Talk:Cypherpunk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Literary Genre

If this is not a literary genre why is it listed under the List of punk genres? There are no examples of cypherpunk being nothing more than a term to define a group of individuals. I tried listing several examples of what is considered to be cryptography in fiction however was reprimanded, therefore I believe cypherpunk should be eliminated from the Punk literature list. Piecraft 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Have decided to add cypherpunk under Cultural section for List of punk genres - this way it can also be listed within the Literary genres as a topic that is often written or discussed. Piecraft 00:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Passwords

If passwords can't match, I typically do 'cypherpunks' for the username and 'cypherpunk' for the password. I don't think I'm alone in this, but I'm not sure how prevelent it is. (I've also been setting 'sitename@cypherpunks.cjb.net' as the email address in most cases, but that probably /is/ unique to me.) -- General Wesc 17:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Is that the norm? I'd love to leave one on some "create account to download" place, but want to be sure. I actually made cpunk2@gmail to rot for all, though cypherpunk@gmail probably won't mind. I have this on Watch, so I hope someone knows the ways of "spunking" and being a "spunker" (would that be right?) --Falos 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally use cypherpunks@hotmail.com, because the password there is "cypherpunk" and that helps dodge annoying activation e-mails and such.

cypherpunk accounts

• MSN/Live: cypherpunks@hotmail.com : cypherpunk
• ICQ: 411730050 : cypherpunk
• please expand this.

--grawity 17:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

oh come on, man, that defeats the purpose of cipherpunks/cypherpunks to call it all out. This article doesn't point out that it is still quite common to have the "cipherpunk" spelling out on the net. , I was taught it this way as well as the "standard permutations" of username/password, special birthday date etc. That was in 1994, so I thought things had changed, but i discovered the other day there are several very well known sites that accept them. You've just got to resist posting them or they will die. Spread the word out of band. ( oh and I'm not gonna sign either... sorry ) -- Cipherpunk

I don't think it's particularly smart to post such information. There are a lot of people, most of them young, who will disable accounts, change passwords, or use them for abuse whereas almost everyone who knows to try cypherpunk:cypherpunk and the like will respect the accounts. 72.154.101.30 09:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's Peter Shipley? Is he really well known?

Are you INSANE? Yes, Peter Shipley is WELL KNOWN. Several Well Knowns are missing here ( and are going back soon!). This article was accurate, although a tad raw, until the massive rewrite turned it into a fairy-tale of dead people, dead lists, and people making edits who know NOTHING about us.

Where's the crazy Savvis dude gone to (Terrason)?

How is it that people remove Bell, Shipley, Al-Qaeda.net, etc., and obviously know NOTHING about this topic at all? This entire farce needs reversion!

references

Okay, I just dug through the verona archive and pulled out links to several examples and referential posts. What all is wanted to get rid of that flag at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean.Roach (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Translation

The URL mentioned on the article is reporting a 404 (http://lateclaindomita.bravehost.com/cyber.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.216.251 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

careless linkage

Just because Hugh Daniel and Eric Hughes are not redlinks, don't go assuming that they are relevant. The Hugh Daniel mentioned here was not dead in 1985 (if you'll pardon a bit of OR), and the Eric Hughes mentioned here probably wasn't coaching football in England when the Cypherpunks were founded.

I wouldn't normally mention it, but I've delinked Hugh twice in eight months. —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? . . Careless? If you have to keep fixing the same mistake just comment out a note telling people to leave it alone. --Banana (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

external links

I removed wiki link under Eric Hughes as targeted page refers to some sportsman without single word about any cypher activities whatsoever (for me that was obvious, but your miles may vary) silpol 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What, he wasn't coaching football in England when I met him in California? —Tamfang (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WHOLESALE CHANGES WITH AGENDA

This article has been completely re-written, and apparently with an agenda of repainting us in someone elses light. The list did NOT die in 2001, it is STILL ACTIVE at Al-Qaeda.net.

This article now has wholesale inaccuracies, apparently from an overlay of a spanish wiki that had an article with incorrect data.

