Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.mollywhite.net

251–260 of 295 posts

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

#251
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digital records are an extension of the mind.

No they are not. They are a physical medium more akin to physical records than they are the mind. This is such a ridiculous take it’s hard to take it seriously. What about retention periods? About about paper copies? Should no data anywhere be regulated because it is somehow this nebulously and poorly defined “extension of the mind?”

> What about retention periods? About about paper copies? Should no data anywhere be regulated because it is somehow this nebulously and poorly defined “extension of the mind?”

and extremal counterpoint to this viewpoint is that all data be regulated because it's all digital and in the cloud.

just consider banning paper and pencils

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 project…

Your examples are all incomplete. They all need "until people with badges and guns shut them down" or "until they need to deal with off-chain assets that require trusted reliable oracles". It is ludicrous in the extreme to assume that some blockchain transaction can and will remain anonymous and outside the enforcement of laws. A country with repressive or non-functional capital/monetary controls will just jail peopl…

> outside the enforcement of laws

whose laws?

- Sex workers from countries where prostitution is absolutely legal are affected by, e.g, Mastercard pushing for blocking transactions and almost forcing OnlyFans to drop all their adult content. All because of extended overreach from American politicians.

- A lot of these countries with strong capital controls have a lot of loopholes in the legislation by design, so that the elites can find a way to move their capital while the middle-class is forced to carry all the burden. There is a saying from a Peruvian politician: "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law", which perfectly illustrates the situation.

Crypto is not illegal, it just democratizes these loopholes. If History can teach any lesson, whenever the middle-class finds a way to enjoy the same privileges as the elites, it does not end up in a repressive reaction from the government, but in the normalization and formalization of the "informal" behavior.

- Same thing for holding stabletokens. In Brazil there is no regulation against holding crypto. The problem is that Forex is not something for retail. Too many fees, taxes on fiat and the impossibility of making deposits in foreign currency make it difficult for "retail investors", but a lot of elites have access to external markets where they can hold USD/EUR/GBP to protect themselves.

I could go on... but the point I am trying to make is that in the places it doesn't take an extreme case of Authoritarianism or Poor Economic Development to face a situation where the institutions fail.

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

#253
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you were to replace the word crypto with “computers” or “space travel” Sputnik was launched in 1957 [0] - it did nothing except orbit and beep. Telstar, the first commercial communications satellite was launched in 1962 (5 years later) - it relayed television signals, photos and phone calls [1]. Blockchain cryptocurrencies started with Bitcoin in 2009, and it's now 2022 (13 years). How long are we supposed to wa…

This argument has two issues: - it has a moving goal post on what “a real problem” is - it creates an arbitrary start date and end date Or in other words, it’s not falsifiable. What would count as a “real problem”? Why does “money” not count? Why does “1000x cheaper storage compared to s3” (filecoin) not count? The argument implies that, if some important use case is new and just getting off the ground now, then it’s…

On the contrary, you and other crypto-boosters forever claiming "we're still early" is what's completely unfalsifiable. When will you admit that it's a failure? 2030? 2050?

I think my argument is very clear:

- It took 5 years to get from a working proof-of-concept of a satellite to something that has absolutely inarguable utility. No one can make a good-faith claim that transatlantic radio and television broadcasts are pointless.

- Cryptocurrency has had 13 years and the only genuine use-case I can see is evading regulation, buying drugs or paying for ransomware. Everything else is hand-waving vaporware bullshit "well maybe we could track X on the blockchain"[0]

[0] https://twitter.com/liron/status/1533214640460574720

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

#254
post #125

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…

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…

Even further if your neighbor totally trusts you you can just go grab it and they will know that it will be back where it belongs, fully fueled/charged and maintained when needed.

This drive to atomize humanity and make all relationships fungible is insane, and the only benefit is it allows long distance fuedalism.

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

#255
post #186
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…

Trust is an ideal to strive towards but the unfortunate case is that its reliability quickly starts to strain with scale. I'd argue the economy at large is held together not by trust but by reputation, curation, regulation and threat of lawsuits and jail time. With the last concentrating trust in legal institutions, overall reducing trust burden. In many countries, the richest companies operate unethically, with impu…

Then the solution is clearly to reduce scale where possible.

Many of the things that scale is being forced into don't actually increase their net benefit to the people with scale (usually it is the opposite when you consider the requisite slavery/coups/wars/etc. to provide the infrastructure and labour), merely the amount that can be extracted by some centralized entity.

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

#256
post #217

Much of the problem with crypto-skepticism is that basically every problem it raises is true. The argument is effectively boiled down to “here are a bunch of people working on very hard problems. Hard problems are hard, and therefore crypto won’t work”. If you were to replace the word crypto with “computers” or “space travel”, most folks here would push back, saying that “yes these are hard problems, but there’s a lo…

Well said. I certainly agree with this. It is a good approach into understanding what works and what doesn't work in crypto and what would most likely happen in the future. What I think will happen is quite simple:

Not all crypto projects and their technologies will survive, a few of them will stand the test of time especially when regulations do come and all of them won't be completely and 'totally destroyed' as the anti-crypto folks keep saying that 'all of them must be destroyed'. They also won't overthrow and 'replace the current system' as the crypto-maximalists keep saying that it will.

