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

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

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 295 posts

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

#61

Post by renewiltord »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #54
rglullis wrote: post #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…

Everything you say is very reasonable until: > 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. which is probably true in reality, but still something I'd like to challenge.…

That's just students repeating cliches. Most kids are trying to write what they think the grading authority will reward.

One can live a pure cash no internet life even in SF.

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

#62

Post by Geee »

jstnwill wrote: post #21

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…

That's not what libertarianism is about. It is about ideas that maximize freedom for everyone in a society. It is about allowing freedom to others. It's the opposite to narcissist and anti-social. It is about being nice to each other, or as Jesus said: "love your neighbor as yourself". Individual acts and thoughts are allowed and valued.

Unfortunately, our society and culture has been going into more collectivist and totalitarian direction for quite a while, which is why there's so much economic and social issues.

"Leave me the hell alone"-people are just normal people who react to their freedom being violated.

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

#63

Post by arbol »

motohagiography wrote: post #11

This is a thoughtful treatment of some of the issues. I worked on digital identity in govt, and sovereign identity is considered seriously there. The concepts in the article force the question of what things like security, dystopian, and scalable mean, among others. If I were to articulate the gap in perspectives, it would be that it is between the engineering view of solving problems (e.g. Vitalik's "soul bound toke…

Would you mind giving an example of an ephemeral identity solution?

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

#64

Post by hGkXBvR »

atoav wrote: post #56
rglullis wrote: post #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…

As a web3 critic, my criticism is not that there can be only one, it is that all the proposed web3 stuff that I read about is just an existing thing with extra steps. If I were to build a blog system I would not store the blog posts in a local merkle tree. Why not? Because a regular database has more benefits. Now why would I want to store the data on a decentralized public merkle tree (blockchain)? I don't want my b…

You fall into the same trap that the parent commenter points out. Rarely does a serious web3 project aim to put everything on a blockchain.

But something like a Kickstarter-ish crowdfund system could be using a blockchain contract to handle funding and escrow, while the rest of the website is hosted in a standard web2 way. Suddenly it’s a “web3 project” where users are able to interact with and even own records in the contract, outside the context of a single frontend website.

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

#65

Post by Dudeman112 »

renewiltord wrote: post #61
nonrandomstring wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you say is very reasonable until: > 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. which is probably true in reality, but still something I'd like to challenge.…

That's just students repeating cliches. Most kids are trying to write what they think the grading authority will reward. One can live a pure cash no internet life even in SF.

One can win the lottery, but we shouldn't base anything on the assumption that we will or that it's likely.

At some point being technically possible no longer matters since you have to go so out of your way to do it that virtually no one will do it.

Such expressions as the students use are warranted when that point is reached.

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

#67

Post by dmitriid »

disruptalot wrote: post #55
dmitriid wrote: post #38

Molly White consistently writes concise and precise essays about problems in the crypto space that the crypto "community" consistently fail to address or even respond to in as concise and precise a manner. Well, except "it's too early" and "these articles are wrong and a smear campaign".

Speaking personally, they might be concise and precise but the arguments are nothing new and too often have simple counter arguments. That's the reason they're not addressed, there really is no reason to except to directly address the Molly white audience.

> too often have simple counter arguments

If only there was anyone to provide those.

> That's the reason they're not addressed

No, it's not the reason. Because you'd think that after a decade there would be blog posts or articles with coherent explanations of how these problems are tackled. Nope. All we hear is "there are arguments but we won't show them to you just join the discords believe in blockchain so many smart people are working on it".

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

#68

Post by hGkXBvR »

There are two interesting aspects of self-sovereign identity that are not worth hand-waiving away as dystopian:

- it provides identity tools that use standards that span across geographical and platform boundaries. this is a different form of “user account” than say an online Amazon or NYStateGov account. it is good to have an option on the web for auth and identity that is detached from any single corporate entity or jurisdiction.

- unlike most of the world’s current identity systems, many of the SSI systems can and are using novel cryptography, which can combine with privacy and encryption techniques such as hashing, private keys and zk-proofs. so instead of sending photos of your passport and drivers license all over the web, SSI allows you to sign a message on a public ledger, or send a zero knowledge proof that the other end can verify.

SSI doesn’t need to replace typical identity and web auth but it could be introduced as another option.

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

#69

Post by RandomLensman »

sergefaguet wrote: post #50
jstnwill wrote: post #21

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 tha…

If that has a solid majority where you live why does that not translate into different policies and institutions?

If it is a minority position, how to convince more people? Or where to find a place to create a new society without free-riding on the existing one, etc.?

Post reply on HN