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

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

#161

Post by nyolfen » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:20 PM 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 can trust people all you want. take iou's, accept people at their word, etc -- the existence of trustless systems does nothing to negate this. for everyone you don't trust, you can use a blockchain.

> we should strive for a future where humans are not motivated to hurt other humans.

i don't even know what to say when people say things like this. we should strive for good will and cooperation, but we must be prepared for situations where there is none. this is like arguing against allowing people to put locks on doors. when you create situations where distrust is disallowed, defecting becomes the winning strategy.

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

#162

Post by heresie-dabord » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

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…

> I said their design didn't pass "the hookers and blow test," which is that if you can't use the payment and identity scheme for grey market transactions, nobody is going to adopt it. Not because they are vice ridden manaics, but because the human animal knows when it is in captivity and it will find ways to resist it.

"Nobody is going to adopt it" is an extreme opinion. People have resentments about society but most are minor. Few enough people feel captive that most continue as members of significant societies. The degree to which people feel resentment and pursue extreme "solutions" is a complex variable. Some societies succeed better than others in meeting needs without needing a cryptocurrency.

> The stupidity of technocracies is illigitimate, and it breeds contempt and corruption. This may seem meta

The phenomena that you are describing here are resentments about characteristics of people or of society (or of a particular society). These resentments are unlikely to find a solution in another even more dubious techno-financial construct for which literally no one will ever care except for the value that credulous people ascribe to it.

> I'd argue if you haven't thought these other parts through, crypto really is just some naive kids building a bike shed to fill with shaved yaks and thinking they're reinventing democracy and freedom.

Yes, I do agree.

> the arbitrariness creates a sense of illigitimacy where there is nothing to trust or believe.

Problems of "illegitimacy", trust, and belief, are not going to be solved by cryptocurrency. In fact, the cryptocurrency movement has no trust and no credibility at all.

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

#163

Post by rglullis » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:25 PM UTC

ookdatnog wrote: post #152

rglullis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 theoreticall…

> "how many people who had no access to trustworthy financial institutions in the past, are now actively using blockchain-based alternatives for financial services?"

This is the falling for the same all-or-nothing trap that I pointed out in the very first comment. We are never going to go from "unbanked" to "banked exclusively thanks to the blockchain". What is going to happen (and is happening) is that these projects will bring "people who don't have access to service X" to "blockchain project that creates an alternative to service X".

Examples:

- People in countries with strong capital controls can now participate in a global economy through blockchain transactions.

- People living in countries with poor monetary policies and weak currencies can protect some of their wealth by buying stabletokens backed by stronger currency.

- Communities without access to money markets can now issue their own local currencies and create their own credit cooperatives.

- Sex workers and "sin businesses" who are denied access to payment processors (no matter if political or economic reasons) can use web3 to not only accept payments, but also as a way to distribute their content without intermediaries.

In all of the examples above, it might happen that the situation in the "traditional" system changes and the groups start getting access. But until they don't have it, it's nice to know that they have an alternative.

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

#164

Post by fartcannon » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:25 PM UTC

tonypace wrote: post #154

fartcannon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You dont need bitcoin exchanges.

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

#165

Post by actionablefiber » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:26 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #155

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…

> 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.

I agree it's inefficient, but, um, that happens to me all the time when I'm in a part of my house where the Wi-Fi doesn't reach very well, and I still go to that part of the house and I still use Amazon in it. Waiting 10 seconds for an order confirmation is not a big deal if the result is I can get a rice cooker shipped to my house within 24 hours.

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

#166

Post by ntoskrnl » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:27 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #155

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…

> 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.

It already does take seconds. Sometimes even minutes or hours. When you click "buy now", Amazon optimistically pretends the order completed instantly, and queues a backend job to charge your card. If your card is declined, you get an email some time later.

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

#167

Post by fartcannon » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

headsoup wrote: post #156

fartcannon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thank you.

However that's not bitcoin being corrupted, he suggests that tether, and an exchange are corrupted.

When people use USD for crime, is USD corrupted?

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

#168

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #94

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 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…

"Take TLS - wouldn't it be nice if we could have the same system without certificate authorities?"

Absent that thing existing, this is a demonstration of the value trust provides!

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

#169

Post by anovikov » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:34 PM 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…

Maybe this explains to a great degree why so many blockchain big names are Russian speakers! Because in Russia, we see trust as a bug, and any necessity to develop trust to anyone as an obstacle (because we know people really can't be trusted).

There are high-trust and low-trust societies out there.

Majority of the world lives in low-trust societies and this is culturally, not economically driven, so unlikely to change fast. Globalisation means these people will permeate - through migration too, but mostly, through cross-border economic activities - all high-trust societies, too, so very quickly people who rely on trust and trust others will either be scammed out of all their lives, or resort to a niche role by picking their interacting parties so diligently they will be cut off from most economic and social activity, and become irrelevant.

So, for the modern world, trust is a bug indeed (and no i don't think blockchain will help this, or anything at all).

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

#170

Post by rglullis » Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 1:39 PM UTC

ntoskrnl wrote: post #158

headsoup wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The price of the coin is being manipulated by the exchanges, no matter if you use it or not. One exchange in particular (Bitfinex) is helping to keep the largest fraud scheme in history (Tether/USDT) around.