Talk:Crypto-anarchy/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"Online" philosophy

"Crypto-anarchism is an online philosophy" What exactly is an "online" philosophy? Philosophy is philosophy, right?

Crypto-anarchism & anarcho-capitalism

How can crypto-anarchism be tied to anarcho-capitalism? The two philosophies are incompatible. Anarcho-capitalism cannot work without enforcement of property rights, I am correct? Now can anyone exlplain to me how on earth they would enforce their intellectual property rights if there is no way of knowing who is stealing their intellectual property? Ok, you could enforce those rights outside the digital realm. But crypto-anarchism is a philosophy applicable to digital realm, and the digital realm only. Or you could say anarcho-capitalism only applies to non-intellectual property such as electronic money. But if intellectual property is no longer traded as property then you no longer have anarcho-capitalism. Then you have just plain anarchism. In the digital realm at least. Let's be realistic, people. I'll comment this statement out. Unless someone comes up with a less self-contradictory argument. 137.222.40.132 11:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense to me, but apparently it doesn't to crypto-anarchists. I don't know how they'd enforce anything, either. On the other hand, most "traditional" anarchists would oppose the use of money. Maybe this is a distinct group. I'd never heard of it until now. Dave 18:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

One could logically have private property rights in physical objects, but not IP rights. I'm not sure such a system woudl work, and I'm not sure if that is what the crypto-anarchists are proposing either, btu the positions "there must be enforcement of property rights" need not imply "there must be enforacable rights to IP" any more than it must imply "there must be slavery". Not all things need be property in order that some things are. DES 01:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If information cannot be property, it's hard to imagine how capitalism could ever function realistically in a modern knowledge/service economy. 137.222.40.132 11:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I find it hard to imagine any of the proposed versions of anarcho-capitalism working very well or for very long, and also hard to imagine any of them coming into being starting from our current situation. I don't find adding the idea there there are property rights in physical things and services, but not in information, making the basic idea much more implausible. DES 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is the commented statement; probably better to move it here than have it lurk as a comment:

Crypto-anarchism is generally regarded to be separate from the traditional body of anarchist or libertarian socialist theory, with much closer ties to the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism. However, crypto-anarchism undermines the concept of intellectual property. Without private property capitalism cannot exist.

— Matt Crypto 11:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disageee with this comment, see above. How about:

Crypto-anarchism is generally regarded to be separate from the traditional body of anarchist or libertarian socialist theory, with much closer ties to the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism. However, crypto-anarchism undermines the concept of intellectual property. Anarcho-capitalism is generally sympathetic to enforcable proerpty rights of all sorts, and this means that the two philosophies may not be consistant. DES 01:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have another idea about that: Crypto-anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism IS compatible, in a sence. You cannot enforce any laws on intellectual property, you are right with that, and at that point the two philosophies are incompatible. However, crypto-anarchism does make it possible to create an unregulated market. Crypto-anarchy gives the anarcho-capitalists free access to that market. For example, the DMT-bank, unfortunatly now closed, made it possible to trade about anything without any regulations what so ever. That perticular DMT-market and all services connected to it was without (an-) any central leader/goverment (-arch), and it was completely capitalistic in its nature. Thus, crypto-anarchism brings us anarcho-capitalism. Also, a company cannot make use of stolen information in the same sence that an individual can use it. If a company steals code from another company, and use it in their products, there is a really large risk that their crime will be found out. That way, as long as there exist laws "in the real world" there will allways be some sort of information-market. Also consider the Ripple monetary system, a system like that is pretty much anarcho-capitalistic in its nature if you ask me. There is nothing that stops you from moving that concept into the encrypted networks to let pseudonyms trust eachother..

