We are ALL guests (except Eric)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


With the recent furor over the possibility of mandatory key signing on
this list, I think we all are forgetting something. We are all guests here.
Eric is our host. I've seen proposals for voting on the issue, I've seen
posts saying "I'm not going to do it, wah wah wah." This list is analogous
to Eric's home. We are his guests. If a host asks his guests to do
something he or she has two choices, do it or leave. If someone walked into
my house and I asked them to do something and they said: "Lets vote on it,"
they would be out the door quicker than a 'toon on a banana peel. Eric has
been a gentleman about this. He is not asking those who do not wish to
comply to leave. This is Eric's house and I think we need to play by his
rules while we are here.

One caveat for Eric though, hosts with stringent rules are usually very
lonely.

==============================================================================

A government is the only know vessel that leaks from the top.
                        --James Reston--

==============================================================================
skaplin@skypoint.com                   | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard
                                       | outside a Roman brothel.
PGP encrypted mail is accepted and     |
preferred.                             | Change is the only constant in the
                                       | Universe..."Four quarters, please."
E-mail key@four11.com for PGP Key or   |
Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com     | Smile!! Big brother is watching.
==============================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBLtwymApnimeWAf3FAQGOkQQAgK6OrqyifMk3aICiLdtjHWILxUyAyTWx
HyEXgfNdo3VXKALOCpON3sbtgiYlopFU9PyqQY4JGhievAfElEFOgUzfcOcNutKR
vLeT73zsvYl0zJPk6TkKhBwLymykHcBq5VtM8qLFustkEOynlVNHanBZlCQEj1sC
HKYfjJbX65E=
=5hb+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Samuel Kaplin wrote:

> With the recent furor over the possibility of mandatory key signing on
> this list, I think we all are forgetting something. We are all guests here.
> Eric is our host. I've seen proposals for voting on the issue, I've seen
> posts saying "I'm not going to do it, wah wah wah." This list is analogous
> to Eric's home. We are his guests. If a host asks his guests to do

I think this analysis is misleading. I leave it to readers to analyze
the history of the list, the role of the early members, and the
contributing contributions of the hundred or so active posters to
decide if this analysis is correct.

As to characterizing the posts here as "I'm not going to do it, wah
wah wah," this is too insulting to comment on.

> comply to leave. This is Eric's house and I think we need to play by his
> rules while we are here.

Funny, I don't recall Eric ever claiming it was "his house" to do with
as he wishes. Seems to me that the list is an emergent entity,
presently being centrally distributed off a machine owned by John
Gilmore (is the list then his house?), being maintained by Hugh Daniel
(his house?), and generally managed to the extent management is needed
by Eric Hughes (his house?). 

But a lot of others have contributed. No, we are not making "demands,"
nor are we calling for "a democratic vote."

I happen to think Eric is quite wrong in thinking that "behavior
modification" is needed, or practical. The list has done very well for
the past 26 months without rigid rules, and has never even had a
person kicked off the list (who didn't ask to be removed, back in the
pre-Majordomo manual processing days)).

To begin behavior modification now, with many of us unwilling to
convert to systems which would make conformance practical, seems
unwise.

In any case, that's a separate issue. Suddenly declaring the list to
be the personal property of Eric to do with as he pleases--a claim I
have not heard from Eric--is another category of issue.

I frankly don't know if it makes sense to say anyone "owns" the list.
(We went through this several times on the Extropians list; the
Extropians mostly solved this situation by having the list the formal
property of their Board of Directors. And yet debates naturally
continued.)

--Tim May



-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

Timothy C. May writes
> Funny, I don't recall Eric ever claiming it was "his house" to do with
> as he wishes. Seems to me that the list is an emergent entity,
> presently being centrally distributed off a machine owned by John
> Gilmore [...]

Internet custom and precedent, as I understand it, seems to be 
that Usenet newsgroups are the collective property of the
regular inhabitants, but that mailing lists are the private
and individual property of the guy whose account they run out
of.

Even the commies on alt.politics.radical-left seem to be 
reluctantly and painfully accepting this doctrine.  I am 
amazed that an ex-extropian does not.

We can advise Eric that we think it might have an undesirable
effect if he manages the list in certain ways.  We cannot
tell him that it is unfair or unjust to manage the list in
certain ways.

The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the
principles of justice.  Eric makes no such grandiose claim.

The debates concerning ownership on extropians occurred because
of that claim and, in my judgment, because the claim was obviously
bogus.

> I happen to think Eric is quite wrong in thinking that "behavior
> modification" is needed, or practical. The list has done very well for
> the past 26 months without rigid rules, and has never even had a
> person kicked off the list (who didn't ask to be removed, back in the
> pre-Majordomo manual processing days)).

agreed.


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org

James A. Donald wrote:

> Timothy C. May writes
> > Funny, I don't recall Eric ever claiming it was "his house" to do with
> > as he wishes. Seems to me that the list is an emergent entity,
> > presently being centrally distributed off a machine owned by John
> > Gilmore [...]
> 
> Internet custom and precedent, as I understand it, seems to be 
> that Usenet newsgroups are the collective property of the
> regular inhabitants, but that mailing lists are the private
> and individual property of the guy whose account they run out
> of.
> 
> Even the commies on alt.politics.radical-left seem to be 
> reluctantly and painfully accepting this doctrine.  I am 
> amazed that an ex-extropian does not.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

An issue of subtlety. I made no "commie" claims.

> We can advise Eric that we think it might have an undesirable
> effect if he manages the list in certain ways.  We cannot
> tell him that it is unfair or unjust to manage the list in
> certain ways.

I made no mention of "unfair" or "unjust." As I recall, I used the
term "unwise" once or twice. Others have made similar points about
compulsion and behavior control. (And we should avoid any nit-picking
about how Eric cannot possibly use "compulsion" because it is his
list, blah blah.)

> The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the
> principles of justice.  Eric makes no such grandiose claim.