The hint in seeing which ones will survive are the ones that aim to co-exist with the current system. Take this from Stripe [0] and Moneygram [1] and Checkout.com as good examples of all of them using a stablecoin like USDC for payments. I'm sure they all waited for regulatory clarity before implementing these projects. It is not what either camp would want to see, but it is what is really happening right now, even for the case of some of them with CBDCs and the ISO 20020 standard.

> Most pro-crypto and anti-crypto have attached their identity to liking or dislike crypto.

Exactly. This is the problem.

Either you have those who have invested heavily in the coin so they need to keep shilling it on social media or you have those who make a living or gain a following disliking all of crypto on social media or even selling books on why it will be destroyed. What's definitely common with both extremes is the attachment of identity to either camp which does bring out the most irrational and absolute claims and predictions seen with a very high chance of them being both incorrect.

The only absolute that exists is: There are no absolutes. When either side continues to make absolute claims, they will realise that they will be disappointed with the actual reality that is being shown to them doesn't match their utopian goals and absolute beliefs.

[0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-29/moneygram...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/checkoutcom-jumps-into-crypt...

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "lottery" is just a method to have the aligned incentives and secure the network. Without the miners, there would be no Blockchain. Every user of the blockchain benefits from the work from the miners. So if you have a problem with miners, you have a problem with all those that depend on them. But if you want to complain about the consumption patterns of this group, you open yourself for criticism for your consump…

> As long as you are actually paying for the electricity and energy you are consuming.

For starters the price of electricity is not at all capturing all the negative externalities of generating that electricity. A miner paying a utility bill is not paying the entire cost of the energy used for mining.

Second, the vast majority of "work" performed by Proof of Work schemes is literally thrown away. It has absolutely zero utility and so is in the most literal sense just wasted electricity. Not only do they require waste but by design require increasing amounts of waste as the networks scale. They're not designed to improve or get more efficient.

Unless you're just running a game idly in the background, idling an SUV in the driveway, or idling a jet on the tarmac they're not wasting the resources used to run. They're serving at least some utility. An SUV or jet to Vegas might not be the best use of fuel for the task but they're not just wasting it. Neither an SUV or jet burns coal so even their energy usage has fewer negative externalities than a majority of blockchain miners.

Proof of Stake has been coming Real Soon Now to Ethereum for a few years now. It's still not here. Even with PoS it doesn't help matters if a majority of coins are still PoW and continue burning an Argentina worth of power.

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

#258
post #23

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…

Visiting Copenhagen I pondered on those points too. Denmark seems to be a society that firmly embraced “centralized digital currency” - even the beggers have POS terminals and if you _request_ a cash payment at a restaurant people look at you funny. But they have this “Freetown” of sorts right smack in the center of their capital, where you can buy illegal stuff with cash. There’s no guards, no police posted at the e…

What I actually suspect is that the move toward drugs legalization in places like Canada and experiments with decriminalization of cocaine and heroin are a way to normalize using electronic payments (e.g. interac) for those black market goods, which brings them into the fold of centralized economic control and removes a key use case for cash. However the liberalization is a trap intended to set the stage for CBDCs, as once cash is fully marginalized, what will you pay in when the people in the govt change their mind about legalization?

Forget drugs for a moment, what about meat, gas, ammunition, and other normal things that are being reclassified as decadent luxuries you apparently don't "need," or "deserve," according to whoever "they" are. It's not enough for them to live virtuously according to their values, they need to police you first, and fly around in private jets while they do it. Seeing the institutions behind identity, government, and payments from the inside has persuaded me that the conspiracy theorists are just people in denial of what they have discovered, because they can't face the consequences of how serious it really all is. The architects of this don't care what anyone believes, they just need for members of any potential resistance to keep doing nothing to stop it. For good men to do nothing, as they say.

Cryptocurrencies were and remain necessary beacuse they represent a limit on state power in an era of previously unimaginable total surveillance tech, and this limit makes leviathanists and technocrats apopleptic. That's also why the arguments against crypto always seem to have a shrill whinge of cant about them - as they're based on accusations of blasphemy against the pillars of offical technocratic narrative, and the arguments themselves aren't powerful or persuasive.

Not only do we need cryptocurrencies, we need to establish boundaries on the dominion of people in governments, as without those boundaries, we're in for a totalitarian hell not even fiction could prepare us for, imo.

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 project…

This is besides my point. Again, I'm not asking for what these projects can mean for people in theory. We've been doing blockchain for almost 15 years, we're pumping megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year to feed proof of work algorithms, by now we should have something concrete to show for it.

What do we have to show for it? I'm asking for concrete data, or even just some anecdotes. You list some projects and how these projects could, in principle, help people. How many people are helped by them (even indirectly by improving access to traditional services)? Is this number proportional to the cost of running these systems?

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

#260
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…

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.

Right, but that cuts both ways.

As a consumer you want due process and fairness, protection from arbitrary punishment etc.

You want trust for all the things you mentioned, those are reasonable goals. They do come at a cost (the system could be abused), and you wouldnt want to add more trust points unless you were getting something of value out of them

Post reply on HN