I am an anarchist and I am highly _against_ this crypto-anarchism, I saw this thing as mainly a anarcho-capitalist (capitalist the worst) thing. But I like the way anarcho-capitalists have plunged their heads in the wall by contradicting themselfs... I dont like cryptography or any other philosophy which makes it harder for people to communicate openly, it is hard enough making ourself understood, besides having people communicating over crypto channels separates most members of a society from each other thus making them vulnerable for biggots, hrm authorities... just my thoughts and no cents. :) Foant 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How does cryptography make it harder to communicate openly? Anybody wanting to communicate openly still has that option; you don't have to use cryptography just because it's available. Its availability merely adds the option of communicating in a less-open way in instances where this may be desirable, for instance when planning something that outside authorities might disrupt or interfere with if it's not concealed. *Dan T.* 16:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First question: By requiering people to use technology. See the primitivist article for why technology sucks. Cryptography isnt used by people to evade authoroties its used by authorities... Speakers have to take extra steps to make their message come thru, simply as that...

Speakers have to take extra steps to make their message interception-resistant. Cryptography is used along the entire history, it evolved together with communication, only the form differs. Involvement of sophisticated algorithms is only a matter of the arms race in development of computing machines. Vigenere's cipher, a pen-and-paper low-tech kind, was good enough during the medieval times. One-time pads can be realized even today, without computers too, and the only problem is that the key distribution is a bitch. It is about the adversary you are facing, and their technical resources. --Shaddack 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt talking about the 1000 or 5500 years earlier, I was reffering to the time when we didnt even have written systems. That is, before ~4 000BC and all the way to 5 million years ago when the first proto-humans evolved. See humans never where like individuals who then decided to form some groups or societies because of mutual benefit, humans and even proto-humans and probably creatures before them evolved within groups, and one of those things which qualifys social animals is the fact that they communicate very much. I see a difference between the cryptographical uses of todays communication with that which was before, and still is now, which is happening right here, that is that two members or more speak and are heard by the rest which enables them aswell to make comments and improve the discoussin and conclusions. This woudlnt have been possible with usages of cryptography, now dont tell me that this can be done over encrypted channels (it can be done), sure, but you then forget the idea behind cryptography, that is to exclude others from a communication channel. Here basically noone is excluded. Foant 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right. You are perfectly correct in context of face-to-face communication within more or less isolated groups. Crypto-anarchism is intended for entirely different setting, where the group participants are geographically distant, dispersed within other groups potentially hostile to the sub-group. The technology involved enables free communication within the sub-group within a designated cipherspace, while denying its content (and in some cases even the very fact the communication takes place) to all non-members. --Shaddack 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(Answer to the one above Shaddack) That is just bullshit. This kind of cryptography (crypto-anarchism style cryptography) is not used by authorities. It is used by libertarians, anarchists and so on.. Where do you get the idea that it forces people into using it? It seems absolutly absurd. -- Idiotbastard

Anarchism template not appropriate

Since—according to the discussion here—neither the anarcho-capitalists nor the traditional anarchists are willing to vouch for crypto-anarchism (for good reasons), I don't see how the current Anarchism template is appropriate. In all honesty crypto-anarchism seems to me like a fairly underdeveloped idea that a few people came up with pretty recently, instead of the rich political/social philosophy with 150 years of history that anarchism is. I vote for immediate removal of the template while retaining the See Also section which can contain whatever links are deemed useful. -- Bk0 03:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree:

Dave 03:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC): As far as I can tell, the only thing "crypto-anarchism" has in common with either anarchism or anarcho-capitalism is the last nine letters, and possibly a very small overlap in supporters.
Foant 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree:

Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC): I don't see what is the issue here, even infoshop follows the free software movement and the digital attack on property very closely. It is quite clear that this page should still have a template, and furthermore, that it should be developed further to explore the connections between it and anarchism. It should also be expanded beyond the simple money issue, as that is not the only aspect of crypto-anarchism. I'll be doing more research on this though.

Disagree: Those anarcho-capitalists that uses the benefits of crypto-anarchism has probably accepted that it is impossible to hinder "them" (me included) to steal intellectual property. Cope with the technological evolution -- Or go extingt/bankrupt. I think that it is allmost part of the anarchocapitalist idea to accept new stuff. For example, there is child pornography in the freenet-network, and noone can stop it. Not even all-mighty-USA. It is impossible to stop it unless you outlaw cryptography, and that is not going to happen. Anarcho-capitalists that is using the crypto-networks (I2P, TOR, IIP, and all those freeheavens) have probably realized that they just have to accept this, and that there is benefits to it too -- You can trade anonymously through all those anonymous banks (Yodel, and all the e-gold-banks)...