This is a straw man, as I have made no mention of "justice."
> 
> > I happen to think Eric is quite wrong in thinking that "behavior
> > modification" is needed, or practical. The list has done very well for
> > the past 26 months without rigid rules, and has never even had a
> > person kicked off the list (who didn't ask to be removed, back in the
> > pre-Majordomo manual processing days)).
> 
> agreed.

Good to end on agreeement.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

James A. Donald wrote:
> > The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the
> > principles of justice.  Eric makes no such grandiose claim.

Timothy C. May writes
> This is a straw man, as I have made no mention of "justice."

But the extropian list, which you cite as precedent, did make
that claim.

You also make the claim that Eric does not own the list.

The question of ownership is only relevant to questions of what is 
just and fair.

If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it
is unjust for him to change the rules without consent.

If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper
for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether
or not he has a good, or even sane, reason.

(As it happens, I do not think he has a good reason.)

My point was that the ownership debate on the extropians list
was a result of the questionable and grandiose claim of extropian
justice, and is therefore not a relevant precedent for the 
ownership of lists in general.

You raised the issue of the extropian precedent.   The extropian
precedent is irrelevant because the *extropian* list management
made the claim of "extropian justice".

*Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics
private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.

Such actions are morally neutral, except in that wisdom itself is
good.



-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org

James A. Donald wrote:
> 
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > > The extropians list claimed to be managed in accord with the
> > > principles of justice.  Eric makes no such grandiose claim.
> 
> Timothy C. May writes
> > This is a straw man, as I have made no mention of "justice."
> 
> But the extropian list, which you cite as precedent, did make
> that claim.

Strange logic. I indeed mentioned experiments and debate on that list,
but hardly transferred any mention of "justice" or "fairness" on
_that_ list to _this_ list.

> You also make the claim that Eric does not own the list.
> 
> The question of ownership is only relevant to questions of what is 
> just and fair.

First, I don't accept this last point: issues of "ownership" and
"control" are more related to policy, access, and rule enforcement
than to issues of "what is just and fair." I rarely argue in terms of
justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so.

Second, my discussion of the "ownership" and "whose house" issues was
more nuanced than a simple "You also make the claim that Eric does not
own the list."

(To elaborate on this, I claim that the Cypherpunks list emerged in
1992 as a gathering/meeting/club/gang of folks with converging
interests in the topics at hand. We began to meet, to converse. A
mailing list was created by Hughes and Daniel, running on the machine
owned by Gilmore, to meet various and diverse purposes. That among
these were the pursuit of digital liberty and cyberspatial happiness.
Common sense tells us that the operator(s) of the list--the "owners"
of toad, the listadmin, etc.--have a kind of caretaker arrangement.
The list could move, could become an unmoderated newsgroup, etc. I'm
not advocating this, just rejecting the "Foobar owns the list--if
Foobar tells us to wear funny hats when we post to the list, we'd damn
well better do so." There are more nuances to the issues of
"ownership" involved.)

> If you claim that Eric does not own the list then you claim that it
> is unjust for him to change the rules without consent.

This chain of logic falls because the premise is false. Further, the
term "own" is not well-defined, as just discussed.

> If I claim he owns the list then I claim that it perfectly proper
> for him to change the rules without consent, regardless of whether
> or not he has a good, or even sane, reason.

For the second time in pointing this out, I used the term "unwise."

Face it, there are places where syllogistic reasoning like you are
using is useless. Especially when no mention of "justice and fairness"
was made. I think it's unwise for a listadmin, or a site owner, to
impose rules about the wearing of funny hats, for example. The
mandaory signing of posts is not quite in this category, but I still
think it unwise.

(Phil Zimmermann does not, as is well known, often use PGP. He rightly
considers it a drag on his productivity. Not everyone has the same
connectivity: some are on CompuServe, some on Prodigy, some on AOL,
etc. It would seem "unwise" to, for example, exclude from this forum
someone who cannot reasonably sign or encrypt all of their messages.)


> My point was that the ownership debate on the extropians list
> was a result of the questionable and grandiose claim of extropian
> justice, and is therefore not a relevant precedent for the 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ownership of lists in general.
> 
> You raised the issue of the extropian precedent.   The extropian
> precedent is irrelevant because the *extropian* list management
> made the claim of "extropian justice".

I never cited it as "precedent," legal or otherwise. I mentioned the
debate which had ensued on that list. Jeesh!

> *Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics
> private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.
> 
> Such actions are morally neutral, except in that wisdom itself is
> good.

What moral claims did I make?

The "private property" argument is more murky than you claim. Last I
checked, John Gilmore owns toad and the disk space used, and he pays
for the Net connections. Does this make him the owner?

Because of these nuances--which is why I mentioned the Extropian list
experiences--it is not useful to make propertarian arguments when
policy changes are being planned.

--Tim May

(I am not getting list traffic right now, presumably due to the Netcom
overload problem, and so am only seeing messages I am directly copied
on. And maybe not all of them, either.  Why this is so has to do with
how toad tries to connect with Netcom's mail machine--Hugh Daniel and
John Gilmore have both tried to get this fixed, claiming Netcom is not
properly handling mail. No resolution.))



-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

Timothy C. May writes
> I rarely argue in terms of
> justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so.

Look at the title of this thread.  If what you say is true,
you would not have responded to this thread.  The title
would be meaningless or irrelevant to you.

As Starr pointed out to you a long time ago, it is almost 
impossible to discuss human affairs without using moral 
categories either explicitly or implicitly.

You use such categories implicitly as much as I use them explicitly.

> The list could move, could become an unmoderated newsgroup, etc. I'm
> not advocating this, just rejecting the "Foobar owns the list--if
> Foobar tells us to wear funny hats when we post to the list, we'd damn
> well better do so." There are more nuances to the issues of
> "ownership" involved.)

In the highly unlikely event that Eric started acting like an
asshole we would move, as individuals and in different directions,
but the list would not move.  Existing 
newsgroups would change flavor as cypherpunks moved onto
them.  Somebody might create alt.cypherpunks, but it would
have a significantly different flavor with a significantly
different membership.  The list would only move as a whole
if Eric dropped dead or abruptly lost interest or handed
it over to someone else.

