5 ms·

"We have a problem." "Solve it with block-chains!" "You've not heard my problem yet." "Doesn't matter!"

by billpg 8y ago

sowbug 8y ago
Did you read the article? The population has real, historical reasons not to trust the traditional centralized provider of identity. A trustless solution is an option worth considering. Blockchain-overuse snark is not the solution to every blockchain proposal.... especially if you haven't heard the proposal yet.
- supermatt 8y ago
  Blockchain doesn't automatically mean decentralised. _HOW_ is this blockchain decentralised? _WHERE_ does the trust/authority come from? Theres very little information on it other than "because blockchain".
- Sangermaine 8y ago
  >Blockchain-overuse snark is not the solution to every blockchain proposal.... Yes, it is. At least until someone comes up with an actual use for it that isn’t a scam or something that could have been done much easier with existing technology.
- scott_s 8y ago
  But the difficulty is that the traditional centralized provider of identity is the state, and they are the arbiter of identity because they have power. Being the state in power is why they decide anyone's identity. Declaring your own identity does not change the power dynamic.
  - sowbug 8y ago
    That's a good point, and I hope nobody is taking the position in this thread that someone has legal rights just because a digital signature matched. Unless the legal body grants that privilege, the match has no meaning. A decentralized solution removes the question who maintains a centralized database. That's important because, as you say, the answer to that question has always been the state. Which means it's never really been a question. If you're cool with the government owning your identity -- and truly having the power to erase your entire existence, so they're not denying you any rights because there is no "you" -- then it doesn't matter. But for some people, it might matter to be able to point to something other than the mirror and say "I exist, and not just because I say I do. This matters because [this entity] is taking actions that are inconsistent with my existence and implied rights." It's a small step, but it's one that opens up options that don't exist today.
    - nrclark 8y ago
      A decentralized solution still needs to be hosted by _somebody_. Where is it expected to live? On the PCs of Rohingya refugees?
      - sowbug 8y ago
        I don't know. Maybe on a Raspberry Pi running on your bookshelf and the bookshelves of 1,000 more people around the world. We wouldn't have that choice if it were centralized.
        GenericsMotors 8y ago
        And when you've got this network of RPis running, the Myanmar government simply says "Nope we don't recognize those individuals as citizens. But thanks for compiling a convenient persona non grata list for us!"
- lagadu 8y ago
  > The population has real, historical reasons not to trust the traditional centralized provider of identity. It doesn't matter because the provider of identity is the same entity that needs to accept the identity: the Myanmar government and they don't want to accept them. This "solution" is ridiculous.

"We have a problem." "Solve it with block-chains!" "You've not heard my problem yet." "Doesn't matter!"

by billpg 8y ago

"We have a problem." "Solve it with block-chains!" "You've not heard my problem yet." "Doesn't matter!"

Did you read the article? The population has real, historical reasons not to trust the traditional centralized provider of identity. A trustless solution is an option worth considering. Blockchain-overuse snark is not the solution to every blockchain proposal.... especially if you haven't heard the proposal yet.

supermatt 8y ago
Blockchain doesn't automatically mean decentralised. _HOW_ is this blockchain decentralised? _WHERE_ does the trust/authority come from? Theres very little information on it other than "because blockchain".
Sangermaine 8y ago
>Blockchain-overuse snark is not the solution to every blockchain proposal.... Yes, it is. At least until someone comes up with an actual use for it that isn’t a scam or something that could have been done much easier with existing technology.
scott_s 8y ago
But the difficulty is that the traditional centralized provider of identity is the state, and they are the arbiter of identity because they have power. Being the state in power is why they decide anyone's identity. Declaring your own identity does not change the power dynamic.
- sowbug 8y ago
  That's a good point, and I hope nobody is taking the position in this thread that someone has legal rights just because a digital signature matched. Unless the legal body grants that privilege, the match has no meaning. A decentralized solution removes the question who maintains a centralized database. That's important because, as you say, the answer to that question has always been the state. Which means it's never really been a question. If you're cool with the government owning your identity -- and truly having the power to erase your entire existence, so they're not denying you any rights because there is no "you" -- then it doesn't matter. But for some people, it might matter to be able to point to something other than the mirror and say "I exist, and not just because I say I do. This matters because [this entity] is taking actions that are inconsistent with my existence and implied rights." It's a small step, but it's one that opens up options that don't exist today.
  - nrclark 8y ago
    A decentralized solution still needs to be hosted by _somebody_. Where is it expected to live? On the PCs of Rohingya refugees?
    - sowbug 8y ago
      I don't know. Maybe on a Raspberry Pi running on your bookshelf and the bookshelves of 1,000 more people around the world. We wouldn't have that choice if it were centralized.
      - GenericsMotors 8y ago
        And when you've got this network of RPis running, the Myanmar government simply says "Nope we don't recognize those individuals as citizens. But thanks for compiling a convenient persona non grata list for us!"
lagadu 8y ago
> The population has real, historical reasons not to trust the traditional centralized provider of identity. It doesn't matter because the provider of identity is the same entity that needs to accept the identity: the Myanmar government and they don't want to accept them. This "solution" is ridiculous.