I am going to wholesale revert us to our rightful form in 36 hours unless someone can tell me how they proved all of these non-true "facts".

Despite your extraordinary rudeness, I'm going to respond. There are higher standards for civility on Wikipedia than on many other parts of the web. To address your points:

• spanish wiki? what are you talking about? As I clearly noted in my edit summary, I added the information from citizendium. Did you not look at the page history?
• "representing Us"? Well, who are you?

I, unlike you apparently, am a current member of the group. I joined it in 1993. Who are YOU, making edits that are clearly and provably erroneous with simple searches? Do you have an interest? If so, try reading what was previously written - it was (as someone said) "sparse", but at least it was accurate. There's been a lot of BS going around since Jim got out, and I do not doubt this is related in some way (as there is no other logical and rational conclusion).

• "Our rightful form?" You do not own this article. There is not "rightful form". You can read about how wikipedia works here.

Poor choice of words. Lets substitute ' An accurate article, unvarnished by any random editor who has no clue of what they are editing'?

• You are mistaken in your belief that I write "with an agenda of repainting us in someone elses light". On wikipedia, there is a policy to assume good faith. I would ask for an apology, but my magic 8-ball is telling me that's not likely.

You are correct - but if you knew anything about the group you wouldn't have needed that Magic 8-Ball. ;-)

You are clearly writing with an agenda, or you are just making up things out of thin air. Try emailing the current list at cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net - the list is NOT dead. The vast majority of your rasher edits are just plain wrong. Some of the imported spanish stuff was not bad, but there is a very definite beginning and end point now where there was none before. Prior to this, we had only a factual, NPOV article, that did not assert anything that was not factually correct.

• "I am going to wholesale revert us to our rightful form in 36 hours unless someone can tell me how they proved all of these non-true "facts"." Despite the numerous citations supporting the text I added (including the information you removed), I'm just going to trust you that everything you say is true rather than, hmmm, asking you to provide sources for your statements that are more authoritative than the ones you say are wrong. --Banana (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, you are in "my house" at this point. You are writing about my friends and associates. I have first hand personal knowledge that this article is now RIDDLED with wild inaccuracies. For example, your "List death notice". If you read it, in context, it is an unsubscription notice, written in a form which is common in the CP forum. The assertion that is made of the death of the list is a personal, not a literal one. There are still several hundred listmembers, and another several hundred on each of the various forked crypto lists (you either know them or you dont). To take that email and use it to assert as fact that the list is dead, when there is an existing factually correct statement that Al-qaeda.net is running (all it would have taken is an email. Who made a web page a requirement?) is at best reckless, and at worst indicative of an agenda.

I missed that you called me a vandal in your edit summary. And said that you hated me. I'm honestly finding it hard to take you seriously. --Banana (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I stated that I hated Vandals as a group. That you appear to be a vandal comes from the wholesale inaccuracies you are introducing into this formerly smaller but far more accurate article. You clearly have zero first hand knowledge of any of this, or you wouldn't be making these obviously inaccurate edits.

By the way, the comment you responded to by calling the other person 'insane' is from 2007. It is highly unlikely they will read your insults. --Banana (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping I'll get lucky. Shipley was a founding member -how is not notable? That's ignorance or lunacy. possibly both. The fact is you shouldn't be making edits you know NOTHING about. I will revert your vandalism.