The question of who owns the list is indeed irrelevant to 
the question of whether the proposed change would further
crypto.

It is however relevant to to the question of whether we
should hold a vote or establish a consensus.  You
agree,  I assume, that holding a vote is absurd.  

Perhaps you think that Eric should establish a consensus
of "real" cypherpunks.  Yet if a vote is absurd, then
then surely a consensus is absurd.

And if you agree that neither vote or consensus is relevant,
except perhaps in the sense of a marketing survey for Eric,
then you agree that Eric owns the list.

This list has been a success largely because Eric has followed
anarchist, rather than fascist policies.   Now if some other
cypherpunk owned the list, the policy would have been different,
not necessarily worse, but not the same, and the list would
not be the same.  


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org

James A. Donald wrote:
> 
> Timothy C. May writes
> > I rarely argue in terms of
> > justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so.
> 
> Look at the title of this thread.  If what you say is true,
> you would not have responded to this thread.  The title
> would be meaningless or irrelevant to you.


Huh?



-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

Timothy C. May writes
> > > I rarely argue in terms of
> > > justice and fairness, so please don't imply that I have done so.

James A. Donald wrote:
> > Look at the title of this thread.  If what you say is true,
> > you would not have responded to this thread.  The title
> > would be meaningless or irrelevant to you.

Timothy C. May writes
> Huh?

The title of this thread makes an argument based on rights
and obligation.  It claims that Eric has the right to act
without consensus.

If you were merely making the argument that Eric is unwise
to act, you would not have bothered to reply to this thread,
since it does not address the issue of whether Eric is wise
or unwise, but only the issue of who is entitled to decide.

You were making the argument that Eric does not have
the right, the authority to act without consensus, that he
is improperly usurping the authority or rights of other 
founding cypherpunks.

In other words you are responding to a moral argument with
a moral argument.  It is just that you use double talk and I speak
plainly.

Your argument is based on labor mingling theory, even though
you seem to be unfamiliar with these concepts, (or perhaps
you are familiar but simply refuse to the language of
ethics.)

While labor mingling theory has great moral authority, long
usage on the internet has consistently gone the other way,
and with the passage of time, this counts.

The nature of the underlying protocols leads to collective
ownership of newsgroups and private ownership of lists,
and attempts to get away from this natural arrangement to 
something more useful and more just have not worked
very well.



-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org

In article <199411301931.LAA02490@netcom8.netcom.com>,
James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com> wrote:
>*Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics
>private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.

Not true.  The more "social" a list is, the less it is considered
any individual's property.  Don't confuse ownership of the resources
with authority over other people's actions.  In a social list, it
is presumed that the maintainer gets paid in enhancement to reputation
and whatever personal good feelings she gets for serving peers.  A
purely technological list, such as bind or firewalls, is closer to
what you suggest: the maintainer is providing a service and may do
whatever he wishes.  The former involves questions like peer respect and
how one treats one's friends.

In practice, trying to force social peers to do something against their
will generates ill will.  Trying to attribute ownership of a list of
people and addresses is absurd -- let's talk about real actions and
their consequences.

Lists that come to mind are elbows, void, kabuki-west, any of -kin lists,
etc.  On at least 3 of those lists, a list maintainer tried to take
some arbitrary unilateral action and had to later back down because
nobody was willing to put up with such shit.  Most recently it was
where a maintainer decided to drop followups (messages with "Re: " in
the subject or "References:" headers)... some people are still annoyed
at the person who tried it.

It's a little more difficult in the case of c'punks where traffic includes
social, technological interest, and sociological discussions.  It
is certainly not a clear case in my mind:  Eric might be able to
pull it off without pissing too many people off, he might not.  This
discussion is part of what will determine that.

I'll make a prediction: requiring digital signatures will annoy most 
those people who are independant and don't care to be told that they
should at least ostensibly provide a strong identity/posting mapping.  I
thought that this was one of the common assumptions of this list: that
anonymity as well as pseudonymity was a goal worth achieving.  Requiring
signatures seems several steps backwards.

Of course, in the end people will vote with their feet.  Since the
list membership is available with a mere "who cypherpunks," it's
trivial to set up a "cypherpunks@netcom.com" address, for example,
that has the same membership and no signature policy.  Similarly,
as I suggested last night, such a list address could be set to
automatically sign all posts and people could be encouraged to use
that address since "otherwise their mail will be delayed."  No
mention of digital signatures need be made.
-- 
Todd Masco     | "Roam home to a dome, Where Georgian and Gothic once stood
cactus@hks.net |  Now chemical bonds alone guard our blond(e)s,
cactus@bb.com  |  And even the plumbing looks good."  - B Fuller

L. Todd Masco says:
> In article <199411301931.LAA02490@netcom8.netcom.com>,
> James A. Donald <jamesd@netcom.com> wrote:
> >*Relevant* precedent and custom indicate that the list is Erics
> >private property, and he may do as he pleases, wisely or unwisely.
> 
> Not true.  The more "social" a list is, the less it is considered
> any individual's property.

Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives
him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his
property. You may be correct that it would be foolish of him to annoy
people, just as if you have houseguests it is foolish to suddenly say
"if you want to stay in this house you have to pierce your genitals
NOW!". It is none the less his right to annoy people if he wants to,
however, just as it is your right to demand anything of your
houseguests as a condition of their remaining in your home. They, of
course, are under no obligation to decide to remain....

Perry

Perry E. Metzger writes:
 > Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives
 > him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his
 > property.

I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and 
set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.  All of us
can do this with varying degrees of difficultly.  Who owns the list?
(Substitute any denial of service attack for "turning off the list" if
you're not convinced of the strength of the forged unsubscribes.)  

The list is not the software it runs on: nobody cares very much whether it
runs on toad.com or c2.org except in avoiding the inconvenience of
updating pointers.  This is not a specious argument: in practice, people
do take lists of subscribers to other machines.  See recent traffic on
list-maintainers for examples from exclusively professional scientific
lists.