I'm not sure what anon is saying here, but I gather he/she's arguing that crypto-anarchism is a sub-category of anarcho-capitalism. I'm trying to be generous to anarcho-capitalism in assuming that it is not wholly dependent upon crytography and computer technology, but I confess that I don't know enough to say that with certainty. Nevertheless, the comments in the above discussions tend to argue against what anon seems to be saying. --Bk0 16:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template

The notion that the libertarian template belongs here is likewise questionable. Libertarians are like the political variant of that religious sect which gets carried away with evangelizing themselves everywhere, even to claim ownership over topics in anarchism. Anarchy by definition is hard to delineate, but it best described as a directive toward no government. Libertarianism claims to be all things to all people and hence its natural that the related template keeps popping up everywhere. I argue to use the anarchy topicbox or none at all. -SV|t 04:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Remove it. Use none at all 137.222.40.132 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Big-tent anarchism

The very existence of crypto-anarchism, and the fact that people are bickering inconclusively about whether it belongs under traditional anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, all of the above, or none of the above, argues for having the main anarchism article be of a "big tent" nature, defining anarchism broadly and generically instead of a particular subsect or movement of it, and hence encompassing anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism, and also crypto-anarchism (whether one might regard it as capitalist, socialist, both, or neither). *Dan* 16:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep your Anarchism POV war over there, if you don't mind. --Bk0 22:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Low-level, yet practical and pragmatical issues

Yodelbank.com has ceased to exist [in Jan.2006 ]. I don't know whether it was evil effort of world governments to stop anonymous money, or lack of public interest to anonymous digital cash or simply lack of real-world ca$h to run domain. Nevertheless, I suggest to remove link as I do not see any argument to believe it will appear again in feasible future.silpol 11:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Illegal in russia

It is just plain wrong. Cryptography is not illegal in Russia. It is illegal to use non-certified cryptographyc tools for information which contain state secrets, some other protected forms of information and the like. Private bussiness (except banks and goverment contactors) and ordinary citizens free to use anyithing. So, I delete this remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.194.106 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Say What???

In the Plausible Deniability section, it says

  "Because summary punishment for crimes are illegal"

Where? I'll bet there are any number of countries where it's not only legal, but the norm.

The norm is always wrong.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarchists and copyrights, terrorism, child pornography

Crypto-anarchism is often criticized for making it easy and safe to illegally share files such as copyrighted movies and music. Depending on the software used, these types of systems facilitate easy access to large quantities of child pornography.
It is also very easy for criminals to make use of the networks to coordinate sabotage and terrorism. Assassination markets is a good example of the way in which crypto-anarchism could be used to these ends.[3] Crypto-anarchists acknowledge that such freedom could be abused by criminals, but claim that criminals are already communicating anonymously, so that the networks will just bring the benefits of privacy and freedom of anonymity to ordinary people.

...so, presumably anarchists would care about breaking the law merely because it is breaking the law, and consider such 'criminals' to be abusing the system? This is pretty inconcievable, given that anarchists generally consider states and repressive organs illegitimate and opressive. Surely a consistently anarchist doctrine would respond saying how it was a good thing to allow people to break copyrights - far less radical ppl, like Richard Stallman would consider such sharing a good thing, a substantial number of anarchists are communists, and depending on definition all or most are socialist - and this has certainly been so historically, so theyd not care of protecting fictitous new forms of property, but moreover destroying even existing forms; and also like, for instance, the FreeNet project, would defend child pornography and terrorist coordination on the grounds of freedom of speech ("The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. " http://freenetproject.org/faq.html#copyright and "This is important, most people fail to see or address this point when debating the issue of copyright, so let me make it clear: You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law. It is for this reason that Freenet, a system designed to protect Freedom of Speech, must prevent enforcement of copyright" http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html). And these dont even proclaim to be anarchists. Heres an individualist anarchist critique of the concept of 'intellectual property' http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/libhe/libhe023.pdf