I'm in "your house"? I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling me at this point. You have not provided a source for any of your statements. As you continue to insult me and other editors, I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion --Banana (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Hi guys. I've looked over the discussion and the first thing I'll ask is *please* sign your posts - a lot of them aren't signed and it makes it very difficult to see which comment belongs to who. I only managed to given there's only two of you (I think). I'm inclined to agree with Banana on this matter, given that however well acquainted the other person is with the subject matter, uncited personal knowledge counts as original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If a cited fact is introduced from a reliable, noteworthy source, it should not be removed without a discussion and a presentation of opposing argument with accompanying source. That said, I would encourage you both to, rather than revert each others' edits, to try and find some sources for the content you specifically disagree on, rather than summarily deleting parts you may disagree with. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, lets start with this one (which I have covered more than once: The list is NOT dead. Send an email to the current master node: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net and see the magic reply. Or is that lone, bare fact "original research". The problem here is the article was factually correct prior to this insane complete re-write, and now it is a conglomeration of untruths, inaccuracies, and ignorance. As for first hand personal knowledge being the same as research, I take exception. Our friend bannana is "researching", and coming up shot - very. Yet, he "believes" his Original Research is correct, so to hell with the actual facts on the ground. If he had the same first hand personal knowledge that I do, he wouldn't be making these ridiculous errors - because he would actually know what he is talking about.

To put your argument a different way: If I was to write an article about you, and you knew that certain facts were wrong (due to you being you, and therefore having direct first hand personal knowledge (not research) of the topic), you would be correct in making the repairs. Those repairs are not based on "research", original or otherwise. This is a point that SO many WikiP editors seem to miss - it's a good thing most of you don't make your living with language, say, in a courtroom or something.

Some, not all, of Banana's new material is actually factually correct, AND worth having as it rounds out the article, but having two separate lists of "well known" [I think thats what the new first list is now called], and the original "Well known cypherpunks" is not only confusing - it's redundant! The two lists are (with 2 or 3 people) identical. Leave the original and get on with it. As for moving it: why would this go at the top of an article? Articles should be written in a logical and concise manner, and knowing who the most famous participants are is certainly not going to help a reader who doesn't yet have a good grasp of what the list even is.

My reversion is the correct course of action -> not because I "own it" (I dont want to own it, and I've never edited that article before, take a look), but because simply overlaying a 3rd party article on top of the one you have is nonsensical: you get nothing but the gibberish disaster you have now.

This article has been slowly developing for several years, in an orderly, factual way. Take a look at the history: until the other Wiki was overlaid with no seeming awareness of the existing material, we had a neutral, factually correct reference - that is now gone (in every sense).

Question: Why is a complete re-write (which takes the article from correct and neutral to wildly inaccurate, incomplete, and slanted) considered acceptable, when a reversion is not? That sounds more like an ownership belief than my reversions to factual articles. NotSonOfGomez 21 Aug 2010 7:26 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.156.211 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not true independent, since I have prior involvement with the article, but I'm with Banana and ῤerspeκὖlὖm on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to come back to this in a couple days. --Banana (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to the following quote:

"To put your argument a different way: If I was to write an article about you, and you knew that certain facts were wrong (due to you being you, and therefore having direct first hand personal knowledge (not research) of the topic), you would be correct in making the repairs. Those repairs are not based on "research", original or otherwise. This is a point that SO many WikiP editors seem to miss - it's a good thing most of you don't make your living with language, say, in a courtroom or something."

Let me put it another way to you - if an article stated a fact about a person that was cited from a reliable source, maybe even several sources, yet it put you in a bad light, would you not be inclined to remove that fact? Given your reasoning, you would have no burden of proof to show the 'fact' was false, only that you 'know it to be true'. I understand your point, I really do, and it identifies a flaw within the system. However, it is the best way of trying to ensure some sense of factual accuracy that facts be backed up with citations/references. If you know them to be false, show some evidence - your own first hand knowledge is not grounds for dismissal - how do other editors know that you know this, or you are telling the truth?

Please don't think I'm accusing you of lying or being mistaken, but this is the problem we face, which is why the WP:OR rules exist. Perhaps the word 'research' is misleading, but it does apply here. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bell's being obstructed from editing WP, including 'jim bell'

Bell was released from prison on December 18, 2009. Bell has attempted to remove the large amount of bias from the article 'Jim Bell', but has been extensively obstructed from doing so. An editor named 'Skomorokh' is responsible for turning that article into an attack piece, although he's been virtually inactive for 18+ months. Current editors trying to keep the article biased against Bell include daedalus969, NeilN, Acroterion, C.Fred. Others, acting in a "meat-puppet" role assisting these guys include Eyeserene and Rlevse. 97.120.245.86 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Jim has had his parole revoked (next expected release date 2012), (see PACER), it's kind of a moot point now, dontcha think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.156.211 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda reference