As I went on to say, arguing the "ownership" of the list is absurd... 
it's more reasonable (and productive) to discuss actions and their
expected consequences.

I think the only thing that will keep people from immediately stomping
away is that Eric has a strong reputation totally separate from his
"bureaucratic" role of list maintainer.  It remains to be seen how much
that affects peoples' behaviors and how much respect he will lose for
coercing, however mildly, people into using signatures.

	-- Todd

"L. Todd Masco" says:
> 
> Perry E. Metzger writes:
>  > Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives
>  > him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his
>  > property.
> 
> I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and 
> set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.

I can steal your car or buy one of my own. Does that make your car not
your property?

Perry

Perry E. Metzger writes:
 > 
 > "L. Todd Masco" says:
 > > 
 > > Perry E. Metzger writes:
 > >  > Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives
 > >  > him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his
 > >  > property.
 > > 
 > > I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and 
 > > set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.
 > 
 > I can steal your car or buy one of my own. Does that make your car not
 > your property?

I don't think so -- but by the argument you gave (above), it does.  Ergo, 
your argument strikes me as insufficient.

	-- Todd

"L. Todd Masco" says:
> 
> Perry E. Metzger writes:
>  > 
>  > "L. Todd Masco" says:
>  > > 
>  > > Perry E. Metzger writes:
>  > >  > Eric can turn the list on and off at will. By my lights, that gives
>  > >  > him control, and thus a proprietary interest, i.e. the list is his
>  > >  > property.
>  > > 
>  > > I can forge a flurry of unsubscribe requests (turn the list off) and 
>  > > set up the same list on another host (turn it on) at will.
>  > 
>  > I can steal your car or buy one of my own. Does that make your car not
>  > your property?
> 
> I don't think so -- but by the argument you gave (above), it does.  Ergo, 
> your argument strikes me as insufficient.

Pardon.

Eric has more or less total control over the mailing list. The control
is imperfect -- I could, for instance, blow up the machine.

You claim this imperfection is reason to consider it to be "community
property" or some such. You also noted that you could create another
list and somehow claimed that this reduced Eric's proprietary interest
in the list.

As I noted, were your argument correct, then your car would not be
your property because it, too, is not perfectly within your control
and others may duplicate it.

In any case, given that Eric can simply kick anyone off the list or
add anyone on that he likes at will, you are free to refer to the list
as a commune, an empire, or a supreme overlordship with yourself as
supreme overlord. The fact remains that Eric can implement any change
he has unilaterally. If you don't like the term "property" call it
"gazorknoplant" instead. The word is not what matters. The point is
that your opinion can influence him but that ultimately the decisions
are all his, just as with your car, which is also your gazorknoplant
just as the list is Eric's gazorknoplant.

Perry

Perry E. Metzger writes:
 > Pardon.
 > 
 > Eric has more or less total control over the mailing list. The control
 > is imperfect -- I could, for instance, blow up the machine.
 > 
 > You claim this imperfection is reason to consider it to be "community
 > property" or some such.

Not at all.  I'm making no positive claim: I just do not see any particular
reason to consider the list Eric's.  Perhaps you should clarify what you
mean by "the list": do you mean the set of bits that describe the mailing
addresses of every person on the list or do you simply mean the instance
of majordomo running on toad.com with the previous bit stream loaded?

I'm thinking of the former as being "the list" and thus squarely in the
realm of intellectual property and all the snags that entails.

If it's the latter you're referring to, sure, we can call it "Eric's."  But
so what?  That and a subway token will get you to Brooklyn.  My main point,
which you keep dropping off, is that the instantiation of the set of mailing
addresses at a particular site is a relatively minor factor in the
continuity of a mailing list.

	-- Todd

From: cactus@bb.hks.net (L. Todd Masco)

Todd's good discussion of social lists addresses well some of the
social aspects of a decision to modify the server to do something.

   It is certainly not a clear case in my mind: Eric might be able to
   pull it off without pissing too many people off, he might not.
   This discussion is part of what will determine that.

What is certainly clear enough to me is that the list is certainly
social enough that without discussion the endeavor would certainly
fail.

   I'll make a prediction: requiring digital signatures will annoy most 
   those people who are independant and don't care to be told that they
   should at least ostensibly provide a strong identity/posting mapping.

1. Independence.  Higher levels of richness (and I mean much more than
wealth) require higher levels of interaction.  There is a qualitative
difference between, on one hand, violence and coercion and, on the
other, inducements and interactions.  Both can reduce independence.
Then again I don't feel that liberty and independence are what I
desire most.

2. Strong mappings.  Two solutions already presented here allow a
workaround.  Pseudonymous and one-time keys both work, as does an
autosigning alternate entry point.  I say great, build them.

Apropos of one-time use keys, will PGP function properly on a 20 bit
modulus?  Another non-key would be to generate a short key and post
both public and private halves.

   thought that this was one of the common assumptions of this list: that
   anonymity as well as pseudonymity was a goal worth achieving.  Requiring
   signatures seems several steps backwards.

The first time a signature appears, it's anonymous.  The second time
it appears it's pseudonymous, and references the preceding message.
Requiring signatures does not prevent anonymity.

   as I suggested last night, such a list address could be set to
   automatically sign all posts

Why do I suspect that such a service will be available at
cypherpunks@hks.net?  I don't mind; I think it would be useful service
and entirely compatible with what I want to accomplish.

Eric

In article <199412010010.QAA11906@largo.remailer.net>,
Eric Hughes <eric@remailer.net> wrote:
>Todd's good discussion of social lists addresses well some of the
>social aspects of a decision to modify the server to do something.

Thank you!  At least I've gotten _something_ out of too many years of
flamewars...

What makes this a difficult issue to call (for me) is that you have
partial authority as an "original founder," a much more persuasive position
than the bureaucratical "list maintainer" status.  So, I retreat to a
(much more comfortable) pragmatist stance that you might be able
to pull it off, you might not.

