Earlier quoted context omitted.
Digital records are an extension of the mind.
Your liberty to extend your mind ends where my dignity begins.
[deleted]
Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
231–240 of 295 posts
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#232The 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…
> Trust is a feature, not a bug.
It's a feature of the system, precisely because it replaces trust in shaky institutions.
I trust strong cryptography. I don't trust governments not to abuse their power. I don't trust corporations not to maximize profits at our expense.
It's really simple. I don't believe in any system that requires trusting either governments or corporations. A good system will necessarily work despite them.
> we should strive for a future where humans are not motivated to hurt other humans. Not treating it as some sort of default is a good start.
Trust is inherently selective and small scale. You trust specific individuals that you personally know, not all of humanity. Even that trust is easily broken.
Compare that to modern computer and internet technology where servers are expected to receive input from any other computer on earth. The technological equivalent of children being encouraged to talk to strangers.
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#233Earlier 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…
Now, let's say that you have a car that you'd like to put in a "social car-sharing app." Those participating get an opportunity to make some money, those without cars would benefit from having an increased supply, and your city would benefit because that would mean that the increased utilization of the car fleet would lead to less parking spaces being needed. Question: how would you do that without rent-extracting mi…
How do you deal with a dispute about a messy car? Or if the car pickup had no gas? Or a disputed theft of personal possessions?
Middleman add value by dealing with edge cases and aggregating trust. They aren’t pure rent extractors.
We had hyper well defined ride sharing system with clear rules unbiased rules, high anonymity, focused on individual providers prior to Uber and Lyft- Taxis. People hated it, as it was rife with little abuses. Uber, Lyft, and similar provide a ton of value by brokering trust between the provider and rider.
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#234(Disclaimer: I wrote this response before I realized this was a link; I thought it one of those, "Ask HN" questions so I replied in turn. Upon reading the article I think comment still has relevancy.) No. Give up illusions like your rights exist in some vacuous transcendental place outside of other people and society. Read, "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes or if you really want to get the, "tarian" washed out of your sou…
I think the discourse you started here becomes even more interesting and defensible if your assertion goes from “God isn’t real” to “God is human created.” It makes the idea of rights clearer as some kind of higher order, purer version of law
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. > T…
The implication of zero knowledge proofs is that no private data need be shared. The “zk-something” you and Molly both brush over translates literally to “verifying knowledge without any private information having to be shared or checked.”
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. > T…
The implication of zero knowledge proofs is that no private data need be shared. The “zk-something” you and Molly both brush over translates literally to “verifying knowledge without any private information having to be shared or checked.”
I'd like to verify knowledge about your private password, without it being shared. Sounds good? OK, my first question: does it start with an "a"? No? What about a "b"?
How can you verify something about someone's criminal background that doesn't ultimately share the information?
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#237Short answer: No.
The desire to be "identified" incorporates the desire to be identified as "Self sovereign," which is an appeal that only other people can fulfill. Your identity is sovereign thus depends on their collaboration in constructing and maintaining a space where such an identity is even possible. You cannot be self sovereign because the mandate to make that identification is not entirely reserved to yourself. Unless of course you impose it on others by force, in which case you're no longer self sovereign but sovereign, period.
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#238The 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…
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…
Trust isn't necessary for lending tools to your neighbor, pure self-interest is good enough. Cultivating good relationships with people who know where you sleep is just good sense, and looking out for your neighborhood is mutual aid. Next to reason, trust is inconsequential in such a situation.
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, let's say that you have a car that you'd like to put in a "social car-sharing app." Those participating get an opportunity to make some money, those without cars would benefit from having an increased supply, and your city would benefit because that would mean that the increased utilization of the car fleet would lead to less parking spaces being needed. Question: how would you do that without rent-extracting mi…
How do you deal with a dispute about a messy car? Or if the car pickup had no gas? Or a disputed theft of personal possessions? Middleman add value by dealing with edge cases and aggregating trust. They aren’t pure rent extractors. We had hyper well defined ride sharing system with clear rules unbiased rules, high anonymity, focused on individual providers prior to Uber and Lyft- Taxis. People hated it, as it was rif…
The only real difference between an Uber and a taxi from a customer POV is the price. Not sure what trust has to do with it.
Re: Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wonder how many of the anti-crypto people will stop using this argument when Ethereum completes The Merge and we get rid of PoW. Specially the gamer crowd who will finally get access to cheap GPUs and will go on to collective "waste" orders of magnitude more energy playing games in comparison with the network of validators.
GPU mining is a lottery. No individual is likely to win the lottery, only pooled in aggregate is the likelihood of winning enough to offset the costs of participating. A GPU mining outfit is wasting shitloads of electricity every day trying to buy enough lottery tickets to pay the bills.
An individual buying a GPU is not wasting any electricity in the hope of winning a rendered frame of a game. Every watt used by the GPU is explicitly for the user's purpose. Applying some sort of moral judgement to an individual's use of their private property is ludicrous. It doesn't matter if a GPU is used to play a game, display a spreadsheet, or play back porn.