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

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

#271

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 12:43 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #195

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…

Every few months, my credit card blocks one of my purchases because its statistical algorithm decides it looks sketchy and wants me to respond to a verification email. How is this any more trusting? Both systems recognize the existence of fraudulent actors, and handle the problem in different ways. Blockchains use cryptographically-signed transactions, so merchants get no information they can use against you. Credit…

> Bank transfers handle the problem by simply delaying full access to the money, at least for larger amounts, until banks on both ends have checked everything.

They are doing it for good reasons, presence of malicious agents (money launderers, etc.) exploiting trust requires it. (In fact, I’d argue banks are getting away with not doing it enough with very moneyed customers.)

Blockchain does not eliminate this need in current age—either equivalent institutions would have to be reproduced all anew, or we need to end the motivations that make people want to exploit financial system in the first place.

And if we do address the latter (the only sustainable solution in the long run), then what is the benefit of blockchain and all? Isn’t it just pure overhead then?

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

#272

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 12:50 PM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #205

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…

The reality is that as you move up the social hierarchy in modern human society, trust tends to vanish and is ultimately viewed as something only a rube would rely on. This is why contract law exists, doesn't it? For example, in the upper tiers of corporations all employment is on a contract basis. Nobody at these levels trusts they will be treated fairly and given a severance package if they are fired, without an ex…

> The reality is that as you move up the social hierarchy in modern human society, trust tends to vanish and is ultimately viewed as something only a rube would rely on. This is why contract law exists, doesn't it?

I thought about this in such framing, too.

My observation was exactly this: in “higher classes” it looks like trust is implied, and in lower classes everybody is verified.

My logic, however, runs such that we need to elevate the entire society to that level, rather than drop it to the level of “rubes” you mention.

I.e., treat everyone as a respectable individual—a mentally healthy person tends to behave the way they are perceived by others—and by working on general well-being eliminate mental constructs that push people to secure themselves at the expense of others. Does this make sense?

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

#273

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

Banana699 wrote: post #229

strogonoff wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard the opinion where people don’t want to pay taxes that they don’t think do something good, and because the government can freeze their accounts if they don’t pay then they believe it’s unfair. Presumably, there’s understanding that one cannot participate in a complex web of interdependencies that is advanced human society without giving up complete freedom, due to the presence of the aforementioned malicious a…

>there’s understanding that one cannot participate in a complex web of interdependencies that is advanced human society without giving up complete freedom The problem is, that web is not just a neutral thing that arises organically, it's a bloated mess of faceless coercion that is disproportionally manipulated by a minority. It used to be that a tribe agreed not to kill or cheat each other and defend against common t…

> I don't think intelligence play into it, at least not the kind of intelligence I respect. Smart people are bullied all the time. Smart people had 10K years to fix the massive clusterfuck that is hierarchical societies or toss them into the dirstiest toilet, and they couldn't. It would be the height of hubris to assume you can succeed where billions failed.

I disagree. We have had parts of society dominate other parts, using them as workforce and such, since humanity historically had A) insufficient resources and capabilities to improve general well-being, and B) insufficient ethical standards to care to do so.

Ethics have been evolving (abolition of slavery, etc.), so clearly (B) is not static. And now, with automation and strong renewable energy sources, we may (or should) be rapidly approaching post-scarcity, addressing (A). The result of it all is a qualitatively new state for humanity.

In such a state, the dog eat dog calculus you describe is thinking in the past, I’d expect better from a technologically progressive mind.

Regarding biological need for competition, I’ll need to think about it but immediately it strikes me that there should be enough ways left to compete fairly.

Regarding bullying, I suffered from being bullied in early years, and I have grown to see my bullies for what they are: mentally traumatized people. The same trauma carries over to people seeking personal security at the expense of others or the environment, resulting in unethical or malicious behavior. Thus the need to improve baseline well-being (and especially mental health) across the board, to stop people being traumatized and passing it on by traumatizing their peers and children.

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

#274

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:25 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #182

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…

> Trust is a feature, not a bug Why do people always misunderstand "trustless"? Being ABLE to trust somebody is a good thing. Being REQUIRED to trust somebody is a problem.

