Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

decrypt.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 318 posts

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#31

Post by [deleted] »

exo762 wrote: post #26
danuker wrote: post #8

Worldcoin issues tokens to people for scanning their retinas. Their magical orb device sends a biometric hash to their network. Here's my take on it: You can possibly replace their biometric device with a random hash generator. * If it works, it means the currency is not fairly distributed, but anyone sending valid hashes to their network is issued tokens, irrespective of whether the eyeballs described by those hashe…

While I don't care about Worldcoin (I think it will fail, because they are solving the problem that does not exist), this post is false in multiple ways. First, retina scanning output hash is deterministic - it is supposed to generate the same result for the same eyeball. So it can't be replaced with random number generation. Second, network does not interpret hashes, except for making sure that single hash is awarde…

[deleted]

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#32

Post by ericmay »

idorosen wrote: post #30
bsedlm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider the energy expense exactly the reason (and the cost) of the decentralized trust afforded by PoW. How is it irrelevant?

Proof of work, it’s inefficiency, or it’s security implications on transactions more generally are not relevant to your comments on the vulnerability of their coin faucet or the veracity of their claims.

They related these two points by saying that either it’s hackable, or there’s something weird going on under the hood, and that proof of stake alleviates these issues. Idk if I agree or disagree but it seemed straightforward and relevant what they were asserting.

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#33

Post by ArtTimeInvestor »

As I understand it, the distribution mechanism of Worldcoin is not part of the protocol. The protocol does not know anything about eyes.

So the distribution seems completely centralized. A central authority distributes the coins however they wish.

Today they might use a process involving eye scans. Or maybe not. There is no way to check. Tomorrow they might change their approach however they like. And we would have no way of knowing.

The issue that seems to be overlooked is that there is no way to look at a hash and decide if it was created via scanning an eye. The hash is signed via some key that - according to the makers of WC - sits in an eye scanning device which behaves a certain way. But we have no way of checking that.

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#34

Post by bvaldivielso »

faxlp wrote: post #6

First OpenAI launches the code laundering tool CoPilot, now Altman wants to scan the world's irises. Could Altman perhaps sit down and fucking program something himself? Show us your code.

How is Altman's code relevant?

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#35

Post by drexlspivey »

exo762 wrote: post #26
danuker wrote: post #8

Worldcoin issues tokens to people for scanning their retinas. Their magical orb device sends a biometric hash to their network. Here's my take on it: You can possibly replace their biometric device with a random hash generator. * If it works, it means the currency is not fairly distributed, but anyone sending valid hashes to their network is issued tokens, irrespective of whether the eyeballs described by those hashe…

While I don't care about Worldcoin (I think it will fail, because they are solving the problem that does not exist), this post is false in multiple ways. First, retina scanning output hash is deterministic - it is supposed to generate the same result for the same eyeball. So it can't be replaced with random number generation. Second, network does not interpret hashes, except for making sure that single hash is awarde…

> First, retina scanning output hash is deterministic - it is supposed to generate the same result for the same eyeball. So it can't be replaced with random number generation.

His argument is valid, what stops you from replacing the retina scan with a random hash replicating a different person scanning each time and collecting new tokens? What ties the hash to the actual retina other than the device that you can mess with?

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#36

Post by krageon »

ozim wrote: post #9
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #5

Ever since the movie "Demolition Man", it should be obvious why biometrics are a bad idea. (Yeah I know they also can try to scan for signs of life like blood flow - still, I don't like it). Even without the Demolition Man scenario, an even worse issue is that you can't change your biometrics in case somebody steals them. Fake fingerprints are already easy to do, other things surely can be cloned, too.

Kids or coworkers are not going to make fake fingerprints to mess with me. What they can do is to see password or pin code while I am typing those over my shoulder. Someone on the street also won't be able to see my pin code for unlocking phone if I use fingerprint. Those are scenarios that biometrics are handling really well. Biometrics against sophisticated attackers is not good idea. I don't encounter in my life "…

> Kids or coworkers are not going to make fake fingerprints

In truth I have seen this done to mess with people using cellotape and creativity, so I have to warn you this is not a reasonable assumption.

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#37

Post by acdha »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #20
ozim wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids or coworkers are not going to make fake fingerprints to mess with me. What they can do is to see password or pin code while I am typing those over my shoulder. Someone on the street also won't be able to see my pin code for unlocking phone if I use fingerprint. Those are scenarios that biometrics are handling really well. Biometrics against sophisticated attackers is not good idea. I don't encounter in my life "…

Somebody stealing your phone will likely be able to retrieve fingerprints from it? Maybe it is too much for a random thief. But what if there are "factories" for treating stolen phones, and random thieves just sell the phones to those factories? (Not saying that happens, but it seems likely to me that such things will eventually exist - down to trying to retrieve bank codes from stolen computers and phones and trying…

A stolen phone has hashes, not scans – if memory serves, there were a couple of old Android phones which saved the images but even that was a developer’s mistake leaving logging on rather than the design.

The sensible approaches for biometrics use them to unlock strong keys which never leave the device. If implemented correctly, this is somewhat resistant to offline brute-force attacks — certainly not impossible but not economical for going after most people.

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#38

Post by danuker »

Yetino wrote: post #18
danuker wrote: post #8

Worldcoin issues tokens to people for scanning their retinas. Their magical orb device sends a biometric hash to their network. Here's my take on it: You can possibly replace their biometric device with a random hash generator. * If it works, it means the currency is not fairly distributed, but anyone sending valid hashes to their network is issued tokens, irrespective of whether the eyeballs described by those hashe…

The first half of your argument makes sense. Justifying the use of proof-of-work appears to be a fallacy of relevance though

Proof-of-work was created precisely to prevent a Sybil attack, but while allowing an open network (i.e. not having to buy the token from the creators).

You need a form of scarcity to prevent a Sybil attack. Solved cryptographic puzzles of an adjustable difficulty is one such form of scarcity.

Does this address your concern about relevance?

Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'

#39

Post by Tenoke »

drexlspivey wrote: post #35
exo762 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't care about Worldcoin (I think it will fail, because they are solving the problem that does not exist), this post is false in multiple ways. First, retina scanning output hash is deterministic - it is supposed to generate the same result for the same eyeball. So it can't be replaced with random number generation. Second, network does not interpret hashes, except for making sure that single hash is awarde…

> First, retina scanning output hash is deterministic - it is supposed to generate the same result for the same eyeball. So it can't be replaced with random number generation. His argument is valid, what stops you from replacing the retina scan with a random hash replicating a different person scanning each time and collecting new tokens? What ties the hash to the actual retina other than the device that you can mess…

Presumably the orbs produce a verifiable type of hash. E.g. whatever output it has is also encrypted with their private key + some salt and you can always check if what a user provides has that.
Post reply on HN