The right to privacy is essential in a transparent society during the digital era. Privacy does not equate to secrecy. A private issue is something one prefers to keep from the public eye, whereas a secret is something one wishes to keep hidden from everyone. Privacy embodies the ability to disclose oneself to the world on one’s own terms.
Bitcoin finds itself at another pivotal moment. On one hand, there’s the simpler path, lined with the promise of increasing value, highly regulated ETF products, and stablecoins backed by the surveillance state proposed as the solution for the next wave of users. The alternative route, however, is undoubtedly more complex and shadowy, even in light of the enlightening ideas presented by Eric Hughes and other innovators within the realm of open-source cryptographic tools.
On March 3, 1993, Hughes released A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto, outlining the aspirations of the newly-formed Cypherpunks—a group of hackers and activists in the Bay Area that included Hughes, Tim May, John Gilmore, and others, under a name coined by St. Jude Milhon.
Bitcoin culture –– assuming it still retains a unified essence –– is entangled in yet another culture war distraction, as legislation fills the regulatory moat, hindering self-custody while punitive measures arise for those who dared to write code in defiance.
We cannot rely on governments, corporations, or other large, impersonal entities to grant us privacy out of goodwill. It benefits them to surveil us, and it is realistic to assume they will do so.
How did we arrive at this point? How have we spent the past year debating spam and the ethical use of Bitcoin while entirely overlooking the growing regulatory moat? There were ample warnings and indicators. Congress is crafting additional legislation aimed at regulating the internet, proposing stablecoin regulations, and banning certain social media applications, all while the state continues to redefine what constitutes a cryptocurrency in real time.
To attempt to suppress their communication is to resist the very nature of information. Information not only seeks freedom, but it yearns for it. It expands to utilize all available data space. Information is the quicksilver younger sibling of Rumor; more agile, more aware, and less comprehending.
Bitcoin serves as a database. Bitcoin constitutes speech. Bitcoin embodies code. Those advocating compliance will insist we must seek permission from local authorities to engage with Bitcoin, just to settle our taxes and fulfill our legal obligations. Samourai, TornadoCash, Wasabi Wallet… they created code—tools that users around the world, across diverse legal frameworks, employed to exchange strings of alphanumeric data.
For centuries, individuals have defended their privacy through whispers, shadows, sealed envelopes, closed doors, clandestine handshakes, and trusted couriers. Past technologies may have limited privacy, unlike what electronic technologies can offer.
Writing code is not criminal. Code is speech. Distributing code is an exchange between parties, where bytes are reduced to bits, transforming into ones and zeroes. Any ruling establishing otherwise contravenes the First Amendment rights and defies the inherent right to freedom of expression.
Cypherpunks create code. We recognize that someone must develop software to safeguard privacy, and since we can only achieve privacy as a collective, we will proceed to write it.
There are numerous ways Bitcoin the network can disseminate worldwide, and how Bitcoin the asset can achieve extraordinary value without guaranteeing any additional freedom for the global populace. The definition of Bitcoin has been manipulated by those seeking conformity within the regulatory moat, necessitating a redefining of Bitcoin itself. Bitcoin was never intended to represent dollar-denominated value; it was never designed to sustain the UST market through Treasury-backed tokens that relied on KYC compliance. Bitcoin was never meant to cooperate with the state, furthering the reach of those who distort the definitions of speech, code, and numbers.
Bitcoin serves as a means of empowerment, and Bitcoin is for those who oppose. Yet now, our adversary—the state—has garnered more power.
We understand that software cannot be eradicated and that a decentralized system cannot be dismantled.
Writing code is not a crime. We have engaged in debates about cultural signaling with all the grace of intoxicated sports fans, while the accountants stealthily redefine meanings with their red markers, gradually leading us into confusion.
Privacy can only go as far as the support of one’s peers within society. We, the Cypherpunks, welcome your inquiries and concerns, and we hope to engage with you so as not to mislead ourselves. However, we will remain steadfast in our mission, undeterred by dissent.
Bitcoin is merely a ledger.
A database.
Let us move forward together.
Whispering numbers to a trusted individual cannot be deemed a criminal act.
Onward.
The Editors
___________________________________________________________________________
#!/usr/local/bin/perl — export-a-crypto-system sig, RSA in 5 lines of PERL:
($s,$k, $n)=@ARGV; $w=length$n; $k=”O$k”if length($k)&1; $n=”O$n”, $w*+if$w&1; die
“$0 -d-e key mod <in ›out\n"if$s!~/^-[de]$/||$#ARGV<2;$v=$w;$s=~/d/?$v-=2:
SW-=2;$_-unpack (‘B*’ , pack(‘#*’, Sk)): s/~o*//g;s/0/d*ln%/g;s/1/d*In%lm*ln%/g;
Sc=”1$ (_)p” ;while(read (STDIN, Sm, Sw/2))($m=unpack(“H$w”, Sm): chop($a=
echo 160161\Um \Esm\U$n\Esn$c|dc*):print pack(‘H*’, ‘0’x($v-length$a).$a);}
___________________________________________________________________________
To test, just save it as a file named “rsa”, then execute:
% chmod 700 rsa
% echo “squeamish ossifrage” | rsa -e 11 ca1 > msg.rsa
% rsa -d ac1 cal < msg.rsa
Dutch
English
French
German
Greek
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish