994-09-10, Copyrig
- that governments essentially cannot stop most of these approaches, short of establishing a police state (and probably not even then)
- core issues of identity, authentication, pseudonyms, reputations, etc.
- Who Should Read This
- "Should I read this?"
- Yes, reading this will point you toward other sources of
information, will answer the most commonly asked questions,
and will (hopefully) head off the reappearance of the same
tired themes every few months.
- Use a search tool if you have one. Grep for the things that
interest you, etc. The granularity of this FAQ does not
lend itself to Web conversion, at least not with present
tools.
+ What _Won't_ Be Covered Here
+ basic cryptography
+ many good texts, FAQs, etc., written by full-time
cryptologists and educators
- in particular, some of the ideas are not simple, and
take several pages of well-written text to get the
point across
## 1.4 Who Should Read This
- "Should I read this?"
- Yes, reading this will point you toward other sources of
information, will answer the most commonly asked questions,
and will (hopefully) head off the reappearance of the same
tired themes every few months.
- Use a search tool if you have one. Grep for the things that
interest you, etc. The granularity of this FAQ does not
lend itself to Web conversion, at least not with present
tools.
+ What _Won't_ Be Covered Here
+ basic cryptography
+ many good texts, FAQs, etc., written by full-time
cryptologists and educators
- in particular, some of the ideas are not simple, and
take several pages of well-written text to get the
point across
- not the focus of this FAQ
- basic political rants
- basic political rants
1.5. Comments on Style and Thoroughness
1.5.1. "Why is this FAQ not in Mosaic form?"
- because the author (tcmay, as of 7/94) does not have Mosaic
access, and even if did, would not necessarily....
- linear text is still fine for some things...can be read on
all platforms, can be printed out, and can be searched with
standard grep and similar tools
1.5.2. "Why the mix of styles?"
+ There are three main types of styles here:
- Standard prose sections, explaining some point or listing
things. Mini-essays, like most posts to Cypherpunks.
+ Short, outline-style comments
- that I didn't have time or willpower to expand into
prose format
- that work best in outline format anyway
- like this
+ Quotes from others
- Cypherpunks are a bright group. A lot of clever things
have been said in the 600 days x 40 posts/day = 24,000
posts, and I am trying to use what I can.
+ Sadly, only a tiny fraction can be used
- because I simply cannot _read_ even a fraction of
these posts over again (though I've only saved
several thousand of the posts)
- and because including too many of these posts would
simply make the FAQ too long (it's still too long, I
suppose)
## 1.5. Comments on Style and Thoroughness
- "Why is this FAQ not in Mosaic form?"
- because the author (tcmay, as of 7/94) does not have Mosaic
access, and even if did, would not necessarily....
- linear text is still fine for some things...can be read on
all platforms, can be printed out, and can be searched with
standard grep and similar tools
- "Why the mix of styles?"
+ There are three main types of styles here:
- Standard prose sections, explaining some point or listing
things. Mini-essays, like most posts to Cypherpunks.
+ Short, outline-style comments
- that I didn't have time or willpower to expand into
prose format
- that work best in outline format anyway
- like this
+ Quotes from others
- Cypherpunks are a bright group. A lot of clever things
have been said in the 600 days x 40 posts/day = 24,000
posts, and I am trying to use what I can.
+ Sadly, only a tiny fraction can be used
- because I simply cannot _read_ even a fraction of
these posts over again (though I've only saved
several thousand of the posts)
- and because including too many of these posts would
simply make the FAQ too long (it's still too long, I
suppose)
- I hope you can handle the changes in tone of voice, in
styles, and even in formats. It'll just too much time to
make it all read uniformly.
1.5.3. Despite the length of this thing, a vast amount of stuff is
missing. There have been hundreds of incisive analyses by
Cypherpunks, dozens of survey articles on Clipper, and
thousands of clever remarks. Alas, only a few of them here.
- And with 25 or more books on the Internet, hundreds of FAQs
and URLs, it's clear that we're all drowning in a sea of
information about the Net.
- Ironically, good old-fashioned books have a lot more
relevant and timeless information.
1.5.4. Caveats on the completeness or accuracy of this FAQ
+ not all points are fully fleshed out...the outline nature
means that nearly all points could be further added-to,
subdivided, taxonomized, and generally fleshed-out with
more points, counterpoints, examples
- like a giant tree...branches, leaves, tangled hierarchies
+ It is inevitable that conflicting points will be made in a
document of this size
- views change, but don't get corrected in all places
- different contexts lead to different viewpoints
- simple failure by me to be fully consistent
- and many points raised here would, if put into an essay
for the Cypherpunks list, generate comments, rebuttals,
debate, and even acrimony....I cannot expect to have all
sides represented fully, especially as the issues are
often murky, unresolved, in dispute, and generally
controversial
- inconsistencies in the points here in this FAQ
- Despite the length of this thing, a vast amount of stuff is
missing. There have been hundreds of incisive analyses by
Cypherpunks, dozens of survey articles on Clipper, and
thousands of clever remarks. Alas, only a few of them here.
