4 ms·
Can't expand the ideea right now too much, but think of Satoshi, anonynous, but consistent and the possibility to prove provenance.
by RealityVoid 6y ago
Can't expand the ideea right now too much, but think of Satoshi, anonynous, but consistent and the possibility to prove provenance.
- cosmojg 6y agoSatoshi is pseudonymous, not anonymous. Public key cryptography (like that used with Bitcoin) allows the former but not the latter.
- starfallg 6y agoYou're right, but in the context here, there isn't any significant difference. A pseudonymous machine account that is indistinguishable to a human carries the same type of risks to online discourse as an anonymous account.
- api 6y agoCode is a very different thing. It's possible to run code and objectively see whether it does what it says or not. Political speech and whistleblower type stuff is very different. Without a really deep investigation it's impossible to verify anything. Let's say someone dumps an anonymous video showing Donald Trump or Joe Biden molesting a child. How would you verify that? For a CS analogy: would you trust anonymous elliptic curves provided with no background or provenance? How can you prove they're not somehow weak in a way known only to the generator? This is why some people are suspicious of the NIST elliptic curves, though in that case they've been around for so long and used to protect so many high value targets they're believed to be probably safe. They've had what amounts to a huge bounty on them for quite a while.
- m0zg 6y agoBut there already exist authentic videos of Joe Biden sniffing children without their consent. Doesn't seem to harm him any. I guess we'll see if this is even an issue. Lying by making shit up is not as effective as lying by omission, and the mainstream press are _experts_ at the latter.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]