4 ms·

> you set up guardians which is a group of people, organizations, and devices you create that allow you to recover your account And you call this an improvemen

by lottin 5y ago

> you set up guardians which is a group of people, organizations, and devices you create that allow you to recover your account And you call this an improvement over the current state of affairs?

PretzelPirate 5y ago
This provide you the choice of who (if anyone) you want to trust. You can choose to only use yourself as a guardian, a group of family members/friends, a set of financial institutions, or a mix of all of those. You can set it up so that it’s very hard for individuals or governments to take control of your assets.
sanderjd 5y ago
Yes? I think so? The problem is that this model is basically impossible with the current level of fees on ethereum. It isn't clear to me what the solution to that is supposed to be.
- EGreg 5y ago
  The solution should be to not use monolithic blockchains, at least not for key management :) Look at Sidetree protocol for instance
- lottin 5y ago
  If I understand correctly, you're proposing that we trust a set of individuals and hope that they'll cooperate when asked to, instead of relying on a single party which can be made to cooperate whether they like or not by the judicial system. That doesn't seem like an improvement to me.
  - olah_1 5y ago
    > we trust a set of individuals and hope that they'll cooperate when asked to Yes, in most cultures these individuals are called “family” or “friends”. It’s a rare concept in the crypto world though, yes.
    - EGreg 5y ago
      Now imagine if some app replacing 911 broadcast an emergency message to your friends or neighbors, with your location. Who would you trust more to come to your aid when there is a situation? How about in a rural area or one where police are overworked? How about if each neighborhood could hire its own police agencies and police agencies would compete on how well they keep people safe and maintain order without excess brutality? If they got to know the people they are policing, and worked with the clergy and others to help them holistically? That is how libertarians think.
      - ryan_lane 5y ago
        My family and friends aren't qualified and don't have the necessary medical equipment to keep me alive on the way to the hospital. Also, they're busy during the day and sleep at night and I don't want to burden them with being available 24/7 to come to my aid. Also, like most social situations, people generally assume that others will care enough to respond, which leads to no one responding. Emergency services are generally funded to be able to respond to an emergency, are available 24/7, and know that if you call them, they're the ones that need to come. I trust them nearly absolutely to come if I call them, though I do know that if they are funded poorly, they may come too slowly to help me, which is why I want them to be funded properly, and in a way that operates at a loss (I don't believe these services need to turn a profit). If I'm in a rural area, I know that response times are going to be very slow, but they will also be slow if it's friends or family, because it's a rural area, and everyone lives far away from each other. If it's the middle of the night, my assumption is that my friends and family won't be reachable at all, but maybe the police will be. Neighborhoods funding their own services mean that rich people get great service and poor people are on their own. I understand that this is how libertarians think, and this is why I think that libertarians live in a fantasy world where they believe things will work out exactly the way they've planned them in their mind.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        Sounds good, until you get to the last two hypotheticals, which sound awful.
      - 5y ago
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    You choose your set of individuals. I trust my sister far more than any corporation or judge.
    - lottin 5y ago
      Judges know a thing or two about family disputes. Maybe you'll find yourself in need of one, eventually.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        Yes, and lots of people end up on the bad end of the judicial system as well. There is no perfect solution for this, it isn't computer code, it's people, it's all just shades of gray. I think the "expected value" of having people I trust help me keep my accounts safe but recoverable is much higher (and much much cheaper) than that of thinking I'm going to successfully sue someone to achieve the same thing.
        lottin 5y ago
        Well, there's a reason why civilisation is built upon private contracts and the rule of law, and not upon unenforceable agreements between individuals. It's because, even though none of the solutions may be perfect, one is clearly better than than the other.
        sanderjd 5y ago
        Civilization is built upon both familial / social bonds and legal rules. Neither system would work well on its own.

by lottin 5y ago

> you set up guardians which is a group of people, organizations, and devices you create that allow you to recover your account And you call this an improvement over the current state of affairs?

PretzelPirate 5y ago

This provide you the choice of who (if anyone) you want to trust. You can choose to only use yourself as a guardian, a group of family members/friends, a set of financial institutions, or a mix of all of those. You can set it up so that it’s very hard for individuals or governments to take control of your assets.

sanderjd 5y ago

Yes? I think so? The problem is that this model is basically impossible with the current level of fees on ethereum. It isn't clear to me what the solution to that is supposed to be.

EGreg 5y ago
The solution should be to not use monolithic blockchains, at least not for key management :) Look at Sidetree protocol for instance
lottin 5y ago
If I understand correctly, you're proposing that we trust a set of individuals and hope that they'll cooperate when asked to, instead of relying on a single party which can be made to cooperate whether they like or not by the judicial system. That doesn't seem like an improvement to me.
- olah_1 5y ago
  > we trust a set of individuals and hope that they'll cooperate when asked to Yes, in most cultures these individuals are called “family” or “friends”. It’s a rare concept in the crypto world though, yes.
  - EGreg 5y ago
    Now imagine if some app replacing 911 broadcast an emergency message to your friends or neighbors, with your location. Who would you trust more to come to your aid when there is a situation? How about in a rural area or one where police are overworked? How about if each neighborhood could hire its own police agencies and police agencies would compete on how well they keep people safe and maintain order without excess brutality? If they got to know the people they are policing, and worked with the clergy and others to help them holistically? That is how libertarians think.
    - ryan_lane 5y ago
      My family and friends aren't qualified and don't have the necessary medical equipment to keep me alive on the way to the hospital. Also, they're busy during the day and sleep at night and I don't want to burden them with being available 24/7 to come to my aid. Also, like most social situations, people generally assume that others will care enough to respond, which leads to no one responding. Emergency services are generally funded to be able to respond to an emergency, are available 24/7, and know that if you call them, they're the ones that need to come. I trust them nearly absolutely to come if I call them, though I do know that if they are funded poorly, they may come too slowly to help me, which is why I want them to be funded properly, and in a way that operates at a loss (I don't believe these services need to turn a profit). If I'm in a rural area, I know that response times are going to be very slow, but they will also be slow if it's friends or family, because it's a rural area, and everyone lives far away from each other. If it's the middle of the night, my assumption is that my friends and family won't be reachable at all, but maybe the police will be. Neighborhoods funding their own services mean that rich people get great service and poor people are on their own. I understand that this is how libertarians think, and this is why I think that libertarians live in a fantasy world where they believe things will work out exactly the way they've planned them in their mind.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      Sounds good, until you get to the last two hypotheticals, which sound awful.
    - 5y ago
- sanderjd 5y ago
  You choose your set of individuals. I trust my sister far more than any corporation or judge.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Judges know a thing or two about family disputes. Maybe you'll find yourself in need of one, eventually.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      Yes, and lots of people end up on the bad end of the judicial system as well. There is no perfect solution for this, it isn't computer code, it's people, it's all just shades of gray. I think the "expected value" of having people I trust help me keep my accounts safe but recoverable is much higher (and much much cheaper) than that of thinking I'm going to successfully sue someone to achieve the same thing.
      - lottin 5y ago
        Well, there's a reason why civilisation is built upon private contracts and the rule of law, and not upon unenforceable agreements between individuals. It's because, even though none of the solutions may be perfect, one is clearly better than than the other.
        sanderjd 5y ago
        Civilization is built upon both familial / social bonds and legal rules. Neither system would work well on its own.