As far as terrorism goes, well, though having a critique of common terrorism (i.e. targeting of or not caring if one kills innocent people), anarchism has historically not accepted the state monopoly on violence either. Anarchist have done 'propaganda of deed', frequently involving illegal acts like property destructions, and in some cases, political assasinations , and Bakunin called for creation of 'sectet societies' in certain situations to carry on the political program. Eg, see on infoshop.org:

Anarchism does have some history of political terrorism, but this has always been a small part of anarchist history. In fact, most of what has been called anarchist "terrorism" can be seen more accurately as political violence against political targets (cops, capitalists, and politicians)...There is no such thing as eco-terrorism. The actions that are given this label are nonviolent actions against property. There is no intent to hurt or kill people.

So, while they might regret that terrorists would use such means of collaboration for their ends, i wouldnt think theyd mind there existing the potential for such covert collaboration in doing illegal violent acts, for they actually advocate such tactics, in certain cases.

Similarly they wouldnt necessarely even wish to defend from accusations of enabeling the spread of child pornography; even ignoring the abovementioned scruples about freedom of speech, they would not necessarely even mind there being child pornography. Age of consent laws have been often criticised by radical thinkers - for instance, Michel Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age_of_consent_laws), and in the list of names signing this petition, Deleuze, Derrida, Althusser, Barthes, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Lyotard, .. - i.e. pretty much all contemporary french philosophers. From the converstation on these topics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law):

It could be that the child, with his own sexuality, may have desired that adult, he may even have consented, he may even have made the first moves. We may even agree that it was he who seduced the adult. But we specialists with our psychological knowledge know perfectly well that even the seducing child runs a risk, of being damaged and traumatized. (…) Consequently, the child must be ‘protected from his own desires’, even when his desires turn him towards an adult ... In the case of "attentat sans violence" [attack without violence], the offence in which the police have been unable to find anything, nothing at all, in that case, the criminal is simply a criminal because he is a criminal, because he has those tastes. It is what used to be called a crime of opinion. (…) The crime vanishes, nobody is concerned any longer to know whether in fact a crime was committed or not, whether someone has been hurt or not. No one is even concerned any more whether there actually was a victim.

I see in the US libertarian party, similar ideas exist (and though I dont know US politics enough to say this, given the name and the fact its a party, one could expect these guys would, again, be rather less radical than anarchists - and the inter-party criticism of the here quoted paragraph that makes up the rest of the linked text would seem to show this) - from (http://crazyforliberty.com/2008/05/07/anarchism-age-of-consent-laws-and-the-dallas-accord-wayne-allyn-root.aspx) ,apparently , Mary Ruwart said

Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. [Who are you to judge? Fascist!]

...

Point is - such response to criticism as the current section describes sounds like coming from a socialdemocrat or liberal not from an anarchist in advocating such technologies, and perhaps some summary of the stuff I dumped here could be worked into the response section of that article to give a more appropriately radical response expected if this is considered to be an anarchist position? --193.198.27.31 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

umm

All other crypto-something pages are about adherence to one philosophy yet pretending to be of another (i.e Crypto-judaism, crypto-fascism) yet this one is about computing. This should be completely rewritten or at least another page should be created for being an anarchist and pretending to be something else, such as Anarchist hypocrisy or the like. --Dicttrshp (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a completely separate subject so it doesn't belong here. You're welcome to start a new article and linking to it from here. -- intgr [talk] 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How strange

Isn't odd that an article should have an equal number of topical headings and references? Awg1010 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you idiot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.183.97 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This should include both types of anarchism

