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

151–160 of 295 posts

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

#151

Post by motohagiography »

arbol wrote: post #63
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?

My first name asserted in a conversation is one, as it's sufficient to define an endpoint for a low value transaction. 1:1 with cash or bitcoin is easy, because it's a straight retail transction. It only gets complicated when you have an intermediary. Identity is mainly a problem for dealing with intermediaries, and not for people who want to do things.

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

#152

Post by ookdatnog »

rglullis wrote: post #123
ookdatnog wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It only works in places where the institutions are functional, which is something that you are taking from granted. I want to stick with the Kickstarter example a bit longer, as "banking the unbanked" is to me one of the few claims of potential crypto applications that I care about. Blockchain technology is at this point well over a decade old, yet we can still only talk about its benefits in hypotheticals. You cla…

> So where are all these applications that financially emancipate the proverbial Somalian farmer? https://trustlines.network > I also don't know how to solve it with blockchain. https://mastodon.communick.com/@raphael/106825093961591719

> https://trustlines.network

I'm aware that there are several projects that aim to "bank the unbanked". The existence of projects that claim to solve an issue does not prove that the issue is solved or even addressed. I don't see any numbers or even anecdotes on how effective these projects are at achieving their goals.

How many formerly unbanked are now banked thanks to blockchain? And I don't mean that theoretically, as in, "any Somalian farmer could in theory access banking services through the blockchain right now", I mean "how many people who had no access to trustworthy financial institutions in the past, are now actively using blockchain-based alternatives for financial services?"

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

#153

Post by snikeris »

strogonoff wrote: post #124
bawolff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree - trust is a bug in technical systems. Maintaining trust has a really high cost and is an obvious and common single point of failure. Take TLS - wouldn't it be nice if we could have the same system without certificate authorities? The thing is - like everything else, trust is a tradeoff. Bitcoin folks will discard it at any cost. Sometimes discarding it is not worth the cost. That doesn't mean adding trust…

But that is in technical systems. More or less it’s an equivalent of defending your home, or using password auth: there are humans motivated to increase their well-being at your expense (at the expense of the environment, and so on). This tech seems often to be pushed onto human society as a whole, though. It’s like giving up on solving the underlying issues that give humans the above-mentioned motivation to betray e…

The tech (money) has already been adopted by human society as a whole though. So it's not about pushing tech onto human society, but upgrading the existing tech.

> It’s like giving up on solving the underlying issues that give humans the above-mentioned motivation to betray each other, and instead baking into the fabric society an assumption that it’s human nature to be this way.

Not all humans are that way, but those who desire power tend to be. I simply don't trust those in power to manage the money properly. It's too much power for anyone to wield. This is not theory; the historical record is damning for fiat money.

Also, as the world has become more globalized, a world reserve currency has emerged. It makes trade easier if everyone has $USD on hand. However, other countries shouldn't have to trust in the good faith in the U.S. government just to engage in global commerce.

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

#154

Post by tonypace »

fartcannon wrote: post #149
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…

Bitcoins inception was on the heels of the 2008 financial crisis. The genesis block mentions it. What bitcoin enthusiasts don't trust are objectively untrustworthy institutions. That's it. It's real straight forward.

Bitcoin institutions are objectively untrustworthy and most people involved in Bitcoin have no real choice but to rely on them. I trust, say, Citibank more than Bitfinex.

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

#155

Post by gumby »

pibechorro wrote: post #135
kibwen wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without considering the social benefits of trust, from an economic perspective, trust is often enormously, ridiculously efficient compared to distrust. If I need to borrow my neighbor's weed whacker, I don't need to determine its value (plus interest and opportunity cost) and write up a contract and register collateral on the world's slowest and least efficient database, I can just say, hey, mind if I borrow thi…

Slowest and least efficient.. you realize some blockchains update in seconds? For a low value proposition like borrowing a lawnmower you dont need the most secure public network on earth to do it. You use the right blocchain for the right applications. The problem with trust, is that its awesome until it aint. When we are deaing with gov policy, billions of dollars, war, your life savings,etc a break in trust is beyo…

> Slowest and least efficient.. you realize some blockchains update in seconds?

Imagine if when you pushed the “buy now” button on Amazon it took seconds for the transaction to complete. You’d stop using Amazon.

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

#156

Post by headsoup »

fartcannon wrote: post #147
headsoup wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exchanges. Clearly and factually.

I dont understand what you mean. Is there somewhere I can read about this?

For a straightforward start, this guy piles on a bit, but also holds a lot of the history/evidence on record too: https://mobile.twitter.com/Bitfinexed

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

#157

Post by gumby »

nonameiguess wrote: post #137
pibechorro wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slowest and least efficient.. you realize some blockchains update in seconds? For a low value proposition like borrowing a lawnmower you dont need the most secure public network on earth to do it. You use the right blocchain for the right applications. The problem with trust, is that its awesome until it aint. When we are deaing with gov policy, billions of dollars, war, your life savings,etc a break in trust is beyo…

So war on the blockchain? That sounds like a good example of what is meant by "dystopian." Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becomes part of Russia is determined by a global consensus of the wealthiest wallet addresses on a blockchain. It's like you took democracy, but got rid of the elements of constitutional republicanism that mitigate the weaknesses of democracy, leaving only the weak…

> Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becomes part of Russia is determined by a global consensus of the wealthiest wallet addresses on a blockchain.

Actully, this is basically what’s happening in your example.

The citizens of the wealthiest countries are participating in the war by sending armaments and aid to Ukraine. The majority of the world’s citizens* are sitting it out or providing some amount of assistance to the Russian side, mainly through commerce.

It’s not on the blockchain, but essentially wealth is “voting”.

FWIW I’m far, far from being a blockchain supporter. I’m just addressing your example.

* yes, at the UN the majority states voted against Russia, but if you look by populations, the west won an “electoral college” victory on the topic.

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

#158

Post by ntoskrnl »

headsoup wrote: post #145
fartcannon wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has bitcoin been corrupted by?

The exchanges. Clearly and factually.

If I use my private key to send a transaction to your public key, the exchanges have no say in it. You can choose who to trust. If some exchange is corrupted, just don't use it.

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

#159

Post by qsdf38100 »

xorcist wrote: post #106
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 Org…

Certificates are required pretty much for any websites nowadays. IIRC it has to do with TLS, so basically all https websites. Those certificates are ultimately based on a trusted third party. So web is not trustless, not even close.

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

#160

Post by rini17 »

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…

Sure if you want anything cheaper and more widespread, abolish the monopoly on it. Including violence. When your ancestors opted into monopoly of violence, they had their reasons. Behooves you to try to understand the reasons first, not blindly exclaiming "this is all fucked i want out". Also, consider that most likely 90% of world population is living under even more dysfunctional institutions.
Post reply on HN