4 ms·

Because this isn't an article about the current systems of legal identities, it's about pseudonmys. Identities come with their own hangups and prejudices. I can

Because this isn't an article about the current systems of legal identities, it's about pseudonmys. Identities come with their own hangups and prejudices. I can't help noticing we both are both posting behind pseudonyms.

AstralStorm 5y ago
Would you give a sizable amount of money to someone you don't actually know? Remember that one person can have multiple pseudonyms and that a lot of real life proof of existence or work cab be crafted to fool a typical person with a lot of money. People have ran cons in real name, and succeeded. Given pseudonymity not linked to any real assets (unlike a company), it's even easier. Heck, someone can claim to be a given Nym while not actually being that person, blockchain does not link Nyms to a legal person, and neither does any DAO known to me. The only proof would be paying gas to whoever tries to strike a real life contract off a big account with visible history. And even that can be faked if you're diligent enough and hunting for whales. Good luck fixing it. If a government backed a DAO and had some link, there goes pseudonymity but you also have some legal recourse.
- simplestats 5y ago
  > Given pseudonymity not linked to any real assets (unlike a company), it's even easier. A pseudonym can be linked to a company with real assets. I don't follow you here. I even referred to such a situation above. As did the article. To answer your easy question, yes I can easily imagine scenarios where I might give a sizeable amount of money to someone that way. I have an online business and people in distant countries who don't actually know me give me sizeable amounts of money. They have my webpage which looks legit and demo software which works. There's no magic identity ingredient here to protect them. They'd move on and deal with someone else. There's a risk of course in everything. You certainly shouldn't risk money you can't afford to lose. Now as for giving out something like seed funding, this is where it actually does start to get interesting. As I also said above, and as the author of the article also says, one needs some kind of data trail to build confidence. No you certainly shouldn't implement your due dilligence in a way that can be easily hacked with ringers or plagiarized code.
zaptheimpaler 5y ago
So should we not evaluate the new system by comparison to existing system? Is the crypto version just better because its new? brb gonna rewrite my entire company’s stack, they are using old code and old stuff is dumb lol Re: pesudonyms, yeah pseudonyms are ok for posts on the internet with 0 stakes. They aren’t enough for situations where there is a potential need for accountability. I dont see a contradiction..
- simplestats 5y ago
  No. the new comes with new shortcomings that need to be countered with something extra before you can treat them equivalently to the old. This is what I meant above when I said: "part of the reason for that investment is the verifiable resume showing skills and experience in the right things. So you'd need some alternative that is similarly confidence-building in some other way." Otherwise I'm just hearing extreme risk-aversion. And a patronizing tone for that matter. I have repeatedly used terms like "interesting" to describe the problem. Since you seem to be devoting a very limited effort towards parsing my words, let me paraphrase for you: that means it's a hard problem. Stop tell me it's hard and thinking you countered my post.

AstralStorm 5y ago

Would you give a sizable amount of money to someone you don't actually know? Remember that one person can have multiple pseudonyms and that a lot of real life proof of existence or work cab be crafted to fool a typical person with a lot of money. People have ran cons in real name, and succeeded. Given pseudonymity not linked to any real assets (unlike a company), it's even easier. Heck, someone can claim to be a given Nym while not actually being that person, blockchain does not link Nyms to a legal person, and neither does any DAO known to me. The only proof would be paying gas to whoever tries to strike a real life contract off a big account with visible history. And even that can be faked if you're diligent enough and hunting for whales. Good luck fixing it. If a government backed a DAO and had some link, there goes pseudonymity but you also have some legal recourse.

simplestats 5y ago
> Given pseudonymity not linked to any real assets (unlike a company), it's even easier. A pseudonym can be linked to a company with real assets. I don't follow you here. I even referred to such a situation above. As did the article. To answer your easy question, yes I can easily imagine scenarios where I might give a sizeable amount of money to someone that way. I have an online business and people in distant countries who don't actually know me give me sizeable amounts of money. They have my webpage which looks legit and demo software which works. There's no magic identity ingredient here to protect them. They'd move on and deal with someone else. There's a risk of course in everything. You certainly shouldn't risk money you can't afford to lose. Now as for giving out something like seed funding, this is where it actually does start to get interesting. As I also said above, and as the author of the article also says, one needs some kind of data trail to build confidence. No you certainly shouldn't implement your due dilligence in a way that can be easily hacked with ringers or plagiarized code.

zaptheimpaler 5y ago

So should we not evaluate the new system by comparison to existing system? Is the crypto version just better because its new? brb gonna rewrite my entire company’s stack, they are using old code and old stuff is dumb lol Re: pesudonyms, yeah pseudonyms are ok for posts on the internet with 0 stakes. They aren’t enough for situations where there is a potential need for accountability. I dont see a contradiction..

simplestats 5y ago
No. the new comes with new shortcomings that need to be countered with something extra before you can treat them equivalently to the old. This is what I meant above when I said: "part of the reason for that investment is the verifiable resume showing skills and experience in the right things. So you'd need some alternative that is similarly confidence-building in some other way." Otherwise I'm just hearing extreme risk-aversion. And a patronizing tone for that matter. I have repeatedly used terms like "interesting" to describe the problem. Since you seem to be devoting a very limited effort towards parsing my words, let me paraphrase for you: that means it's a hard problem. Stop tell me it's hard and thinking you countered my post.