Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.mollywhite.net

241–250 of 295 posts

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

#241

Earlier 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…

Up until 4 years ago, there was no practical way to have a money exchange without a middleman. Today we have all the Uniswap-style decentralized exchange who makes more transaction volume than all of the other centralized exchanges, and do it without wash trading, and no operator can steal or embezzle the funds.

To get this, all it was needed was to have a protocol, namely the Automatic Market Maker system popularized by Uniswap.

Protocol is what we need, not platforms.

One protocol being developed to deal with conflict resolution is https://kleros.io. A decentralized car sharing company could work initially just like a regular car-rental company, by having the renter providing an deposit to cover for damages and refunded when the vehicle is returned in acceptable conditions. In case of small disputes, a pre-arranged third party works as a arbiter. And in the case where there are some serious problems, actual courts and the "traditional" institutions should be there to execute their role.

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

#242
post #239

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.

Not to mention that if Über really provided "tons of value", they would've been profitable by now. But they only got popular because they have Softbank subsidizing riders for over 10 years already.

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

#243
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…

> 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 inception is predated 10 years ago, and is judged as such.

The equivalent would be to say “space has had 70 years to get us to mars, therefore the 2030 missions to mars will fail” only to follow up with “if the 2030 missions succeed, then space must explain why it has not gotten us to Jupiter”.

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

#244
post #76

This is a great write-up for introducing some of these concepts. For those who want to go deeper, highly recommend reading up more on DIDs https://w3c.github.io/did-use-cases/ Verifiable Credentials: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/ Some people working in the space to follow: https://twitter.com/kimdhamilton https://twitter.com/IdentityWoman https://twitter.com/ChristopherA Also highly recommend this paper by Fen…

> being able to establish identity at all is still a major problem in many places Are you sure? Where? And why would the tried and tested methods for establishing identity not work in those places?

Yes, quite sure as I worked several years on this problem and I am speaking from my direct experience of working with and speaking to financial and micro-finance institutions in 80+ countries (see my profile). A majority of the institutions I spoke with had establishing identity as their #1 problem.

Methods existing in one place (e.g. the United States) does not mean that those methods are established and/or will work in another place (e.g. Sierra Leone). This is a multi-faceted problem that involves government, infrastructure, and technology.

Further, there are improvements to be made even in the U.S. For instance, I cannot digitally establish my identity with several providers. Why? Because I do not and have never used credit and those providers rely on the "3 questions" KYC check via a credit bureau.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 consumption patterns as well. As long as you are actually paying for the electricity and energy you are consuming, I am not going to be judging you if you prefer to use with gaming, or by driving an huge SUV or flying every weekend to Las Vegas.

Still, I am glad that we are moving away from it and adopting PoS. Not only the system is more efficient, it also removes from the perma-bears one more talking point.

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

#246

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…

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 people using cryptocurrencies unless they turn over their wallets. They can also use an accusation of having a wallet as pretext for indefinite detainment or punishment. Such countries aren't likely to have functional governments or even free access to the Internet. Even TV and radio are tightly controlled in such places.

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

#247
This seems to trying to pin down the "problem of identity" (how to ensure people maintain a stable identity over a digital realm)

I think it's important to be clear about why this is important, depending on the use case (votes, currency, etc) there may be a different reasons why it's important that one identity follows one person.

In the case of currency, the reason behind needing stable identity has to do with double spending.

But I have a toy scenario that I like to play around with, consider a cryptocurrency such that anybody can emit tokens (credits) however they deem appropriate, in this case the necessity of a stable identity is clear, the person needs to be able to answer for their emited tokens. If people can just shed the token-emitting-identity, then they cannot be held accountable (forced to answer) for their emitted tokens and the entire construction is useless.

However, for the case of votes and other group-concensus schemes, the scenarios are sufficiently different that I'm not sure if it'e even worthwhile to try to come up with ONE answer to the identity "problem"

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't try to stand up a strawman. The exchanges are manipulating the value of Bitcoin, which affects those not using exchanges' ability to trade at a 'proper' value.

The strawman here is dividebyzeros fictional people who are too dumb to use bitcoin but somehow smart enough to navigate the financial system. Crytpo bros are a PR boogeyman.

The vast majority of people are well able to have a bank account and pay for things within the existing banking system without getting fleeced (or at least only to a small degree). If you want to solve trust at scale, that'll all have to become some sort of distributed ledger or the like. Scaling this tech to the point where it can do that will pretty much certainly not make it any simpler, so you'll get intermediaries who I've summarized as "crypto bros", but you're free to call them something else, but who will be in a terribly good position to fleece the masses. That's true for almost all areas; if it is to be absolutely governed by a highly obscure piece of software, people who understand the details will have great leverage to game the system, and I don't think that's an improvement over what we have now. It just transfers trust to another level in the chain and power to other people (possibly).

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

#249
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> right to be forgotten 1984 had a pretty good argument why it’s dystopian to tell people they are not allowed to remember or continue believing something.

People can remember all they want… It’s the permanent digital record indexed by search engines, available at the tip of your fingers anywhere anytime - that is the problem.

I'd rephrase that it's the powerful agents dicating what them searchable indexes can find beyond what the algorithms doing the finding can do that's the real problem.

Add in the notion that the police and other important agencies can find a lot more than the Public can, because safety... and continue to completely break democracy while pretending you're doing all this for the greater good (where "for good" actually means "for concentration of power")

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

#250
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digital records are an extension of the mind.

Your liberty to extend your mind ends where my dignity begins.

no, it ends where my own mind begins.

the problem here is the "collective mind" aka the cloud of collectively constructed digital information

Post reply on HN