'Cryptoanarchism' is composed of both capitalist and traditional anarchists, since despite their economic disagreements, both sides value freedom of speech. The article should reflect this. There are unfortunatly some people on both sides who like to demean eachother and call eachother "not real anarchists". But both use valid definitions of the word. So I would like to see a link to either both, or a link to neither. J1812 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article only seems to mention anarcho-capitalists, namely Vernor Vinge and Timothy C. May (although I'm not really sure if they identify as such), as having coined or expounded on crypto-anarchism. That said, I don't think that it qualifies as necessarily capitalist. Vinge and May may have envisioned crypto-anarchism as the use of cryptographic techniques to subvert governmental authority and thereby avoid restrictions on capitalistic activity, but anarchist workers, like those of the IWW for example, could use the same techniques to subvert their employers′ authority and thereby inhibit such activity. Unless Vinge and May also defined crypto-anarchism as an idea that would obviate the labor movement (which I doubt because May includes Infoshop's URL in his manifesto), this article shouldn't define it as strictly capitalist or anti-government. In fact, if the article attempted to so, it might overstep its bounds and apply a definition to anarchism, a responsibility that belongs to the anarchism article. Rather, this article should define crypto-anarchism as simply anti-authoritarian. The article should also avoid references to capitalism and anarcho-capitalism as these terms have too much baggage. Doing so should accommodate anyone who subscribes to crypto-anarchism whether they identify as anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, or whatever. KLP (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the only mention of anarcho-capitalism comes from the May quote at the beginning of the article. This quote seems out of place and doesn't appear to offer much utility. KLP (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit out of place to me too. However there's also the sentence - "It was described by Vernor Vinge as a cyberspatial realization of anarchism." The link to anarchism contains almost entirely traditional anarchism. So without including the quote or some kind of replacement, it wouldn't be clear that many, probably most, proclaimed "cryptoanarchists" are actually market libertarians rather then the common form of anarchism.

I'm having a look through the cyphernomicom by May, some extra relevent parts are pasted below:

The list has a lot of radical libertarians, some anarcho-capitalists, and even a few socialists
don't lose sight of the core values: privacy, technological solutions over legal solutions, avoiding taxation, bypassing laws, etc.
"What is Crypto Anarchy?" Some of us believe various forms of strong cryptography will cause the power of the state to decline, perhaps even collapse fairly abruptly.
Governments will have a hard time collecting taxes, regulating the behavior of individuals and corporations, (small ones at least), and generally coercing folks when it can't even tell what _continent_ folks are on!
I call this set of ideas "crypto anarchy" (or "crypto-anarchy," as you wish)
The second major is personal liberty through reducing the power of governments to coerce and tax. Sort of a digital Galt's Gulch, as it were. Libertarians and anarchocapitalists are especially drawn to this vision, a vision which may bother conventional liberals (when they realize strong crypto means things counter to welfare, AFDC, antidiscrimination laws....).
This second view is more controversial, but is, in my opinion, what really powers the list.
But the libertarian streak is undeniably strong. And libertarians who think about the failure of politics and the implications of cryptgraphy generally come to the anarcho-capitalist or crypto-anarchist point of view.

So it seems that my own belief that most 'cryptoanarchists' being market-libertarians isn't just contemporary. That the movement has been following this pattern since it was created in the late 80s/early 90's. That the term 'anarchist' in this context was (at least originally) more anarcho-capitalist then traditional-anarchist. Which is once against why I think the quote/link "cyberspatial realization of anarchism." is a bit misleading. Though it could work by being specific about the type of anarchism that Vinge is referring to.

Perhaps the article should view cryptoanarchism as mostly anarcho-capitalist/libertarian in origin, but should also mention that many traditional anarchists support it aswell and call themselves cryptoanarchists. That supporters of both forms may see advantages in strong encryption. J1812 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I now have a greater appreciation for the linguistics section. Anyway, I guess crypto-anarchism really does have strong ties to anarcho-capitalism. After all, May does define crypto-anarchy as an “anarcho-capitalist market system”. Perhaps the article ought to give more recognition to this relationship while disclaiming that many anarchists might not think of crypto-anarchism as a proper form of anarchism. KLP (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

...or at least not necessarily anarchistic. KLP (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the article now says "is a cyber-spatial realization of anarcho-capitalism". I'm certain that is more accurate. Especially considering the evidence in the primary sources (some of it quoted above). J1812 (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The section makes no mention of cryptography, which is what seems to me logically where the word came from, as opposed to "crypto-" as in having a secret agenda or a pun, as the section says. Just like "anarcho-" is a shortening of "anarchy/anarchist," "crypto-" is a shortening of "cryptography."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crypto

--Coching (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism?