- And with 25 or more books on the Internet, hundreds of FAQs
and URLs, it's clear that we're all drowning in a sea of
information about the Net.
- Ironically, good old-fashioned books have a lot more
relevant and timeless information.
- Caveats on the completeness or accuracy of this FAQ
+ not all points are fully fleshed out...the outline nature
means that nearly all points could be further added-to,
subdivided, taxonomized, and generally fleshed-out with
more points, counterpoints, examples
- like a giant tree...branches, leaves, tangled hierarchies
+ It is inevitable that conflicting points will be made in a
document of this size
- views change, but don't get corrected in all places
- different contexts lead to different viewpoints
- simple failure by me to be fully consistent
- and many points raised here would, if put into an essay
for the Cypherpunks list, generate comments, rebuttals,
debate, and even acrimony....I cannot expect to have all
sides represented fully, especially as the issues are
often murky, unresolved, in dispute, and generally
controversial
- inconsistencies in the points here in this FAQ
1.6. Corrections and Elaborations
+ "How to handle corrections or clarifications?"
- While I have done my best to ensure accuracy, errors will
no doubt exist. And as anyone can see from reading the
Cypherpunks list, nearly *any* statement made about any
subject can produce a flurry of rebuttals, caveats,
expansions, and whatnot. Some subjects, such as the nature
of money, the role of Cypherpunks, and the role of
reputations, produce dozens of differing opinions every
time they come up!
- So, it is not likely that my points here will be any
different. Fortunately, the sheer number of points here
means that not every one of them will be disagreed with.
But the math is pretty clear: if every reader finds even
one thing to disagree with and then posts his rebuttal or
elaboration....disaster! (Especially if some people can't
trim quotes properly and end up including a big chunk of
text.)
+ Recommendations
- Send corrections of _fact_ to me
- If you disagree with my opinion, and you think you can
change my mind, or cause me to include your opinion as an
elaboration or as a dissenting view, then send it. If
your point requires long debate or is a deep
disagreement, then I doubt I have the time or energy to
debate. If you want your views heard, write your own FAQ!
- Ultimately, send what you want. But I of course will
evaluate comments and apply a reputation-based filter to
the traffic. Those who send me concise, well-reasoned
corrections or clarifications are likelier to be listened
to than those who barrage me with minor clarifications
and elaborations.
- In short, this is not a group project. The "stone soup
FAQ" is not what this is.
+ More information
- Please don't send me e-mail asking for more information
on a particular topic--I just can't handle custom
research. This FAQ is long enough, and the Glossary at
the end contains additional information, so that I cannot
expand upon these topics (unless there is a general
debate on the list). In other words, don't assume this
FAQ is an entry point into a larger data base I will
generate. I hate to sound so blunt, but I've seen the
requests that come in every time I write a fairly long
article.
+ Tips on feedback
- Comments about writing style, of the form "I would have
written it _this_ way," are especially unwelcome.
+ Credit issues
- inevitable that omissions or collisions will occur
- ideas have many fathers
- some ideas have been "in the air" for many years
+ slogans are especially problematic
- "They can have my...."...I credit Barlow with this, but
I've heard others use it independently (I think; at least
I used it before hearing Barlow used it)
- "If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto"
- "Big Brother Inside"
- if something really bothers you, send me a note
## 1.6. Corrections and Elaborations
+ "How to handle corrections or clarifications?"
- While I have done my best to ensure accuracy, errors will
no doubt exist. And as anyone can see from reading the
Cypherpunks list, nearly *any* statement made about any
subject can produce a flurry of rebuttals, caveats,
expansions, and whatnot. Some subjects, such as the nature
of money, the role of Cypherpunks, and the role of
reputations, produce dozens of differing opinions every
time they come up!
- So, it is not likely that my points here will be any
different. Fortunately, the sheer number of points here
means that not every one of them will be disagreed with.
But the math is pretty clear: if every reader finds even
one thing to disagree with and then posts his rebuttal or
elaboration....disaster! (Especially if some people can't
trim quotes properly and end up including a big chunk of
text.)
+ Recommendations
- Send corrections of _fact_ to me
- If you disagree with my opinion, and you think you can
change my mind, or cause me to include your opinion as an
elaboration or as a dissenting view, then send it. If
your point requires long debate or is a deep
disagreement, then I doubt I have the time or energy to
debate. If you want your views heard, write your own FAQ!
- Ultimately, send what you want. But I of course will
evaluate comments and apply a reputation-based filter to
the traffic. Those who send me concise, well-reasoned
corrections or clarifications are likelier to be listened
to than those who barrage me with minor clarifications
and elaborations.
- In short, this is not a group project. The "stone soup
FAQ" is not what this is.
