+Release Notes for Cyphernomicon, 0.666, 1994-09-10 1.For many months I have been working on a "FAQ" for the Cypherpunks list. I foolishly agreed to do one after several prior efforts had gone nowhere...now I can see why. I got seriously rolling on it in the late winter (of 1994), and then began to write new sections, acquire good quotes (mostly from Cypherpunks list postings, but also from Usenet), and flesh out the topics. This past summer I've spent far too much time on it...far, far too much time. (Though I've continued to post to the Cypherpunks list, I've spent several times as much time working on this document as I have composing posts.) Regardless of some deficiencies--especially some confusing collections of various points--I simply have to put it up for ftp access and then move on to the rest of my life. I'll certainly issue revised versions, and so on, but not for a while. Too many other things are waiting for me to "revise and extend" right now. I hope you folks understand. 1.1. The proximate deadline for this was set by the upcoming "Second Anniversary" Cypherpunks meeting, on Saturday, September 10th. 1994. 2.This FAQ is no longer just a FAQ, but is instead a mini-encyclopedia of various topics. (In fact, about two thirds of the way through working on it, I realized how much easier it would have been to simply eschew all organizational efforts and simply have an alphabetical ordering of entries on a few hundred topics, like an encyclopedia. I've stuck with my thematic organization though. Fortunately, I expect that all readers will read this doc with editors and word processors, or Web browsers (perhaps), so the normal searching and grepping tools can be used to find topics of interest. 2.1. Being more than just a FAQ, I have retitled it "The Cyphernomicon," a whimsical reference to the mythical "Necronomicon." 2.2. I also didn't want to call it "The Cypherpunks FAQ," as befitting our decentralized, non-hierarchical anarchy. Also, there have been several previous FAQs of one sort or another (ones from Matthew Ghio and Eric Raymond, as I recall) and just a few days ago, the "Cypherpunks Electronic Book" (CEB) of Gary Jeffers. To each their own. My FAQ will be called "The Cyphernomicon." (I have some other reasons for this name, which I can elaborate on if there's interest.) 3.The complete document of the "Cyphernomicon" is available by anonymous ftp from ftp.netcom.com in /pub/tcmay. 3.1. How to Get It: 3.1.1. anonymous ftp to "ftp.netcom.com" 3.1.2. username is "anonymous" and password is e-mail address of user 3.1.3. cd to /pub/tcmay 3.2. Should I Get It? 3.2.1. Folks might want to wait a few days, unless they really want it bad, to see if any serious formatting or permission problems exist. 3.2.2. Likewise, if you encounter problems, let me know. I'll summarize any problems, report them via the List, and of course try to resolve them. 3.3. If it's compressed... 3.4. Where Else Can it be Found? 3.4.1. Others are free to move it to ftp sites, etc., as they wish, provided it is kept intact (this is spelled out in the document). 3.4.2. My advice is that people leave it where it is for now, rather than proliferating ftp sites. 3.4.2.1. let's see what the interest is 3.4.2.2. let's keep the point of distribution focussed, to aid in coherency 3.4.2.2.1. after all, this is not "emacs" or some other item that needs worldwide distribution...at most only a few dozen or perhaps more will want this document, is my guess 4."What form is it in, and why?" 4.1. It is currently one large, linear file. This will be best for searching and grepping for keywords, but may be a strain for some text editors and word processors. 4.1.1. When I get time (after a break from this unending chore of finishing it), I may split the file into the 20 or so chapters that comprise it. Maybe not, though, as my ftp storage quota is limited. 4.1.2. At the least I will surely publish the much shorter "MFAQ" (Most Frequently Asked Questions) as a separate document. 4.2. It is not a Web file for several reasons: 4.2.1. I have poor access to the World Wide Web, only via "lynx," and hence spend little time (so far) in the Web. 4.2.2. Many others I suspect have poor access. 4.2.3. Linear text is still fine for some things...can be read on all platforms, can be printed out, and can be searched with standard grep and similar tools 4.2.4. Writing tools are lacking, at least compared to what I have here on the Macintosh. I use an outline processor, MORE, and am very happy with it. (I also have FrameMaker, which can handle conversions to html documents, I hear, but I haven't explored this.) 4.2.4.1. (Note: Please don't send me tips on how if I only converted to the system you use, e.g., Linux and Mosaic, that my problems would be solved. There are a thousand ways to do everything these days, and all choices involve compromises.) 4.2.5. Finally, I'm not convinced that Web documents are such a great advance. From my perusing of the Web, via "lynx," I've been struck with the confusion, the lack of editing, the agglomeration of whatever docs a Web author had available. Too many sites are just not interesting. 5."Why the mix of styles?" 5.1. There are three main types of styles here: 5.1.1. Standard prose sections, explaining some point or listing things. Mini-essays, like most posts to Cypherpunks. 