While there is a quote in this article, I don't think all crypto-anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. I guess there are also enough anti-capitalist anarchists. I think the article should make clear that this is only a quote of one single crypto-anarchist and it's not true in every case. (no signature, because of dynamic IP and no account) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.102.55 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

a person who describes himself as an anarchist doesn't believe in a centralized governmental authority. lacking such an authority, i think the economic system will naturally be free-market. can that be called capitalism? it used to be that was the case, but much of what we call capitalism today is simply state-controlled market, not free market. Bob Emmett (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A free-market anarchist may use the word to describe a lack of state. But many traditional anarchists extend the definition to mean a lack of hierarchy, which includes abolishing the power structure of a capitalist firm. J1812 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have a poor understanding of what anarchism is about, you should refrain from editing pages about anarchism. This is shown by your claim about anti-capitalism requiring a centralized governmental authority, completely ignoring the fact that all anarchist ideologies are anti-capitalist and have existed in history, whereas your so called stateless capitalism has never existed. A person who describes themselves as an anarchist does not believe in hierarchical property relationships and rejects free markets because they include such horrific acts as child labor. --Voidkom (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the opening to be more general. This is an example of a crypto-anarchist who's "just" an anarchist. Beao 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Telecomix is an example of non-capitalist digital movement based on anarchism, clearly expressing its connection to communism. If you mix it with technological communism enabled by technological singularity preached by Ray Kurzweil, you have a paradigm for technological communism in cyberspace: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xm7xnn_kurzweil-technology-will-achieve-the-goals-of-communism_news. This has also been discussed in Technological utopianism. I really believe the definition needs to be changed, it's not neutral enough. 90.191.166.161 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this page should include a section names "relationship with other anarchists schools". Anarchists have used cryptography to cancel their communication for ages, the DIY idea behind the hacker ethic comes from the punk movement (often linked to anarchism), and so on. In addition (correct me if I'm wrong), but the idea of creating a trust-less economy on the internet really kicked off since the 2009 subprimes crisis and its aftermath, with movement like Occupy Wall Street and a general distrust toward the financial system, especially after the [bank bailouts].

I think this page should also mentions networks that bring governance to the blockchain, like Bitnations or Ethereum's DAO. I recognize most of these projects are built by libertarian, but they are tools and could be used to build any kind of human governance system - capitalist entreprise, communist public ownership or anarchist coop.

--ChatnoirDigital (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Dark Market

The article states: "OpenBazaar is an open source project developing a protocol for e-commerce transactions in a fully decentralized marketplace.[10] It uses the cryptocurrency bitcoin and was inspired by a hackathon project called DarkMarket." DarkMarket links to a page about a crime forum that was shut down in 2008. This is a mixup. The DarkMarket which inspired Openbazaar was a project circa 2014 created by Amir Taaki. From Taaki's article: "Taaki, along with other developers from Airbitz, a bitcoin software company, created a prototype for a decentralised marketplace called "DarkMarket" in 2014, at a hackathon in Toronto, which was forked into the OpenBazaar project." The wikilink suggests that Openbazaar was inspired by an underground cybercrime forum, which is definitely false. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol of crypto-anarchism

I have never seen the symbol "used by crypt-anarchists" that is depicted on the page before. No reference or anything. I was about to remove it, but I will give it a chance.. Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Later: I removed it. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Crypto-libertarianism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Crypto-libertarianism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 26#Crypto-libertarianism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaticidalprophet 00:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Cryptolibertarian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cryptolibertarian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 26#Crypto-libertarianism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaticidalprophet 00:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

See also for anarcho-capitalism, but not anarchism?