From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:16:55 +0800
To: "'cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>,       "'e$@vmeng.com'" <e$@vmeng.com>
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone Alternative
Message-ID: <5F152E6E8E6FD21195DF00104B2425AD02B226@yarrowbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> paradox of financial cryptography, and, more specifically, 
> digital bearer settlement, is not that it gives you privacy 
> and freedom (anarchy? :-))

Anarchy != privacy

In fact to many people privacy is a very statist construct, as they clamor
for more privacy regulations by government. The contradiction is government
has a vested interest in preventing privacy from itself, and generally makes
loud but ineffectual noise in creating privacy from others.

There are many anarchic elements financial cryptography, such as:

* That you can achieve greater privacy through cryptographic means instead
of government means by limiting the information transfer via zero knowledge,
blinding, cryptographic pseudonymity, etc.

* That you can exchange money in ways that are secured cryptographically and
settled instantly that do not rely on the government as
observer/auditor/enforcer[/taxer].

* You can create private currencies that do not rely on government goodwill
and stability to retain their value.

* That you can enforce contracts via electronic mediation and reputation
punishment in a way that does not rely on biometric ID and government
mediation/enforcement.

Therefore traditionally archical processes become anarchical (without state
[involvement]). It is the *process*, not the result that is anarchic, and it
is the process, not the result, that is cheaper. Cryptography (cpu-cycles)
is cheaper than government, with a falling cost versus a rising one.

Will all these free anarchical processes eventually result in an anarchic
state? Maybe. But the economics of the processes is the prime mover, the
politics of the result is a consequence.

	Matt