+ More information
- Please don't send me e-mail asking for more information
on a particular topic--I just can't handle custom
research. This FAQ is long enough, and the Glossary at
the end contains additional information, so that I cannot
expand upon these topics (unless there is a general
debate on the list). In other words, don't assume this
FAQ is an entry point into a larger data base I will
generate. I hate to sound so blunt, but I've seen the
requests that come in every time I write a fairly long
article.
+ Tips on feedback
- Comments about writing style, of the form "I would have
written it _this_ way," are especially unwelcome.
+ Credit issues
- inevitable that omissions or collisions will occur
- ideas have many fathers
- some ideas have been "in the air" for many years
+ slogans are especially problematic
- "They can have my...."...I credit Barlow with this, but
I've heard others use it independently (I think; at least
I used it before hearing Barlow used it)
- "If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto"
- "Big Brother Inside"
- if something really bothers you, send me a note
1.7. Acknowledgements
1.7.1. Acknowledgements
- My chief thanks go to the several hundred active
Cypherpunks posters, past and present.
- All rights reserved. Copyright Timothy C. May. Don't try to
sell this or incorporate it into anything that is sold.
Quoting brief sections is "fair use"...quoting long
sections is not.
## 1.7. Acknowledgements
- Acknowledgements
- My chief thanks go to the several hundred active
Cypherpunks posters, past and present.
- All rights reserved. Copyright Timothy C. May. Don't try to
sell this or incorporate it into anything that is sold.
Quoting brief sections is "fair use"...quoting long
sections is not.
1.8. Ideas and Notes (not to be printed)
1.8.1. Graphics for cover
- two blocks...plaintext to cryptotext
- Cypherpunks FAQ
- compiled by Timothy C. May, tcmay@netcom.com
- with help from many Cypherpunks
- with material from other sources
- <credited in angle brackets>
1.8.2. "So don't ask"
## 1.8. Ideas and Notes (not to be printed)
- Graphics for cover
- two blocks...plaintext to cryptotext
- Cypherpunks FAQ
- compiled by Timothy C. May, tcmay@netcom.com
- with help from many Cypherpunks
- with material from other sources
- <credited in angle brackets>
- "So don't ask"
1.9. Things are moving quickly in crypto and crypto policy
1.9.1. hard to keep this FAQ current, as info changes
1.9.2. PGP in state of flux
1.9.3. new versions of tools coming constantly
1.9.4. And the whole Clipper thing has been turned on its head
recently by the Administration's backing off...lots of points
already made here are now rendered moot and are primarily of
historical interest only.
- Gore's letter to Cantwell
- Whit Diffie described a conference on key escrow systems in
Karlsruhe, Germany, which seemed to contain new ideas
- TIS? (can't use this info?)
## 1.9. Things are moving quickly in crypto and crypto policy
- hard to keep this FAQ current, as info changes
- PGP in state of flux
- new versions of tools coming constantly
- And the whole Clipper thing has been turned on its head
recently by the Administration's backing off...lots of points
already made here are now rendered moot and are primarily of
historical interest only.
- Gore's letter to Cantwell
- Whit Diffie described a conference on key escrow systems in
Karlsruhe, Germany, which seemed to contain new ideas
- TIS? (can't use this info?)
1.10. Notes: The Cyphernomicon: the CypherFAQ and More
1.10.1. 2.3.1. "The Book of Encyphered Names"
- Ibn al-Taz Khallikak, the Pine Barrens Horror.
- Liber Grimoiris....Cifur???
- spreading from the Sumerian sands, through the gate of
Ishtar, to the back alleys of Damascus, tempered with the
blood of Westerners
- Keys of Solomon, Kool John Dee and the Rapping Cryps Gone
to Croatan
- Peter Krypotkin, the Russian crypto anarchist
- Twenty-nine Primes, California
1.10.2. 2.3.2. THE CYPHERNOMICON: a Cypherpunk FAQ and More---
## 1.10. Notes: The Cyphernomicon: the CypherFAQ and More
- 2.3.1. "The Book of Encyphered Names"
- Ibn al-Taz Khallikak, the Pine Barrens Horror.
- Liber Grimoiris....Cifur???
- spreading from the Sumerian sands, through the gate of
Ishtar, to the back alleys of Damascus, tempered with the
blood of Westerners
- Keys of Solomon, Kool John Dee and the Rapping Cryps Gone
to Croatan
- Peter Krypotkin, the Russian crypto anarchist
- Twenty-nine Primes, California
- 2.3.2. THE CYPHERNOMICON: a Cypherpunk FAQ and More---
Version 0.666
1.10.3. 1994-09-01, Copyright Timothy C. May, tcmay@netcom.com
1.10.4.
- 1994-09-01, Copyright Timothy C. May, tcmay@netcom.com
- Written and compiled by Tim May, except as noted by
credits. (Influenced by years of good posts on the
Cypherpunks list.) Permission is granted to post and