Live data from Hacker News

Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

blog.mollywhite.net

41–50 of 295 posts

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#41

Why is the techno-libertarian world so overwhelmingly obsessed with extreme individualism? We are social creatures. We sacrifice individual needs because we gain massive security and social value in return. We need a balance of the various ideologies, and not the extremism of any one ideology. Fifty years of narcissistic, anti-social, "Leave me the hell alone" libertarianism is at the heart of the culture-rot collaps…

People actually think libertarianism has been the dominant ideology of the last 50 years? For real?

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#42
This is an excellent write-up, and I genuinely hope that the brain-cycles the web3 world is spending on this eventually benefit the rest of society.

I’ve been musing about a similar but more simple problem: how can we prove we are an individual human in the context of a web service. Think of this like the ultimate CAPTCHA where not only can you prove you are human but every person can do so at most once or, more pragmatically, O(once).

The closest thing we have in society today is Sign in with Apple, where you have a delegated identity provided by a company which has effectively put up a large portion of its brand value as collateral that it won’t be shady, for some definition of the term “be shady”. This is suboptimal for a number of reasons, not least of which is that they can be compelled by a government to divulge this data while (mostly) protecting their brand-value-collateral, and they can be selective in what types of services are allowed to use this system.

I’m hopeful some of the non-charlatan web3 folks can come up with some sort of scheme where a trusted entity (a government or a civil rights oriented NGO) can participate in a cryptographic handshake with an end user and a service where at the end the service receives a unique identifier for that user which can not be used to associate that user across services, or divulge to the trusted entity which services a particular individual is using. This wouldn’t fully solve the “can I give this person a loan” problem, but would make many things on the web much better (most bots pretending to be human would become cost prohibitive). I also feel like trustworthiness attestation can be incrementally built on such a system (if such a system is possible).

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#43
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you respond to the wrong comment? I have no idea what you are trying to say here sorry.

I could ask you the same. You responded to > in the end, it boils down to everyone just asking to see the passport or some other government ID, or a proxy for that (credit card, library card, with a standard on distributed identity. That doesn't answer the question. I doubled down on what OP said. So if you don't see how my response isn't a follow-up, then the three of us are talking past each other.

Correct. There is nothing "self" or "sovereign" about having your "government name" certified cryptographically by the state.

Oh, you generated your own key material all by yourself, and THEN the government signed it? That's the innovation? Who cares. There is no value.

The -only- reason anyone cares about your identity is because it's mandated to do some checks by the government. Also, to deter fraud, as mandated by your insurance companies and credit card processors.

In both cases, there are legal requirements set out that mandate what exactly you must do. Often it would be the passport, plus second source of identity, plus an address check, plus proof of liveness.

Nobody asked for an open standard. Nobody really cares about identity except for banks/financials corps.

When was the last time you woke up and felt, damn, all I wanna do is identity, identity, identity?

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#44

I feel like the "Anonymity [is] central to the crypto world." ship sailed a long time ago. It was one of the original promises of Bitcoin but it is literally a public database. It's also possible that a society with more transparency regarding financial transactions is the better option long-term, but surrendering the dream of anonymity is a tough one for proponents.

pseudonymity is a reasonable compromise.

And equally as untenable in the crypto world.

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some good points. I think a major problem is with the word "identity", is that there are always (at least two) meanings that may or may not intersect. We have self-regarding identities and other-regarding identities. The set of things we define about ourselves that includes beliefs, intentions, secrets and so on may be (for secrets must be) disjoint from the set of things others attribute to us, reputation, observed…

> right to be forgotten 1984 had a pretty good argument why it’s dystopian to tell people they are not allowed to remember or continue believing something.

I think the right to be forgotten applies to digital records, I might be missing the context here though.

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#46
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of the strong set, but I was under the impression that it didn't accomplish much anymore -- GnuPG disabled SKS lookups a while back, in response to the network's inability to handle thousands of clearly malicious key attestations. The last major topological analysis I can find of the strong set was back in 2015, one year before the first series of spam attacks on SKS. (But don't get me wrong: signatures are…

As usual I'm behind the times. It peaked at 60,000 in 2018 and declined and people stopped believing in it around 2020, some people earlier. My point about scale was a footnote to history, not relevant.

Don’t feel bad, so there so much happening in so many spaces these days.

What a time to be alive.

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#47

I feel like the "Anonymity [is] central to the crypto world." ship sailed a long time ago. It was one of the original promises of Bitcoin but it is literally a public database. It's also possible that a society with more transparency regarding financial transactions is the better option long-term, but surrendering the dream of anonymity is a tough one for proponents.

Couldn’t I just buy monero off guys on the dark web?

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#48
From a first read, the following problems I see in this critique:

- The trilemmas do not need to be solved. They just need to be acknowledged when you are designing your application so that people can understand the types of trade-offs being made. In cases where sybil-resistance is not a requirement, you can build a system that gives you privacy and decentralization. When sybil-resistance is required, you just need to think if you prefer a system that sacrifices privacy or if it sacrifices decentralization. Depending on the use-case, one might be preferred over the other.

- "Security practices are hard, no one will do it properly, they will rather have some expert that can do it for them". Well, if you don't want to deal with security hygiene, you delegate. Just like the majority of people will rightfully prefer to have a bank to manage most of their funds, one could still envision a future where service providers will act as a proxy to anything that requires "your" identity(ies).

In general, the thing that upsets me with all of anti-crypto/anti-web3 people is that they fall into the same trap as the maxis: they start from this ridiculous notion that "web3" is about creating a Highlander solution (there can be only one!) and that this solution needs to satisfy all constraints, otherwise it rubbish and needs to be discarded. The important thing by having decentralized identities (and decentralized technology in general) is that it gives new options for whole new classes of applications that do not exist. No one is being forced to adopt a system just because it is now possible to do it on a blockchain, and we do not need to destroy the current systems if they work well - or at least if they work better than any alternative. There will be even plenty of cases where the status quo is totally fine.

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#49
post #37

I think this article conflates too many different notions of identity together (which tbf, is because the bitcoin people the article is criticizing do the same thing). Identity is one of those concepts that has a lot of parts to it, and you can do the individual parts sanely, but if you try to do everything all at once, its crazy. As a example, my ssh key is an identity system. It works great in some contexts. Would…

Personally, I think it's a good summary of the kinds of identity problems being tackled in the Blockchain space. However, the alarmist tone makes the author seem quite dismissive of interesting technological advances that can be used to securely store data publicly.

We are obviously going to be sharing more data in the future and these projects are discovering how this can be achieved. Blanketing the entire movement as dystopian is unhelpful.

Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?

#50

Why is the techno-libertarian world so overwhelmingly obsessed with extreme individualism? We are social creatures. We sacrifice individual needs because we gain massive security and social value in return. We need a balance of the various ideologies, and not the extremism of any one ideology. Fifty years of narcissistic, anti-social, "Leave me the hell alone" libertarianism is at the heart of the culture-rot collaps…

well, the thing is existing institutions are completely fucked. governments simply do not represent us and there is no trust for them. we have not opted into these systems, they do not speak for us, and they are not legitimate.

we are indeed social creatures and we are developing new civic and social innovations. this mostly relates to actively opting into communities with people we like that share our values and that do not attempt to control us. and crypto/web3 enables us to exit the rotten institutions that try to coerce us into being part of them, and create new institutions that represent our values.

it is pretty obvious when you think about it. only institutions we actively and freely opt into can actually be legitimate.

and the idea that something that claims a monopoly on violence also claims to be legitimate is just completely, utterly laughable. and what is going on right now is that the clown car is finally flying off a cliff :)

Post reply on HN