"The final remaining node is at al-qaeda.net" Are you sure? That sounds somewhat far-fetched...citation needed. 130.126.211.130 (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Send an email to cypherpunks-at-al-qaeda.net for confirmation. I wisg people would check their "facts" before doing edits that claim something of real historical significance. There is more than one kind of "death". There is the physical death, in this case the actual end of the list (which has NOT happened), and then there is the metaphorical death, which is the cited post. The poster considers the list metaphorically dead because he does not feel the content is up to quality standards that he feels are appropriate. The CP list gets a LOT of these kinds of posts - using any of them to claim as "proof" that the list is dea is dangerous at best. The last twelve months have seen at least four similar posts that I can recall, and probably more than that went out. 99.164.156.211 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

TOR

I think the relationship between Cypherpunks and TOR should be taken up...by someone. Although the main heavy lifting for TOR was not done directly through Cyperpunks, I think it's clear that there was a lot of ideas used by TOR that came out of CPunks and Mixmaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.133.92.228 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

venona links broken

i tried following some of the links listed (venona) and they were dead. is this a long-term thing? Bob Emmett (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, probably, because today it is 2011 and they are still broken... Logictheo (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Known Cypherpunks

Tyler Durden is a contributor to Cypherpunks and has been since in the late 90s, and was a lurker prior to that. I plan on adding a few more contributors' names so please don't undo them if you don't do the homework to verify that this isn't a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.133.92.228 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What qualifies someone as a well known cypherpunk? For example, Paul Kocher was friendly with many cpunks, but wasn't really a heavy participant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emergentchaos (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember some posts by Paul Kocher. Put him in there, then, if ya' want. So far, there's hardly any name in this list that I don't recognize so it's probably pretty good. Oh wait, what about Black Unicorn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.43 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

cypherparty

what's a cypherparty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.38.44 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Too many quotation templates

Is there really a need to have so many quotation templates? Parts of this article could be used as an example in the quotations article for what not to do; "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." DouglasCalvert (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

List of noteworthy cypherpunks

Hi. I just culled a bunch of redlinked list items. The list of noteworthy cypherpunks is already quite long so I suggest an inclusion threshold consistent with Wikipedia policy: a cypherpunk entry in this list has established its noteworthiness if it sustains its own dedicated article. So if any candidate cypherpunk I have removed is truly noteworthy, my apologies, but please consider writing his/her article, first. Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This culling is an evisceration of important cypherpunk history. Many of the redlinks are well known but for whatever reason do not have (or have deleted) their own individual pages. Some are deliberate psuedonyms, and therefore cannot have their own linkable pages. In the CP world, much is deliberately obfuscated for the protection of the member, or even as a mere public statement. Nevertheless, you have removed some well known and even oft quoted (in news articles, etc.) CP's. This wholesale culling is no longer an accurate reflection of the "Notables" membership. Unless there is good discussion and reasoning put forward that convinces me otherwise, I am going to revert many (possibly all) of these removals. 99.117.245.243 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that while all "redlinked" names were removed, there are now a bunch added back as "nolink" entries. We should remove these too if we are going to be consistent (or, even better, restore the entire culling for the reasons previously stated: many people used unlinkable names on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.245.243 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Although Julian Assange's book promotional materials claim he was an early contributor to the cypherpunks list, this is false. He's been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.226.33 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Julian may have actually participated pretty early on, under pseudonym. At least, by about 1996/7 I remember seeing either posts from him on the list or else quoted by John Young, with a clear indication of previous participation. OK, so maybe not a founding member but it's not far wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.216.147 (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see he's been added back. This is proper though, as he is a 'notable' punk, even if a latecomer. Yet many early and important punks are no longer listed due to lack of blulinks? This is a baaaadddd idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.245.243 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)