5 ms·

Blockchain is not required for that. You could just use a normal database.

jacobush 8y ago
Who decides if it's accurate? Granted, you might not need blockchain anyway. But I do believe some kind of cross signing setup at least is a better answer than just a normal database.
- scott_s 8y ago
  Who decides if the blockchain based solution is accurate? An illustration: you do not trust Amazon because of a TLS certificate. That certificate means that you trust the entity on the other end is Amazon. But it doesn't make you trust them. You trust Amazon because of a bunch of soft reasons: you have ordered through them before, and it worked; they appear in the media a lot as a place people go to buy stuff online; a lot of your friends and colleagues buy things through them and are satisfied. All of these factors go into your soft judgement of why you're willing to give Amazon money. (If you don't trust Amazon, substitute them for some online entity that you do trust. If there are none, please accept that some people do trust online entities enough to give them money and expect to receive goods or services in return.) This is what I mean by technology does not solve civil problems: in this case, a specific technology solves the specific problem of establishing an online entity is who they say they are. But now you're back to the same problem that exists with any human interaction: do you actually trust the other side? Back to the database: if we're going to trust some individual or institution to be the arbiter of accuracy, we're better off just using a normal database with whatever encryption we want. Because once your system has that basic level of trust, you don't need blockchain. And back to my original point: this set of information (in whatever form) makes no difference if the people in power don't care. This information will not make the people in power care. The problem with any oppressed people is caused by those in power abusing that power. Those in power have power because they have might and the belief of the people that they will use that might to enforce their power. Blockchain doesn't change that.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    I listened to some kind of "sales pitch" for that system. Their selling point was not to somehow force the state of Burma to recognise their citizens. It was to create a peoples registry of identities, without the aid of a nation state. Exactly how they collect these identities, I don't remember. I fell asleep.
- schoen 8y ago
  This raises the "oracle problem" which is that blockchain-recorded assertions about things outside of the blockchain are not necessarily correct (unless a community has agreed to treat them as definitionally correct). If you have a trusted oracle for people's identities, you might just be able to trust that oracle's assertions (maybe that's what you're referring to as "cross signing") without also recording them in a blockchain, unless you're concerned that the oracle will tell the truth initially and then lie later on.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    I meant on a very low level - a central database can be manipulated to effectively rewrite history. If you have a web of signatures, similar to PGP, Keybase and a few other systems, you can't do that. The same goes for a blockchain. What you put in there is susceptible to the oracle problem, but that is another level. Both these things need attention.
    - schoen 8y ago
      > a central database can be manipulated to effectively rewrite history That's true, and that's an important issue. But I might still ask, for each application, is there someone who's trusted to introduce records into the system but not to update them later? (We can definitely envision applications where the answer might be "yes" -- often related to concerns about censorship -- but it doesn't seem like this is the case for every application.)

Who decides if it's accurate? Granted, you might not need blockchain anyway. But I do believe some kind of cross signing setup at least is a better answer than just a normal database.

scott_s 8y ago
Who decides if the blockchain based solution is accurate? An illustration: you do not trust Amazon because of a TLS certificate. That certificate means that you trust the entity on the other end is Amazon. But it doesn't make you trust them. You trust Amazon because of a bunch of soft reasons: you have ordered through them before, and it worked; they appear in the media a lot as a place people go to buy stuff online; a lot of your friends and colleagues buy things through them and are satisfied. All of these factors go into your soft judgement of why you're willing to give Amazon money. (If you don't trust Amazon, substitute them for some online entity that you do trust. If there are none, please accept that some people do trust online entities enough to give them money and expect to receive goods or services in return.) This is what I mean by technology does not solve civil problems: in this case, a specific technology solves the specific problem of establishing an online entity is who they say they are. But now you're back to the same problem that exists with any human interaction: do you actually trust the other side? Back to the database: if we're going to trust some individual or institution to be the arbiter of accuracy, we're better off just using a normal database with whatever encryption we want. Because once your system has that basic level of trust, you don't need blockchain. And back to my original point: this set of information (in whatever form) makes no difference if the people in power don't care. This information will not make the people in power care. The problem with any oppressed people is caused by those in power abusing that power. Those in power have power because they have might and the belief of the people that they will use that might to enforce their power. Blockchain doesn't change that.
- jacobush 8y ago
  I listened to some kind of "sales pitch" for that system. Their selling point was not to somehow force the state of Burma to recognise their citizens. It was to create a peoples registry of identities, without the aid of a nation state. Exactly how they collect these identities, I don't remember. I fell asleep.
schoen 8y ago
This raises the "oracle problem" which is that blockchain-recorded assertions about things outside of the blockchain are not necessarily correct (unless a community has agreed to treat them as definitionally correct). If you have a trusted oracle for people's identities, you might just be able to trust that oracle's assertions (maybe that's what you're referring to as "cross signing") without also recording them in a blockchain, unless you're concerned that the oracle will tell the truth initially and then lie later on.
- jacobush 8y ago
  I meant on a very low level - a central database can be manipulated to effectively rewrite history. If you have a web of signatures, similar to PGP, Keybase and a few other systems, you can't do that. The same goes for a blockchain. What you put in there is susceptible to the oracle problem, but that is another level. Both these things need attention.
  - schoen 8y ago
    > a central database can be manipulated to effectively rewrite history That's true, and that's an important issue. But I might still ask, for each application, is there someone who's trusted to introduce records into the system but not to update them later? (We can definitely envision applications where the answer might be "yes" -- often related to concerns about censorship -- but it doesn't seem like this is the case for every application.)