There is also an incentivization problem here. For every person that they get onboard, “Worldcoin will allow everyone to claim a free share of it.” That share is worth $0.07 in US dollars today. If I don't think it's worth 7 cents to produce my iris data, then the best strategy is to wait until the coin goes up to my price point before entering that market. It makes the most sense to hold off until the coin hits $65,000 US before getting the "free share" and immediately converting it into another currency.
Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
181–190 of 318 posts
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't call the coin distribution fair if the creators can allocate arbitrary amounts to themselves, which the Worldcoin creators appear able to do. Then again, even PoW coins with no premine can be unfair if most of the long-term supply gets distributed in just the first few years, leaving only crumbs for late adopters.
>Then again, even PoW coins with no premine can be unfair [...] It's "fair" if you're referring to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
> It's "fair" if you're referring to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
Fairness and equality are different. Imagine 2 people of different heights who can't see over a wall - equality is giving them both a ladder of exactly the same height even if that means just the tallest person can now see over the wall, while fairness is giving them each potentially different height ladders so they can both see over the wall.
The PoW equivalent (not factoring in premine) would be to give the first person the tallest ladder, and each successive person vanishingly small ladders, which doesn't really come under fair or equal. PoW with premine puts you in front of the wall so you don't need a ladder, plus it gives you a pile of ladders which you can sell to the people behind the wall, and maybe even some bricks so you can arbitrarily make the wall higher if you want.
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or... What if you had an AI randomly generate unique irises, you then print them on adhesive paper, and paste the cut-outs on the eyes of one of those robo-faces? Unlimited money!
They allegedly do liveness checks with an IR sensor to make sure they are scanning a live eye
> They allegedly do liveness checks with an IR sensor to make sure they are scanning a live eye
If you control one of their devices, you could always just modify it fake a live input.
Even if they intend to control the scanners themselves, corruption can probably thwart that. This comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29001214) makes it sounds like they may be operating in countries with endemic corruption.
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#184Oi! Altman! No!
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Late adopters do not have equal opportunity when the coin distribution is heavily biased toward initial years. Imagine if half of all gold on earth was already mined in the first 4 years (and over 99% in the first 27 years) of gold mining millenia ago.
Correct, but that does not mean its unfair. It just means being late, in the same way that I didn't buy early Apple stock. Nothing prevented me from buying that stock, the opportunity was equal at the time. Whilst anybody is forgiven for not knowing about the very start of BTC at some obscure mailing list, since then there has been a decade of mainstream media exposure, a huge amount of time to acquire BTC. Failing t…
The oppurtunity was never equal. It's directly related to net worth which is one of the most unequal things we have.
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even fair in opportunity since not everyone starts from the same place. For example, It's based on your already existing resources (computing power).
Computing power, or capital to buy the coins. But I don't think this level of "fairness" is productive to discuss. Every human being on the planet having the exact same amount of wealth is an impossibility.
I'll buy "undesirable", for the sake of the argument. But I'm really not clear why you think it is "impossible".
We have had repeated instances throughout history of groups of people practicing common ownership, and they do seem to work reasonably well. (I completely grant they aren't super-popular, but, again, I'm not advocating change, I'm trying to understand why you think this qualifies as "impossible")
What do you think prevents this on a planet-level scale?
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#187I have a congenital cataract. Periodically opticians try to photograph my retina and fail. Is my money safe?
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#188Cartoon idea: Man walks into WorldCoin center with a bag of human eyeballs -- "where are my free coins?"
[deleted]
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct but efficacy of this process is pretty much irrelevant for the founders because the whole "fair distribution" is just a marketing gimmick to promote yet another shitcoin. Only losers will provide their real retinas. Smart players will obviously game the system and then dump the shitcoin on yet another group of losers.
Wait until you see the retina mining camps they set up in China.
Too bad bodies decay quickly or we'd have an epidemic of grave robbing to literally mine retinas.
Re: Edward Snowden Slams Sam Altman's Worldcoin: 'Don't Catalogue Eyeballs'
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Then again, even PoW coins with no premine can be unfair [...] It's "fair" if you're referring to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
> It's "fair" if you're referring to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Fairness and equality are different. Imagine 2 people of different heights who can't see over a wall - equality is giving them both a ladder of exactly the same height even if that means just the tallest person can now see over the wall, while fairness is giving them each potentially different height ladders so they can both see over the wall…
Regarding your first paragraph, from Oxford Dictionary, "fairness" means "impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination."
The above poster was right — it's fair if you're referring to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
I've seen this whole ladder analogy commonly used in radical socialist, communist, CRT-type Instagram accounts, used to reframe discrimination in a positive light.