I'm not (usually) an absolutist: if you decide to do something, I'll deal.

>   I'll make a prediction: requiring digital signatures will annoy most 
>   those people who are independant and don't care to be told that they
>   should at least ostensibly provide a strong identity/posting mapping.
>
>1. Independence.  Higher levels of richness (and I mean much more than
>wealth) require higher levels of interaction.  There is a qualitative
>difference between, on one hand, violence and coercion and, on the
>other, inducements and interactions.  Both can reduce independence.
>Then again I don't feel that liberty and independence are what I
>desire most.

I think the question is not whether you desire liberty and independence
but whether you desire the company of those who value liberty and
independence strongly enough to abandon this forum at the slightest
perceived breach of their autonomy.  This is an altogether different
question that has to do with communicated respect for where other people
draw their own ideological lines.  

Tim's come out strongly against the proposal, as has James.  As far
as I can see, Tim's the only one that's raised the stakes to the
ultimatum, "Do it and I leave" (although it's not clear whether he means
the rejection or the slowdown of unsigned posts, and whether he'd instead
decide to use an auto-signing service.  Tim?)

I think that you'll probably be able to pull off some compromise: the
one that I like most is that of an independent agent or two, automatically
checking all signatures and occasionally admonishing those who don't
use them.  The former would even be a valuable tool with far wider
application than cypherpunks, esp. if written such that it could be
used on newsgroups or even over NNTP.

The thing that's particularly alluring about the independent agent idea
is that you don't have to (ab?)use your position as list maintainer to
implement it, thus sidestepping questions from others about whether you
have any sort of responsibility to subscribers and/or authority to decide
or to avoid enforcing how the people known as "cypherpunks" will interact.

>Apropos of one-time use keys, will PGP function properly on a 20 bit
>modulus?  Another non-key would be to generate a short key and post
>both public and private halves.

It's not clear to me;  I'll have to hack some PGP code to generate one, as
PGP forces a minimum of a 384 bit modulus at key generation time.  I'll
probably see how well it works with a 4 or 5 bit modulus: it'd be nice to
be able to feasably break the key by hand as an exercise, to underscore
the unreliability of the signing agent's signatures.

>   as I suggested last night, such a list address could be set to
>   automatically sign all posts
>
>Why do I suspect that such a service will be available at
>cypherpunks@hks.net?  I don't mind; I think it would be useful service
>and entirely compatible with what I want to accomplish.

I actually hadn't been strongly advocating or offering such a service:
this discussion has just tapped into several issues that I've been
interested in for years, especially having to do with the interactions
of technologically powerful peers.

At this point, I don't have much of a strong feeling about signing stuff,
since I've been thinking of setting up some automatic stuff on my private
Amiga UNIX box.  Signing c'punks posts is a pain, though, since I read
news (incl. cypherpunks) on a non-private machine (IE, other people have
accounts on it).

OTOH, it sounds like a fun hack to do and I've been working on automatic
mail agents, so it should be simple at this point.  OTGH, pgp is a bigger
cycle-sucker than I necessary want to have running all the time on our
poor little microVAXen.  If I can get it to deal with smaller keys, then
I'll probably do it soon (what the hell).  Otherwise, I'll have to wait
until my own crypto package (which I described to a deafening silence
months ago) is ready.
-- 
Todd Masco     | "Roam home to a dome, Where Georgian and Gothic once stood
cactus@hks.net |  Now chemical bonds alone guard our blond(e)s,
cactus@bb.com  |  And even the plumbing looks good."  - B Fuller

L. Todd Masco wrote:

> Tim's come out strongly against the proposal, as has James.  As far
> as I can see, Tim's the only one that's raised the stakes to the
> ultimatum, "Do it and I leave" (although it's not clear whether he means
> the rejection or the slowdown of unsigned posts, and whether he'd instead
> decide to use an auto-signing service.  Tim?)
                                          ^^^^

I have no idea about these "auto-signing services." My inclination
would be not to use them, as I rarely engage in "workarounds" to deal
with situations where speed bumps have been placed in my way.

If it's just a few minutes delay, who cares? If it's a few hours, I'll
likely bombard the list with "Has anybody seen the message I posted?"
messages. (There is no rule against this, so I expect to do this.)

If my messages are delayed by many hours or days, then it is the same
as if they been rejected...participation in threads is ended. (I think
Jamie Lawrence made similar points, when he/she (I forget which)) made
the point about minutes-hours-days being a tough issue.)

I haven't said I plan to leave the list. I've said that if my posts
are blocked/bounced/rejected, I would likely choose not to remain.

(Reference to "I am still considering the "sign-or-delay" proposal for
the toad.com server, that is, sign your articles to the list or
they'll be delayed and eventually rejected." [Eric Hughes, 1994-11-28])

I will register a note of purely personal frustration that many have
framed the current debate in terms of "Eric's list" and "If Eric wants
to do it this way, then this is how it should be done," etc.

I have no animosity toward Eric, but think this is a misguided
rewriting of history. 

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)

   I haven't said I plan to leave the list. I've said that if my posts
   are blocked/bounced/rejected, I would likely choose not to remain.

Let me ask something more proximate.

Tim, if the server puts a header on mail that identifies it as unsigned,
how will you feel about seeing your mail marked as such?  What might
you do about such a situation?

   I will register a note of purely personal frustration that many have
   framed the current debate in terms of "Eric's list" and "If Eric wants
   to do it this way, then this is how it should be done," etc.

   I have no animosity toward Eric, but think this is a misguided
   rewriting of history. 

Ah, assigning credit.

Let the world know that there would be no cypherpunks without both Tim
May and me.  Tim and I met at a party at Hugh Daniel's place; we were
the first two to arrive.  We became pretty much instant friends when I
said that I was going to work with Chaum in Amsterdam.  A year later
Tim was gracious enough to put me up at his place for a few days when
I was there, ostensibly as it turned out, to look for housing.  I was
much more interested in conversation that accommodations, and Tim and
I had a three day conversation in which the germ of cypherpunks was
developed (among many others).  Tim and I spent a lot of time later
working on the first meeting, which was held with people we both knew.