5.1.2. Short, outline-style comments 5.1.2.1. that I didn't have time or willpower to expand into prose format 5.1.2.2. that work best in outline format anyway 5.1.2.3. like this 5.1.3. Quotes from others 5.1.3.1. Cypherpunks are a bright group. A lot of clever things have been said in the 600 days x 40 posts/day = 24,000 posts, and I am trying to use what I can. 5.1.3.2. Sadly, only a tiny fraction can be used 5.1.3.2.1. because I simply cannot _read_ even a fraction of these posts over again (though I've only saved several thousand of the posts) 5.1.3.2.2. and because including too many of these posts would simply make the FAQ too long (it's still too long, I suppose) 5.2. I hope you can handle the changes in tone of voice, in styles, and even in formats. It'll just too much time to make it all read uniformly. 6."Why did it take so long to finish?" 6.1. The editing and rearranging of chunks has been incredibly time-consuming. It seemed that every time I'd delve into a section, I'd look up and discover that several hours had passed! Multiply this by the number of sections and subsections and the problem is apparent. 6.2. I clearly bit off more than I could chew, turning a straightforward FAQ into a semi-encyclopedic look at all sorts of implications and elaborations of cryptography, digital cash, reputations, crypto anarchy, and the like. Oh well, it may be more useful to some people in this form than just another FAQ would be. 7."How useful will it be?" 7.1. It may not be as useful to "newbies" as I had once hoped, though the "MFAQ" (Most Frequently Asked Questions) is suitable for newbies. And even newbies often have "deep" questions, about some particular aspect of some topic, and are often frustrated by the brevity of conventional FAQs. 7.2. My advice is for people to use their editors and word processors to search or grep for the topics of interest to them. 8.Corrections and Elaborations +"How to handle corrections or clarifications?" -While I have done my best to ensure accuracy, errors will no doubt exist. And as anyone can see from reading the Cypherpunks list, nearly *any* statement made about any subject can produce a flurry of rebuttals, caveats, expansions, and whatnot. Some subjects, such as the nature of money, the role of Cypherpunks, and the role of reputations, produce dozens of differing opinions every time they come up! -So, it is not likely that my points here will be any different. Fortunately, the sheer number of points here means that not every one of them will be disagreed with. But the math is pretty clear: if every reader finds even one thing to disagree with and then posts his rebuttal or elaboration....disaster! (Especially if some people can't trim quotes properly and end up including a big chunk of text.) +Recommendations -Send corrections of _fact_ to me -If you disagree with my opinion, and you think you can change my mind, or cause me to include your opinion as an elaboration or as a dissenting view, then send it. If your point requires long debate or is a deep disagreement, then I doubt I have the time or energy to debate. If you want your views heard, write your own FAQ! -Ultimately, send what you want. But I of course will evaluate comments and apply a reputation-based filter to the traffic. Those who send me concise, well-reasoned corrections or clarifications are likelier to be listened to than those who barrage me with minor clarifications and elaborations. -In short, this is not a group project. The "stone soup FAQ" is not what this is. +More information -Please don't send me e-mail asking for more information on a particular topic--I just can't handle custom research. This FAQ is long enough, and the Glossary at the end contains additional information, so that I cannot expand upon these topics (unless there is a general debate on the list). In other words, don't assume this FAQ is an entry point into a larger data base I will generate. I hate to sound so blunt, but I've seen the requests that come in every time I write a fairly long article. +Tips on feedback -Comments about writing style, of the form "I would have written it _this_ way," are especially unwelcome. +Credit issues -inevitable that omissions or collisions will occur -ideas have many fathers -some ideas have been "in the air" for many years +slogans are especially problematic -"They can have my...."...I credit Barlow with this, but I've heard others use it independently (I think; at least I used it before hearing Barlow used it) -"If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto" -"Big Brother Inside" -if something really bothers you, send me a note 9.Closing Comments 9.1. This is not the FAQ everybody may have wanted. Too bad. This is not the length desired by all. Too bad. This is not the form everyone might want. Too bad. And so on. I wrote the document I felt needed to be written, not the doc everyone might agree on (doubtful that this could happen). That's the way of the world. 9.2. I'm not trying to be bad-tempered here. Everybody wants something different. Every post on the Cypherpunks list typically produces a dissenting view. This is the modern age of 600 or more people all hearing the same words, and any of them who disagree or wish to quibble are able to do so. I'm surprised things are not even more contentious than they are! 9.3. So, I hope some of you enjoy this and find it useful. If not, I'll refund your money. Cheers!