[tptacek]

I've read this 3 times now and I still don't really understand what he's trying to say. The split between EFF-style cryptography-coded "technopolitics" and Coinbase-style doesn't exist; the EFF is fundamentally a libertarian project and the Cypherpunks were/are enthusiastic progenitors of cryptofinance and "web3".

[velcrovan]

> My technopolitics faction – the faction associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where I've worked for a quarter-century – has an answer: the role of encryption is to provide a measure of privacy and security that is best used to organize political struggles to demand the rule of law and respect for human rights. Encryption isn't proof against rubber hoses, but it is effective against many other forms of state repression, and it can provide a technical edge for those engaged in a political struggle.

> Another faction – the faction most associated with bitcoin and subsequent cryptocurrency projects – rejects the role of the state altogether, and seeks to replace states (and state-regulated institutions like courts and banks) with mathematics. Rather than asking courts to interpret contracts, we can put our trust in self-executing "smart contracts," and rather than asking banks to safeguard our financial integrity, we can use cryptographic software to ensure that money only moves when the person it belongs to tells it to.

So he's saying there is a split between those who believe the state and the rule of law are essential tools of freedom, and those who believe technology can provide its own law and guarantees without any need for the state. None of that is incompatible with the EFF being a libertarian project.

And your confusion derives from…what? When he explains this, you feel the correct response is basically "nuh-uh"?

[tptacek]

The divide exists among people. It does not exist among the Cypherpunks.