Why is it then, that people refer to "Eric's list"?

At our first meeting, John Gilmore offered both a computer for a
mailing list and a site for a meeting.  We are no longer meeting at
Cygnus, but we are still using John's machine.  I began maintaining
the mailing list, and with this was a symmetry breaking.  As many of
you know, I spent hours and hours and hours doing mailing list
maintenance (adding and deleting by hand) and dealing with all of the
problems.  I don't spend so much time on that anymore because of
majordomo, but I still do deal with the bounces and the complaints and
the exceptional requests.

Cypherpunks is certainly _not_ "Eric's group", but the mailing list is
not unreasonably called "Eric's list".

Personally, I hate the term "Eric's list".  I try to avoid saying "my
list" in coversation as shorthand for "the list I'm the maintainer
for" because of the potential confusion with "the list I own".  I find
the property argument, at root, specious.  Information can't be owned
in any sort of natural sense, even though one _can_ remain vigorously
silent.  The comments of Dave Mandl and Todd Masco about the social
character of mailing lists address the actual issue, which is
political and not legal.

Yet there is still the realpolitik that I do maintain the list.  While
there are some internal checks (I need Hugh's cooperation for certain
things), the fact remains that I can make changes basically
unilaterally.  Pragmatically speaking, the phrase "Eric's list"
reflects this situation.  In addition, the phrase is short.  When one
is not distinguishing between subtleties, short phrases win and long
phrases lose.

So there are three reasons why the phrase arose: history, position,
and brevity.  When a deduction from the phrase relies upon some other
possible subsumption, all may rightly point out an unintended meaning.


Now we must shift subjects.  What good is assigning credit if no use
can be made of it?  Many substitutes are available for obtaining a
good feeling.  Social position allows one to influence the world.  One
of the most valuable abilities in the world is the ability to get
people to listen to you.  This is not new, merely highlighted by the
collapse-generating properties of computer networks.  Tim and I and
many others have spent much time devoted to writing clearly enough
that we will be listened to preferentially, both for clarity itself
and for the anticipation of clarity.

The whole "cypherpunks write code" nexus assumes this communication
process.  It's comfortable to write manifestos, express your position,
be indignant at the government, and teach privacy.  We generally live
in free societies where there is little recourse taken against speech.
It is must less comfortable to use tortious cryptography, run a
remailer, finesse export controls, and deploy code.  Far and away the
most extreme reactions have come from what people did and not from
what they said.  Speech affects the world, but action affects it more,
because every word that affects the world only through a sequence of
body motions.  Cypherpunks get listened to not because we talk a lot;
that's insufficient.  Cypherpunks get listened to because we do
things.

"Actions speak louder than words" is true for local politics as well
as global.  Both Tim and I yammer a lot, but I do the list work.  The
assymetry is not incidental.  In discussing potential server actions,
I do not feel constrained come to agreement with any single voice,
including Tim.  I have a lot of respect for Tim and with respect to
cypherpunks generally I try not to put myself above him, but with
respect to the technical underpinnings of the list I feel no such
constraint.  This difference is a long consequence of actions chosen
by both parties.

Now, Tim, I don't know exactly that you feel slighted in this debate
with respect to origins and their values, but I suspect that you do.
If so, I regret that, but ask you to, well, deal with it.  Symmetry is
broken, cypherpunks is no longer new, and we who appeared
interchangeable to the world two years ago now seem different.

Eric

Eric Hughes wrote:
> 
>    From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
> 
>    I haven't said I plan to leave the list. I've said that if my posts
>    are blocked/bounced/rejected, I would likely choose not to remain.
> 
> Let me ask something more proximate.
> 
> Tim, if the server puts a header on mail that identifies it as unsigned,
> how will you feel about seeing your mail marked as such?  What might
> you do about such a situation?

I won't do anything. I might not even notice it. I've never felt that
this was important, though I also think it's pretty much useless (as
it's so obvious who's at least making the appearance of signing).

Delays of hours or more would affect my participation on the list.
Bounces of course would. Those have been my concerns.

On the rest of Eric's message, I'm in agreement with his assesment.
I'll elide liberally and only comment on a few points:

> Let the world know that there would be no cypherpunks without both Tim
> May and me.  Tim and I met at a party at Hugh Daniel's place; we were
...

All of this is as I remember it.

...
> the mailing list, and with this was a symmetry breaking.  As many of
> you know, I spent hours and hours and hours doing mailing list
> maintenance (adding and deleting by hand) and dealing with all of the
> problems.  I don't spend so much time on that anymore because of
> majordomo, but I still do deal with the bounces and the complaints and
> the exceptional requests.

Agreed. It was a symmetry breaking and Eric is justly rembembered as
being the driving force behind the mailing list. My issue is with the
views that are long the lines of "It's Eric's list, and if he says we
can only write about Croatian youth hostels, well, hey, it's _his_ list!"

"The map is not the territory," as a famous reverse Polish logician
said, and "the list is not the group." Nor is the Cause, the Movement,
etc.

The mailing list is the preferred forum in cyberspace for discussing
things amongst ourselves. 

> Now we must shift subjects.  What good is assigning credit if no use
> can be made of it?  Many substitutes are available for obtaining a
> good feeling.  Social position allows one to influence the world.  One
> of the most valuable abilities in the world is the ability to get
> people to listen to you.  This is not new, merely highlighted by the
> collapse-generating properties of computer networks.  Tim and I and
> many others have spent much time devoted to writing clearly enough
> that we will be listened to preferentially, both for clarity itself
> and for the anticipation of clarity.

Well said.

> "Actions speak louder than words" is true for local politics as well
> as global.  Both Tim and I yammer a lot, but I do the list work.  The
> assymetry is not incidental.  In discussing potential server actions,
> I do not feel constrained come to agreement with any single voice,
> including Tim.  I have a lot of respect for Tim and with respect to
> cypherpunks generally I try not to put myself above him, but with
> respect to the technical underpinnings of the list I feel no such
> constraint.  This difference is a long consequence of actions chosen
> by both parties.

I've never proposed a majority vote, or even an "advisory vote" of
some body. I've just said, in various forms, that compulsory signing
(or compulsory-anything), with delays or bounces, will have certain
negative effects, on me, on others, and perhaps on the list as a
whole. I've made no "propertarian" or "labor-mingling" arguments,
contrary to the views of some, just these opinions of wisdom.

> Now, Tim, I don't know exactly that you feel slighted in this debate
> with respect to origins and their values, but I suspect that you do.
> If so, I regret that, but ask you to, well, deal with it.  Symmetry is
> broken, cypherpunks is no longer new, and we who appeared
> interchangeable to the world two years ago now seem different.

I don't feel slighted, not that that would matter.

It just sticks in my craw that some folks here are apparently so eager
to adopt a position of blind obedience, of alpha male subservience.
I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look,
Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on
his list, leave."

Clearer?

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim said:

> It just sticks in my craw that some folks here are apparently so eager
> to adopt a position of blind obedience, of alpha male subservience.
> I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look,
> Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on
> his list, leave."

No, not the Big Kahuna-- the Big Mac.

(ducking),
- -Paul

- -- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG       | Good software engineering doesn't reduce the 
perobich@ingr.com            | amount of work you put into a product; it just 
Not speaking for Intergraph. | redistributes it differently.
		  ### http://www.intergraph.com ###

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCUAwUBLt40rqfb4pLe9tolAQHgbAP4r4tfCArfLisSSY2BUGbzYOVyesiKM3ML
7xXt6eIirk2OnCjdbFs+ZOJxszvWW7eLxqk0lbDWprJQfeSKBgJc4uz3Yfow8sbs
pxrO3adKOj1cgZnotr/8whA0BXK1QhycyEnjV+t+rEZ7qdUTuFvdpSaZ7Oy224uI
NwrU6sVMBQ==
=ni+J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)

[re: reaction to marking]
   I won't do anything. I might not even notice it. I've never felt that
   this was important, though I also think it's pretty much useless (as
   it's so obvious who's at least making the appearance of signing).

I'm thinking of using something real obvious as a marker, similar in
spirit to what I posted the other day:

X-Advocacy: Eric Hughes wants YOU to sign your message.

I may actually use something very close to this, perhaps with the name
instead of the personal pronoun.  This header would be attached only
to message without recognized signature.

[re: reaction to delay]
   Delays of hours or more would affect my participation on the list.
   Bounces of course would. Those have been my concerns.

I have realized all along that bouncing messages would be extremely
disruptive; I apologize to the list if I made that less than clear.

As far as specific times, I think the cutover happens somewhere
between two and four hours.  If delays get used, you can be sure
they'll start small and rise slowly.


   My issue is with the
   views that are long the lines of "It's Eric's list, and if he says we
   can only write about Croatian youth hostels, well, hey, it's _his_ list!"

I am also far less than persuaded by such arguments.


   I don't feel slighted, not that that would matter.

Well, it would matter to me.  But then again, I'd first try to
acknowledge any such feelings, and then I'd tell you fuck off if you
couldn't deal with reality.  But Hey! that just me, I suppose.

   I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look,
   Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on
   his list, leave."

"This is one _tasty_ burger"

   Clearer?

Yes, clearer.  Fortunately for me, I was locally famous in high school
in (drum roll) competitive classics.  I experienced some of exactly
the kind of subservience accorded to famous people.  I developed a
distaste for it then, which has not left.  I have some understanding
of the loneliness of celebrity.  When a sycophant doesn't treat you
like a peer, there's little point in trying to even out the
relationship.  It's almost always doomed.

Here are Eric's two sentence advice on celebrity.  If you want to know
famous people, don't treat them differently than others.  If they
therefore ignore you, leave.

Eric

Eric Hughes wrote:
> 
>    I'd feel just about as strange (I hope) if people were saying "Look,
>    Tim's the boss. He's the Big Kahuna. If you don't like his policies on
>    his list, leave."
> 
> "This is one _tasty_ burger"

Something to do with the metric system?



-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

From: cactus@bb.hks.net (L. Todd Masco)

   What makes this a difficult issue to call (for me) is that you have
   partial authority as an "original founder," a much more persuasive position
   than the bureaucratical "list maintainer" status.  

Thank god you didn't capitalize those.

   I think the question is not whether you desire liberty and independence
   but whether you desire the company of those who value liberty and
   independence strongly enough to abandon this forum at the slightest
   perceived breach of their autonomy.  

I don't.

I apply Tim's Calvinist Stoicism stance to this situation.  Put
crudely, if people bolt at the first sign of encroachment, fuck 'em.

There is a matter of degree here which is quite important.  A small
notification in the header of the message is hardly much at all.
Preventing a message from going through, however, is a qualitatively
different thing.  If there are people who can't tell the difference,
or worse yet, who won't acknowledge it, I'm not going to feel too
unhappy.

   I think that you'll probably be able to pull off some compromise: the
   one that I like most is that of an independent agent or two, automatically
   checking all signatures and occasionally admonishing those who don't
   use them.

That and simple notification in the header.  I am as yet undecided
which one I think might come first.

   The former would even be a valuable tool with far wider
   application than cypherpunks, esp. if written such that it could be
   used on newsgroups or even over NNTP.

Well, I did say today that I'll get the thing working on my own
personal mailbox first.

   The thing that's particularly alluring about the independent agent idea
   is that you don't have to (ab?)use your position as list maintainer to
   implement it,

This is both an advantage and a disadvantage.  On one hand, harmony is
maintained.  (I hear the guffaws too.)  On the other, the message
isn't nearly as strong.  To reiterate, I am willing to use my
position to send a stronger message.

