Cypherpunks (Don’t Just) Write Code

In The Cypherpunk Manifesto, privacy is mentioned twenty-four times.
It is the central theme, the foundation, and the driving purpose of the entire call to action.

Yet, in popular discussions, people often focus on a single line:

“Cypherpunks write code.”
— Hughes, 1993

That focus usually comes from those of us who do write code — and we understand that the line means Cypherpunks write code to protect privacy.
But this narrow focus leaves out the rest of the Cypherpunk community — the broad majority who also play essential roles in achieving that goal.

“For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract…
Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one’s fellows in society.”
— Hughes, 1993

Cypherpunks don’t just write code.

Code is meaningless without users, advocates, and educators — and, at times, privacy-focused lawyers to defend those who write it.
If only coders are considered Cypherpunks, we create a smaller, more vulnerable anonymity set — easier to target, easier to silence.

We should want some Cypherpunks to write code.
But we should also want Cypherpunks who:

• Write about privacy
• Speak about privacy
• Make art, music, and media about privacy

“Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act.”
— Hughes, 1993

We also need Cypherpunks who:

• Lobby against anti-privacy legislation
• Defend digital rights in court
• Lead organizations that uphold privacy principles

Cypherpunks build digital and analog tools alike — from encryption software to the physical practices of confidentiality and discretion. They also require cypherpunks to design systems for actual use cases, test software, build testing infrastructure, manage projects, document, and educate on privacy tools.

In an ideal world, everyone strives to be a Cypherpunk in the way their skills and passions best serve the cause of privacy.

“Code alone doesn’t cut it. Not code alone, not code widely distributed, not even code widely used. Some measure of toleration in society for activities conducted in private is necessary for long-term success.”
— Eric Hughes, “Kid Gloves or Megaphones,” 1996

Three years after writing A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto, Eric Hughes revisited that same “Cyperpunks write code” focus. In a message to the Cypherpunks mailing list, he reminded the community that privacy cannot survive in code alone. Privacy needs public understanding and social tolerance. This message reads almost like a Cypherpunk Manifesto update or bug fix. And yet, people still focus on that single “Cyperpunks write code” line from the 1993 manifesto.

Hughes warned that if privacy tools exist only in the shadows, society will turn against them. Without transparency, trust collapses; without trust, privacy becomes marginal — something for outlaws, not citizens. He saw clearly that social consensus is the real encryption key.

“Unless there is a public consensus that people generally should be able to use their own cryptography, then such use will become marginalized. Legislatures will outlaw, the public will disapprove, and vigilantes will hunt down improper use.”
— Hughes, 1996

It’s not enough to build strong code; we must also build strong narratives that defend it in public. The Cypherpunk mission isn’t to hide — it’s to speak up, The movement survives not by retreating into encrypted caves, but by carrying the message outward — loud, human, and unashamed. That’s how privacy wins: not just with math, but with megaphones.

I would add, in whatever way you choose to speak up within whatever your skills, strengths, and constraints are in the world.

“The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy.
Let us proceed together apace. Onward.”
— Hughes, 1993

Networks are not just computer systems — they are people, places, and communities. Privacy depends on the cooperation of everyone within them.

Everyone is needed. Everyone is necessary.