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

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

#281

Post by strogonoff » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #232

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. 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 despi…

I don’t think we can get rid of locks on our doors (metaphorically and literally) right away, but I do think we should invest more effort into making them obsolete (by raising general well-being, ensuring psychological security; treating people as trustworthy is a factor, since we are primed to behave the way we are perceived) than into making more and more sophisticated locks all around us.

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

#282

Post by nyolfen » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #277

nyolfen wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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.

the internet is a single, collapsed point in space. your bike is accessible through this aleph, to all of the most skilled bike thieves in the world, forever. the internet might have been different in the past and may yet be different in the future, but if we are going to have a truly global universally-accessible network, we are going to need systems that are built for an adversarial environment.

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

#283

Post by junofan » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #271

DennisP wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> what is the benefit of blockchain and all?

The design space is way bigger, so you can create better solutions. “Trust institution X” is a special case.

I can open a position on my favorite DEX (trusting the DEX administer, which can be a centralized authority, not to push an upgrade that drains my balance) and also trust that my position can be liquidated (due to incentives for anybody to submit the liquidation transaction, thereby not having to trust that a centralized liquidation bot won’t have somehow failed at that exact moment).

You could design a brokerage system where accountholders must trust the broker with personal details like SSN, etc, but don’t have to trust the broker not to disable buy/sell buttons due to solvency issues.

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

#284

Post by fartcannon » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 2:22 AM UTC

headsoup wrote: post #265

fartcannon wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A distributed ledger.. Like bitcoin? It's already solved! Sorry, Im struggling to understand your point. If you want people not to get fleeced, education is the key. Explain the value of bitcoin to them. Explain why it was created. And the financial system is obscure already and actively fleeces people all the time. Bitcoin was a direct response to the 2008 financial crisis (read: fleecing). Theyd destroyed lives and…

This is a redundant argument as it applies just as well to the current financial markets: education is key. But it's not reality, and Bitcoin opened up to fleecing at massive scale as its growth increased and middlemen services popped up to manage the 'complexity.' Not that I'm saying the current financial system is good or not corrupted, it certainly is. Bitcoin is not the answer people think it is though.

You havent made that case, yet, to me at least. If anything I'm more interested than ever. I mean, you want to talk massive scale fleecing? Let's talk about destroying the global markets with bogus real estate. Global markets! And then double dipping by having the very people you fleeced bail you out against their will. That's triple A fleecing. It's such a flagrant demonstration of a corrupt system that it makes me totally understand why bitcoin was conceived in the first place.

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

#285

Post by strogonoff » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 6:27 AM UTC

junofan wrote: post #283

strogonoff wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> what is the benefit of blockchain and all? The design space is way bigger, so you can create better solutions. “Trust institution X” is a special case. I can open a position on my favorite DEX (trusting the DEX administer, which can be a centralized authority, not to push an upgrade that drains my balance) and also trust that my position can be liquidated (due to incentives for anybody to submit the liquidation tra…

> don’t have to trust

There we go again. Why are we avoiding trust?

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

#286

Post by strogonoff » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 6:32 AM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #282

strogonoff wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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. the internet is a single, collapsed point in space. your bike is accessible through this aleph, to all of the most skilled bike thieves in the world, forever. the internet might have been different in the past and may yet be…

Same logic applies no matter how many people there are. Instituting pervasive checks on everything and distrust by default is not different from failed attempts at communism as exemplified by USSR and China.

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

#287

Post by strogonoff » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 6:45 AM UTC

snikeris wrote: post #153

strogonoff wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is in technical systems. More or less it’s an equivalent of defending your home, or using password auth: there are humans motivated to increase their well-being at your expense (at the expense of the environment, and so on). This tech seems often to be pushed onto human society as a whole, though. It’s like giving up on solving the underlying issues that give humans the above-mentioned motivation to betray e…

The tech (money) has already been adopted by human society as a whole though. So it's not about pushing tech onto human society, but upgrading the existing tech. > It’s like giving up on solving the underlying issues that give humans the above-mentioned motivation to betray each other, and instead baking into the fabric society an assumption that it’s human nature to be this way. Not all humans are that way, but thos…

> those who desire power tend to be

People who desire power are often, unfortunately, the very kind I mentioned: seeking to secure themselves and easily corrupted. Sadly, power still converts to money, and less than scrupulous corporations and kleptocracies are always knocking at your door to offer a big chunk for turning a blind eye and to infect with corruption.

Again, the core problem is not that we are allowing that to happen. The problem is that some people want to do force others into finite zero-sum games and win—and if these people are already well-off, and especially in a civilization without shortage of resource (which should presumably be slowly arriving), the only reason they would want to do that is mental issues and deep-seated insecurities, distrust and fear for own financial safety.

This motivation will find its way no matter how many checks and verifications you institute. It manifests itself by people stealing other peoples’ stuff, people seeking power to enrich themselves unjustly (and in less lucky countries, using violence and pervasive control to maintain that power), corporations dumping waste into the environment and imbuing every living thing with microplastics and PFAS, etc. etc.

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

#288

Post by atoav » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:14 AM UTC

hGkXBvR wrote: post #80

DanHulton wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the parent's objection, rather my own, but how many times has this been tried already, only to hit predictable and easily avoidable issues, if only you'd been using fiat? Like for example, the crypto kickstarter that tried to buy a copy of the constitution? Nevermind the fact that the geniuses in charge didn't realize this didn't give them merchandising rights, when the bid failed, returning the money was a legit…

How many times do we have to keep trying to make cars happen, we have perfectly good horse-drawn carriages! The constitution DAO was pretty successful application of the tech. Within a week, they went from idea to public fundraiser, raised more than they would have been allowed to on Kickstarter or GoFundMe, had immediate access to the funds, and paid 0% commission compared to what most corporate platforms would char…

The criticism that I phrased was not that somehow it could be done, it was that I don't see a reason why it should.

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

#289

Post by nyolfen » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 8:56 PM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #286

nyolfen wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. the internet is a single, collapsed point in space. your bike is accessible through this aleph, to all of the most skilled bike thieves in the world, forever. the internet might have been different in the past and may yet be…

Same logic applies no matter how many people there are. Instituting pervasive checks on everything and distrust by default is not different from failed attempts at communism as exemplified by USSR and China.

i genuinely cannot comprehend the logic behind this statement. nobody is forcing you to use these systems, so you seem to have some emotional discomfort with other people having the ability to protect themselves. what is your alternative? forced trust, dependence on third party authorities?

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

#290

Post by strogonoff » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 11:40 AM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #289

strogonoff wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same logic applies no matter how many people there are. Instituting pervasive checks on everything and distrust by default is not different from failed attempts at communism as exemplified by USSR and China.

i genuinely cannot comprehend the logic behind this statement. nobody is forcing you to use these systems, so you seem to have some emotional discomfort with other people having the ability to protect themselves. what is your alternative? forced trust, dependence on third party authorities?

> nobody is forcing you to use these systems

The general sentiment from blockchain enthusiasts I talked with is that conventional system is obsolete and must be superseded by what they’re building ASAP. If you are OK with blockchain and adjacent tech being a niche, then I don’t really have anything to object to (whatever floats your boat and all that).

> what is your alternative? forced trust, dependence on third party authorities?

No… I sort of spent a while describing it in my original comment.