   OTGH, pgp is a bigger
   cycle-sucker than I necessary want to have running all the time on our
   poor little microVAXen.  

Yet another reason to have an less-than-fully secure key for that location.

Eric

Eric Hughes wrote:

> I apply Tim's Calvinist Stoicism stance to this situation.  Put
> crudely, if people bolt at the first sign of encroachment, fuck 'em.

Indeed. But if my messages are bounced or delayed excessively, I will
of course have no reason to remain. My own Calvinist Stoicism.

I won't jump through hoops to meet pointless syntactical purity
checkes. Whether I sign all messages will depend on whether certain
tools become available and easily installable...at the current rate, I
doubt it (for me, Netcom, elm, etc.).

> This is both an advantage and a disadvantage.  On one hand, harmony is
> maintained.  (I hear the guffaws too.)  On the other, the message
> isn't nearly as strong.  To reiterate, I am willing to use my
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> position to send a stronger message.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bluntly, Eric, this is what is so disturbing about your position. You
are willing to "use your position" to essentially purge the list
(through bounces, a la "sign your articles to the list or they'll be
delayed and eventually rejected") of many of us who are unlikely to
solve the various problems mentioned so many times here.

You don't sign, others of note don't sign (some that I can think of
right now: Gilmore, Finney, Zimmermann, and probably many others). You
are _planning_ to now begin working on getting your won signing
situation squared away, but many of us are on different schedules
(Hint: It's even lower on the list of things to do for me).


>    OTGH, pgp is a bigger
>    cycle-sucker than I necessary want to have running all the time on our
>    poor little microVAXen.  
> 
> Yet another reason to have an less-than-fully secure key for that location.

I don't buy this, and hence will have my messages delayed or bounced.
I want my key to be useful for real uses, not just "Power Ranger" (a
la James Donald) uses.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay

<lurk mode off>

Although I can see the reasons why it would be good to increase the use of
digsigs, I don't think it's worth the possibility that many active members
of this list will disappear. Even one would be too many, as we need all the
support we can get.

Sounds like an ideal challenge for somebody to massage the available tools
to come up with something that *is* easy and convenient to use for signing
messages, without compromising on security. It could even use standard PGP
keyrings. Cypherpunks write code ...

	Ed
-- 

Ed Wilkinson	emw@ima.com	IMA Ltd		Internet Email Gateways

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)

   > I apply Tim's Calvinist Stoicism stance to this situation.  Put
   > crudely, if people bolt at the first sign of encroachment, fuck 'em.

   Indeed. But if my messages are bounced or delayed excessively, I will
   of course have no reason to remain. My own Calvinist Stoicism.

I would not say that bounces or long delays were a first sign of
encroachment.  But it does seem that we have not been addressing the
same idea.

   > To reiterate, I am willing to use my
   > position to send a stronger message.

   Bluntly, Eric, this is what is so disturbing about your position. You
   are willing to "use your position" to essentially purge the list

Again, I've not been speaking of this end result, except insofar of a
desire to avoid it.

[re: special small keys for low security applications]

   I don't buy this, and hence will have my messages delayed or bounced.
   I want my key to be useful for real uses, not just "Power Ranger" (a
   la James Donald) uses.

It appears then, that we disagree about the value of a half solution.

Eric

In article <199412010314.TAA12186@largo.remailer.net>,
Eric Hughes <eric@remailer.net> wrote:
>That and simple notification in the header.  I am as yet undecided
>which one I think might come first.

FWIW, my vote would be "autonag" first.

>   The thing that's particularly alluring about the independent agent idea
>   is that you don't have to (ab?)use your position as list maintainer to
>   implement it,
>
>This is both an advantage and a disadvantage.  On one hand, harmony is
>maintained.  (I hear the guffaws too.)  On the other, the message
>isn't nearly as strong.  To reiterate, I am willing to use my
>position to send a stronger message.

Sure.  I'm not sure the message would get through as you're framing it,
though.  People don't react well to messages that are put too strongly...
a gentle, gradual approach is more likely to get through.  "Cypherpunks
grok the importance of digital signatures" is the message you want to
get through, not "Eric wants to punish people who don't use digital
signatures," no?

Somebody here suggests: "I think he should send everyone who uses digital
signatures a cookie.  A big chocolate chip cookie."  It is understood
that delivery might be a problem.

I can offer habaneros.  It's not clear whether that would be a stick or
a carrot.
-- 
Todd Masco     | "Roam home to a dome, Where Georgian and Gothic once stood
cactus@hks.net |  Now chemical bonds alone guard our blond(e)s,
cactus@bb.com  |  And even the plumbing looks good."  - B Fuller

From: cactus@bb.hks.net (L. Todd Masco)

   >To reiterate, I am willing to use my
   >position to send a stronger message.

   Sure.  I'm not sure the message would get through as you're framing it,
   though.  People don't react well to messages that are put too strongly...
   a gentle, gradual approach is more likely to get through.

Several approaches to gradualism have been usefully suggested in this
debate, and I appreciate that.

Just to be sure, I was expressing a willingness, not an imminent intent.

Eric

L. Todd Masco writes
> On at least 3 of those lists, a list maintainer tried to take
> some arbitrary unilateral action and had to later back down because
> nobody was willing to put up with such shit.

Same thing happened when Coca Cola tried to change their formula:

Should we therefore conclude that Coke does not own coke?

I did not say "Eric owns the list, so there is no point
in discussing the matter."  In case you have not noticed
I have been arguing against the change.  What I implied is
that voting on it is absurd, and that arguing that Eric
is not entitled to do as he pleases is absurd.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@acm.org

From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)

   We cannot
   tell him that it is unfair or unjust to manage the list in
   certain ways.

Oh, you can, but I am Free To Ignore you.

These discussions on the interest of power are fascinating to me.  So
many of them do not take into account my own desires to create a
useful discussion forum, which desires bind me tighter than any law
ever could.  There are some very interesting implications of this _de
facto_ solipsism to achievement of equilibria in games with iterated
dominance.

Eric