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

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

#291

Post by JohnHaugeland » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 1:12 PM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #108

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 problem with blockchainers It's hard to take any of what you say seriously when you start a comment with such a blanket statement. Also, I think I've already seen your type of "argument" so many times, I think I am able to just play the whole tape by just pointing out to previous comments I've made: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31195939 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31545427 (trustlessness is…

It's easy enough to have a discussion about you which you don't take seriously

An anti-vaxxer might respond the same way to "the problem with anti-vaxxers," hoping to make sure that nobody discusses the very real problems with them

It's generally okay if people being criticized don't want the people speaking about them to think poorly of them.

It's generally okay if a person being criticized believes that what's said to them can be rebuffed with canned content.

You go ahead and tell everyone that the reason you're polluting with a dysfunctional casino is "you weren't born with functional institutions" if you like

Every notice how anti-vaxxers have canned responses that they think landed, but nobody else does?

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

#292

Post by JohnHaugeland » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 1:13 PM UTC

rglullis wrote: post #117

strogonoff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then fix your institutions. Do you believe you can solve a human problem by forcing a technical solution? Don’t you think you will have to end up duplicating the very same institutions (possibly with more friction, less oversight and ways to appeal)? And if you go full freedom and anarchy, then drop into chaos until command economy next door eats you for lunch? Besides, we are talking about attitudes very much in cou…

See, I know that I can keep up this by simply linking to previous comments. This one is from one year ago : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25906731 (Tell me how a dissenting Russian or Chinese would go around "fixing their institutions") Edit: Though I do agree that BTC has failed and I now think that Ethereum (the blockchain, not saying anything about Ether as a "currency") is more suited to this, here is some…

> See, I know that I can keep up this by simply linking to previous comments.

As long as you don't mind that nobody but you is convinced at the end, perhaps

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

#293

Post by rglullis » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #291

rglullis wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with blockchainers It's hard to take any of what you say seriously when you start a comment with such a blanket statement. Also, I think I've already seen your type of "argument" so many times, I think I am able to just play the whole tape by just pointing out to previous comments I've made: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31195939 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31545427 (trustlessness is…

It's easy enough to have a discussion about you which you don't take seriously An anti-vaxxer might respond the same way to "the problem with anti-vaxxers," hoping to make sure that nobody discusses the very real problems with them It's generally okay if people being criticized don't want the people speaking about them to think poorly of them. It's generally okay if a person being criticized believes that what's said…

Did you notice your rhetoric is so poor that you could not address any actual argument? You did nothing except (a) resorting to throw false accusations hoping that this is enough to discredit your "opponent" and (b) "othering" via an absurd analogy?

If you only tried to reason properly and read at least part of what has been discussed before, you'd find out that:

- I am not in favor of BTC. I think it worked as a proof-of-concept for a system to transfer value without intermediaries, but it has failed as a currency - no privacy, too expensive, too volatile and its fixed supply makes it unworkable as money.

- I am not in favor of PoW. There are cheaper and more efficient ways to secure a blockchain and we are close to make a switch.

- I am not in favor of all these token projects that create opportunities for speculation but are not connected to real economic activity.

My "thing" is using crypto for payments and small-scale banking as an alternative for the global financial system [0]. So, unless you think that the status quo is "good", you will have a better shot at changing my mind if you show me a superior solution to the problem we are trying to tackle. Trying to dismiss me and my work with self-righteous, sophomoric rhetoric does not help anyone and does not solve anything.

[0]: https://hub20.io/about

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

#294

Post by rglullis » Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 6:17 PM UTC

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #292

rglullis wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, I know that I can keep up this by simply linking to previous comments. This one is from one year ago : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25906731 (Tell me how a dissenting Russian or Chinese would go around "fixing their institutions") Edit: Though I do agree that BTC has failed and I now think that Ethereum (the blockchain, not saying anything about Ether as a "currency") is more suited to this, here is some…

> See, I know that I can keep up this by simply linking to previous comments. As long as you don't mind that nobody but you is convinced at the end, perhaps

You are missing the point. I know the people arguing based on these old misconceptions are not going to be convinced anyway. I am linking to previous comments to avoid having to re-hash the same pointless argument every time.

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

#295

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 12:57 PM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #290

nyolfen wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 par…

[deleted]