From: "Jon Leonard" <jleonard@divcom.umop-ap.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:49:22 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Crypto Anachy MUD
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960909183805.008b9c70@panix.com>
Message-ID: <9609100510.AA06806@divcom.umop-ap.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Duncan Frissell wrote:
> Did anyone make the point (I gave up on the thread) that we already have a
> great Crypto Anarchy MUD with lots of the coding already done.  We call it
> the Internet.  Digital cash, strong crypto, remailers, everything.

Tim May expressed doubt that it was worth the effort:  Not much easier
than the real thing, and not as good.  That's the closest to your point,
I think.

> I have never been able to figure out why anyone would want to play games on
> a computer in any case when the whole system is a game.  Word processing,
> spreadsheets, telecoms -- it's all a game.  And they pay you to play it.

I've never figured out why anyone would play games at all -- the whole
universe is all a game too.

For whatever reason, some people (including me) like to play games.  I've
been working on a MUD anyway, and the question is whether it would be
interesting enough to add crypto-anarchy aspects to it to be worth the
effort.  Obviously you think not.

There are a few significant differences:

We don't have fully anonymous digital cash, and not everyone can issue it.
Strong crypto isn't universally deployed.
Remailers don't allow easy two-way traffic.
Few employers are willing to pay pseudonymous entites.
You don't get imprisioned or killed for too-risky behavior on a MUD.
Running a MUD invites less unwelcome attention than do some of the services
discussed on cypherpunks.

Finally, a MUD has the potential to spread crypto-anarchic ideas to people
who would not otherwise have considered them.

It may be that I'm wasting my time, but I could come up with some useful
new crypto protocol too.

> DCF

Jon Leonard