Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible? • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by rglullis » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:02 AM UTC

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.…

> "cashless society seems inevitable" is any guide.

If anything, if you (like me) would like to avoid a cashless society the you have yet another reason to be in favor of decentralized technologies.

"Cashless Society" is just Newspeak for "Total Economic Surveillance". It implies a world where corporations and governments alike have full visibility over what everyone else is doing. Blockchain-based systems already provide an alternative (Monero) where privacy is respected. In a world where Governments and Corporations can conspire to eliminate cash and extend their reach even more over our liberties, I think we should at least try to support an alternative.

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

#102

Post by tatertots1234 » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:02 AM UTC

davidgerard wrote: post #83

hGkXBvR wrote: post #68

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 o…

"can" is doing all the work there. If it isn't please show me a SSI system that uses zksnarks in production.

Are you objecting to the cryptography and theory of ZK-SNARKs or the fact that not enough production grade applications are using this new tech to your expectations?

Proving systems like Groth16 and TurboPLONK have only recently gotten to a point where they can be run in a web browser, and circuit development has come a long way with Circom 2 and now varying zkVMs being built around higher level programming languages. It is reasonable to concede that we are still some years from seeing production grade SSI + ZK tech reach a mass market.

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

#103

Post by noduerme » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:03 AM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #82

The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…

You're right on a lot of things here, (I appreciate the slightly humorous, gratuitous take on bad actors having had a bad upbringing) but you seem to be inverting the flaws in the no-trust paradigm into a trust-but-verify paradigm based on an assumption of implicit goodness which is no more borne out by reality than the assumption of implicit evil.

Maybe it makes more sense to look at it all through a different lens. Classical, post-mercantile liberal economics, - that is, liberalism - is entirely built around a framework for dealing with the question of establishing trust between parties: Individuals do not have to establish trust, or agree with each other, or be friends, if they certify that they acquiesce to a system where the market is well regulated. In exchange they get the advantage of being in a market where trade can be a non-zero game that advantages both parties. The problem with crypto as it stands has something to do with unregulated markets, something to do with bad actors, but a lot more to do with the fact that no one has yet come up with a use for deflationary currency that's something other than a zero-sum game.

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

#104

Post by tatertots1234 » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:08 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #90

atoav wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The issue I have with web3 is that it's libertarian politics pretending to be a technological solution. "Decentralised" is being sold as "Out of reach of governments" - but that's clearly not true. It's also ridiculously poor value-generated-per-Watt-used. It's in the same conceptual class as "gun culture makes everyone safer" and "lowering taxes on rich people makes everyone richer" - both of which are trivially fal…

Decentralized doesn’t mean everything is unregulated and out of reach of governments. USDC is pretty heavily regulated despite operating on top of, and featuring composability with, a decentralized network.

The value per watt concern does not apply to all consensus mechanisms.

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

#105

Post by nonrandomstring » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:15 AM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #101

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.…

> "cashless society seems inevitable" is any guide. If anything, if you (like me) would like to avoid a cashless society the you have yet another reason to be in favor of decentralized technologies. "Cashless Society" is just Newspeak for "Total Economic Surveillance". It implies a world where corporations and governments alike have full visibility over what everyone else is doing. Blockchain-based systems already pr…

I agree with you. The anonymity and casual fluidity preserving aspects of digital currencies are the reasons I support them enough not to be "anti-crypto". My objections are primarily on ecological grounds with respect to proof of work. I have other views on a "crypto-web-3.0", but that's a different story.

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

#106

Post by xorcist » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:19 AM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #82

The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…

While certainly not wanting to ruing the humorous undertones here, just for the benefit of other readers it's important to point out that the lack of third party trust has a very specific meaning.

Take for web for example. It is trustless in the same manner. There is no third party (apart from the web browser and the server) that you need to trust in order for you to view a web page. There is no International Web Organization that you need to procure permission from in order to set up a web server. You just start it. (And, conversely, also why so much bad actors exist on the web.)

This is fundamentally a different system than for example all economic transactions, apart from cash. This is why some people argues against the cashless society for not being trustless, and also what the people who experiment with private monetary systems study.

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

#107

Post by tatertots1234 » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:21 AM UTC

forum_ghost wrote: post #73

hGkXBvR wrote: post #68

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 o…

What SSI systems exist that are widely adopted and have a user base in at least few million MAUs?

You could consider Ethereum addresses and ENS aliases to be a limited form of SSI. MetaMask alone suggests it has several million MAUs not that this should be a metric in determining whether a tech is dystopian or not.

Various web3 platforms already require verifiable attestations through signing messages with private keys such as multi sig wallets, off chain voting, token gated access.

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

#108

Post by rglullis » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:23 AM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #82

The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…

> The problem with blockchainers

It's hard to take any of what you say seriously when you start a comment with such a blanket statement.

Also, I think I've already seen your type of "argument" so many times, I think I am able to just play the whole tape by just pointing out to previous comments I've made:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31195939 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31545427 (trustlessness is not about "eliminating trust")

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534 (Yeah, you are right that there is no such thing as an "ideal" world. What you are missing is that also applies to the anti-crypto mentality, who think that just because they were born in a place with functional institutions, they think that is the natural state of things. It's good when institutions work, but they are not perfect and we need to prepared for the times when they fail.)

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

#109

Post by hetspookjee » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #108

strogonoff wrote: post #82

The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…

> The problem with blockchainers It's hard to take any of what you say seriously when you start a comment with such a blanket statement. Also, I think I've already seen your type of "argument" so many times, I think I am able to just play the whole tape by just pointing out to previous comments I've made: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31195939 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31545427 (trustlessness is…

Sometimes I dream of a argument recogniser that just maps out an argument on an argument map and hashes it out more or less like you just did. With the goal of not endless rehashing of the same iteration like some stuck genetic algo in a local optima, but rather moving forward as some kind of warm start.

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

#110

Post by delusional » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:31 AM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #82

The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…

I agree. Trust is fundamental to human society, and without it we can't function. No matter how many fancy technological solutions you layer on top.

I think there's a deeper problem that you're ignoring. The desire for trustless systems didn't materialize out of nothing, as has been pointed out many times in the cryptocurrency discussion space. Some of it is surely coming from a libertarian angle of absolute personal freedom to avoid the "unfair" regulation from the government, to avoid the compulsions the state imposes on each of us in order to grant us the rights it does. I think that's a very small part of it though.

I think most of the desire for "zero-trust" comes from a disillusion of the current parties seen as trusted. I can at least say that this is what drives the desire within me. It's very hard to see the fairness in paying taxes when I see the people labeled the most trustworthy abuse the system to hide money in tax havens all while using their entrusted positions to lead the economy of the world into an ever deepening hole. When we see the actors labeled "trustworthy" acting maliciously, it becomes hard to trust the system that calls them "trustworthy".

I go to work every day where I'm asked to ignore my own instincts and instead do whatever some faceless "process" claims is the right thing to work on. I'm asked to ignore the horrible state of our products and instead focus on the massive piles of money we shovel in the door from out entrusted position as a financial institution. Meanwhile I can turn on the TV to see the very same people talk about how they just couldn't have known that billions were being stolen from my government because it's just so hard to be a bank. That shit does stuff to your trust in other people and I'm not alone in that disillusionment.

In that light I think the discussion makes much more sense, even if it doesn't make it any more helpful. Trust is still important, but the current method of obtaining trust, and the by extension people we imbue with it, is broken. For someone in the middle of that, it becomes very logical to discard the whole thing like a junior rewriting a legacy business app.