Let me phrase it this way: “being required to trust somebody” being a problem is the underlying problem. Why are there untrustworthy people in society?

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

#275

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

smokey_circles wrote: post #189

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'm not following. You will not find trust _in people_ anywhere in modern society. Banks certify transactions, governments certify identity. We can go on and on here. Whole swathes of law around this topic too lol (see: fraud). Crypto isn't about not trusting people, it's about not needing to trust strangers. Some of them are scams, ironically, but when there's money involved... well it's pretty stupid to _just_ trus…

Trust is everywhere. I eat at a cafe being trusted to pay later. In South Korea, I am trusted to have paid for my ticket upon entering the train (no one ever checked it). I trust every person I stroll past in a dark alley to not rob me at knifepoint. I am trusted by my customers to not deliver a backdoored codebase (yes, there is the letter of the contract, but really it comes down to interpersonal trust since they cannot verify it themselves). Etc., etc.

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

#276

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:39 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #139

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…

>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. It's about building robust systems. A system that assumes counterparties are trustworthy will fail in the case they aren't (as demonstrated clearly in modern OS/web architecture), whereas a system that assumes counterparties are not trustworthy will not fail in that case. > we should…

I agree that current technical systems must not assume trust, for as long as we have malicious agents. IMO we should not let this be baked into the fabric of human society though.

And for the record, I believe it is possible to achieve what I am talking about in conditions and general spirit of market and capitalism. Suppressing personal choice (USSR- and China-style) is not the way to get there, it is in fact the opposite—making people feel psychologically secure enough to not feel compelled to be malicious is one thing; forcing them into constraints that prevent them from being malicious does not solve the issue and only obscures it (and besides, party elites will always be free to be whatever they want).

In fact, it is the parallels between blockchain-based social system and some emerging Chinese realities (social karma, etc.) that worry me.

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

#277

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:48 PM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #161

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 prepa…

Have you ever been in places where locking your bike is perceived as a slight sign of disrespect? It is for a good reason; you have basically just labeled all people there as possible thieves.

I am not arguing that we metaphorically and literally need to do away with locks right now, but that we can and should apply effort in the direction that makes them obsolete as preventative measures. I want to live in a place where I do not need them.

The existence of trustless systems does not make distrust mandatory, it is such systems becoming mandatory that bothers me, as well as the effort spent into developing more and more robust trustless systems—as opposed to trying to make those very systems obsolete by eliminating the underlying motivations that push people to exploit trust.

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

#278

Post by marssaxman » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 1:55 PM UTC

t-3 wrote: post #239

topkai22 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't even know what the price of a taxi is anymore. That is the least important difference!

An Uber or a Lyft will actually show up - and quickly - when I call it; will actually take me where I want to go without wasting time running up the meter; and will actually charge me in a fair and predictable way, which does not involve dickering with the driver or unexpectedly having to find a bunch of cash because the card reader is "broken".

All of these things can be reasonably summarized as forms of trustworthiness.

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

#279

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:05 PM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #103

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're right on a lot of things here, (I appreciate the slightly humorous, gratuitous take on bad actors having had a bad upbringing) but you seem to be inverting the flaws in the no-trust paradigm into a trust-but-verify paradigm based on an assumption of implicit goodness which is no more borne out by reality than the assumption of implicit evil. Maybe it makes more sense to look at it all through a different lens.…

I need time to digest your point, but one note—participants certifying acquiescence to the system still involves trust: as in, you agree to the rules of this mini-game, but I trust that you actually follow them. I suspect that such default meta-trust is sort of important, like presumption of innocence; and if there are people who violate it, then we should throw more resources at treating the underlying causes rather than eliminating symptoms. So far blockchain-based trustless tech to me seems instrumental at treating the symptom only (and I can see how it detracts resources from treating the cause), thus I am wary of it.

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

#280

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

nverno wrote: post #96

johtso wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you reframe it as the absence of mistrust, trusting being the natural state.

Trusting blindly is not a natural state. We evolved in the ecosystem you see around you. In freak cases, eg. the dodo bird, you can see what happens when blind trust meets competition.

Isn’t it fundamentally an artifact of scarcity? What if with technological advances in automation and energy sources humanity were approaching a world without it?