Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.mollywhite.net

171–180 of 295 posts

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

#171

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…

This is probably one of the most interesting comments I’ve ever read. Can you share more details about the digital identity and currency product you were working on and for which government was it intended for?

Thx. I can be candid because I'm not talking about any institution or client in particular, but there has been more than one and less than six I've worked on directly as a security architect over the last 15-20 years. The details of the identity or currency aren't really that interesting, as if you understand federation protocols and maybe some standard cryptogrphic/security protocols with tokenization, the implementations are compositions of those.

However, what I can say is that engineers are not lawyers, so we tend not to understand the regulatory systems in place, and the lawyers you would need to untangle this stuff aren't technologists. That's changing post-covid, where western governments in general are taking a "so sue me," approach to imposing technology and mandates over top of privacy norms and regulations, and there is a young generation of lawyers who grew up online (and with cryptocurrency, bitcoin is 11 years old now) who can pick up things like protocols.

The vaccine passport system and covax was quite a gambit as it was an international digital id scheme intended to subsume other efforts that had stronger technical requirements. The central bank digital currency (CBDC) stuff we're hearing about now is an artifact of a few related factors, but what CBDCs are really going to look like in my opinion is the CUC in cuba, or a kind of government/public sector scrip, or the peso in argentina or venezuela that has an official dollar peg and price controls, but there's a huge grey market for USD. Reality is from a state perspective, power is zero sum and human suffering is just managable, and the technology changes of the last two decades have sidelined government as an authority, so they're all trying to reassert themselves. It's going to look clumsy and dumb and it will destroy a lot of wealth and value, but they don't care so long as they think they have secured the reins.

Of course, nobody ever secures the reins so the demand for authority is infinite, but that doesn't stop anyone from trying. Economists, politicians and so-called experts who tell you they can manage an economy don't tell you the part where they run it in to the ground and rule over the ashes, as once you give them secured control, it doesn't matter how well it works. Their promises and arguments are to persuade you to give in to them, because their logic reduces to, if we have power, what do we need your consent and approval for?

If I were hedging, I would figure out what the grey market commodities will be in response to a CBDC that doesn't pass the H&B test I described above. Precedents I would reference would be times in history where govts declare a "bank holiday" and replace bank deposits with treasury bills, or seize deposits of FX and reserve currencies and "buy" them from citizens with the new pegged currency with greater national controls.

The scenario I speculate about is NZ/AU/CAN use a long weekend or "banking system outage," to replace citizen cash deposits with the new CBDC with the flick of a switch and the stroke of a pen, similar to India banning certain cash denominations and taking high denomination bills out of circulation. Assets that facilitate capital flight out of these places will be at a premium, imo. (good news for the art, wine, jewelry, collectables, precious metals, equine, super cars, and other portable alternative asset markets, imo. The big auction houses will probably do well this year.)

Dark stuff, but you spend enough time in security, and everything is within a degree or two of these historic sea changes.

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Corruption is probably a bad description. It is more like what happened to Tulips during Tulip Mania, or Beanie Babies during that bubble. Beanie Babies are not "corrupted". They are "associated" with a bubble. Crypto as a whole is becoming increasingly associated with zero sum scams like Ponzi/MLMs. And it is partially due to the fee extraction entities that are making a profit of off the "investor's" cash.

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

#173
post #94

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…

In the real world we operate as humans. And it seems this desire amongst crypto enthusiasts for decentralised trust is easily disproved. As a consumer, I want recourse. I want protections. I want humanity to protect me when I make mistakes. This isn’t going away until robots rule the earth. Perhaps one day, but there will be war before this is reality.

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the huge number of people who only transact using exchanges, and the usability improvements of doing so, that may technically be true, but probably isn't too helpful. For most people they are inseparable in practice. Worrying about the trustworthiness of the major bitcoin players is practical.

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

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sma…

There are endless blogs and forums with these arguments chewed out, just a google search away. Molly sounds like someone with an agenda of wilful ignorance due to how easily rebuttals of her arguments can be located, and thus it’s a waste of time to even engage.

> There are endless blogs and forums with these arguments chewed out, just a google search away.

As I said, "All we hear is 'there are arguments but we won't show them to you just join the discords'". Without fail.

Well, there are some entirely self-referential circular arguments sometimes (as in crypto X is good because it's based/traded with cypto Y), but that's about as far as it goes.

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dont need bitcoin exchanges.

Given the huge number of people who only transact using exchanges, and the usability improvements of doing so, that may technically be true, but probably isn't too helpful. For most people they are inseparable in practice. Worrying about the trustworthiness of the major bitcoin players is practical.

Absolutely! Dont trust institutions is the message.

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Corruption is probably a bad description. It is more like what happened to Tulips during Tulip Mania, or Beanie Babies during that bubble. Beanie Babies are not "corrupted". They are "associated" with a bubble. Crypto as a whole is becoming increasingly associated with zero sum scams like Ponzi/MLMs. And it is partially due to the fee extraction entities that are making a profit of off the "investor's" cash.

I mean Mt Gox was almost a decade ago. Bad people try to do bad things with other peoples money.

That's the value in bitcoin though. You dont need to use these exchanges. If you're smart, you dont trust large institutions of any kind with your money.

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

#179

EU has already solved this problem 10+ years ago using electronic ID cards. You can transfer money, sign contracts etc with these. You have your private key on chip + PINs for 2nd factor auth. Why not build a block-chain on that tech?

What use-case do you have in mind? Because your current suggestion sounds like "$existingThing, but with a blockchain!". What would this blockchain do?

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

#180
post #74

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".

The whole post has a general tone of hand-waving away any decentralized idea as dystopian or a privacy nightmare, without taking any look at the current dystopian landscape of Google and Apple account based identity. It’s also pretty hard to “address” the post as, in broad strokes, many crypto people will agree with her. Nobody wants all data to be public on a blockchain. Worldcoin is disturbing. SBTs are poorly name…

> The whole post has a general tone of hand-waving away any decentralized idea as dystopian or a privacy nightmare, without taking any look at the current dystopian landscape of Google and Apple account based identity.

If the article was about the dystopian landscape of Google/Apple, then it would've talked about that.

As it is, the article talks about the current state of solutions/proposals in the crypto world.

> That whole paragraph sounds like a crazy rant by Molly. Vitalik never said that criminal records in the real world should be posted to a public blockchain. His statement was that it can be useful to verify some record of a user before taking some action with them. In the real world one way this is done is with a criminal background check.

Which literally translates to: let's put people's criminal record on blockchain, and assign them to people without any possibility of revocation. Ah yes, and it's going to be police and/or courts who are going to put those records there.

> To the casual reader it might seem like Vitalik wants to put private real-world data on a public ledger. But this is not the reality of his statements.

Yeah, no. I just watched the segment where he talks about it. He literally brushes aside the privacy implications. It's all "yeah, we could definitely go further, and zk-something could do something". But the underlying reality is that: nope, everything is public. So those criminal records uploaded and attached to you by the police? Yup, they can be as public as police wants.

Post reply on HN