4 ms·

> No it doesn't. I wasn't really paying attention to the implementation, but just what is easily possible. It would be simple to sign the full edit and provide

> No it doesn't. I wasn't really paying attention to the implementation, but just what is easily possible. It would be simple to sign the full edit and provide that to other people without ever storing it on chain. It's also possible to create a contract that serves for domains of an organization to sign messages, etc. > This whole thing is seriously stupid. It is a non-solution to a non-problem. The problem they are trying to solve doesn't exist and even if it did this wouldn't fix it. I think this a valid. I actually do think blockchains solve identity well through domains, though, with endorsements, there's already seemingly good trust to the accuracy of identity on social media platforms. As an example, there's not usually a question to whether Elon Musk was the person who made a Tweet endorsing something as true. > I mean hell, at the very least you think they would sign a hash of the edit instead of just an id number. With most blockchain based stuff, it seems like projects are frequently made without much consideration.

bawolff 3y ago
> It would be simple to sign the full edit and provide that to other people without ever storing it on chain You could definitely do better than what they were doing, but i dont see how you would be able to distinguish between a signature on a real edit and one on a fake edit that never existed on wiki. Of course you could have a trusted third party verify the edits, but in that case you might as well just use a normal website.
- World177 3y ago
  > You could definitely do better than what they were doing, but i dont see how you would be able to distinguish between a signature on a real edit and one on a fake edit that never existed on wiki. Of course you could have a trusted third party verify the edits, but in that case you might as well just use a normal website. If they really wanted, they could prove they made edits on a chain. Using Ethereum directly is expensive, but the layer 2 chains that finalize on Ethereum are not expensive. The EVM can handle and store the results of any computation given that it is small enough for the block and has enough gas to pay for it. The fees on some layer 2 chains are very low. [1] I don't really know if it necessary to prove someone did not make an edit though. [1] https://u.today/polygon-zkevm-proving-costs-estimated-by-co-founder-sandeep-nailwal https://u.today/polygon-zkevm-proving-costs-estimated-by-co-... Note: I'm not sure that Polygon's zkEVM supports all op codes. Though, there are other chains like Arbitrum Nova where the EVM is fully supported, and the fees are less than $0.01/transaction. (for now at least) Polygon's zkEVM provides better security guarantees though. You can see the total value locked for different chains here, [2] which should be partially indicative of how much the markets trust them. [2] https://defillama.com/chains https://defillama.com/chains
  - bawolff 3y ago
    So assuming the context is to prove if wikipedia is "censoring" you, i dont get how this would work. Sure you could store the whole edit on the blockchain, but how do you prove that is the same edit as the one that used to be on wikipedia and is now censored? How would an outside observer be able to tell that the whole edit isn't faked? That instead of wikipedia censoring the edit, what actually happdned was the edit was never submitted to wikipedia at all but made up.
    - xinbenlv 3y ago
      > bawolff@: So assuming the context is to prove if wikipedia is "censoring" you, i dont get how this would work. OP: The main goal is not to avoid Wikipedia censoring.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        What is the goal then? I mostly went with the censoring thing because someone suggested it upthread.
        World177 3y ago
        Endorsements. (specifically to edits they approve) While this prototype did not consider much, most applications on Ethereum do provide high levels of interoperability. An organization (or DAO) could write their own implementation for how their domain uses the endorse function on a contract, then have their members endorse information, which results in the organization endorsement (ex. endorsed by who.int) showing up when requirements are met, etc. A high profile person, like Elon Musk, could also sign stuff to have his signature show up on a reference. (ex. ElonMusk.eth endorses this reference as accurately representing the truth) I think with this specific use case, the purpose is not as clear because endorsements on social media are already trusted by users. For users, even if this was correctly decentralized through a blockchain domain, it still would likely require developer interpretation for them to understand if the decentralized service is operating as expected.
- xinbenlv 3y ago
  > bawolff@: You could definitely do better than what they were doing, but i dont see how you would be able to distinguish between a signature on a real edit and one on a fake edit that never existed on wiki. OP: In our prototype, an endorsement is being signed. In production, it's possible that people will add their signature for their edits tool. We hope increasingly people will sign their edits so there is an increasing subset of Wikipedia edits that could benefit from decentralized signature that doesn't rely on Wikimedia or centralized entities to verify. The adoption will not happen overnight, just like The HTTPS.
- xinbenlv 3y ago
  > bawolff@: Of course you could have a trusted third party verify the edits, but in that case you might as well just use a normal website. OP: In that version of future, we no longer need a trusted third-party to verify the edits.

bawolff 3y ago

> It would be simple to sign the full edit and provide that to other people without ever storing it on chain You could definitely do better than what they were doing, but i dont see how you would be able to distinguish between a signature on a real edit and one on a fake edit that never existed on wiki. Of course you could have a trusted third party verify the edits, but in that case you might as well just use a normal website.

World177 3y ago
> You could definitely do better than what they were doing, but i dont see how you would be able to distinguish between a signature on a real edit and one on a fake edit that never existed on wiki. Of course you could have a trusted third party verify the edits, but in that case you might as well just use a normal website. If they really wanted, they could prove they made edits on a chain. Using Ethereum directly is expensive, but the layer 2 chains that finalize on Ethereum are not expensive. The EVM can handle and store the results of any computation given that it is small enough for the block and has enough gas to pay for it. The fees on some layer 2 chains are very low. [1] I don't really know if it necessary to prove someone did not make an edit though. [1] https://u.today/polygon-zkevm-proving-costs-estimated-by-co-founder-sandeep-nailwal https://u.today/polygon-zkevm-proving-costs-estimated-by-co-... Note: I'm not sure that Polygon's zkEVM supports all op codes. Though, there are other chains like Arbitrum Nova where the EVM is fully supported, and the fees are less than $0.01/transaction. (for now at least) Polygon's zkEVM provides better security guarantees though. You can see the total value locked for different chains here, [2] which should be partially indicative of how much the markets trust them. [2] https://defillama.com/chains https://defillama.com/chains
- bawolff 3y ago
  So assuming the context is to prove if wikipedia is "censoring" you, i dont get how this would work. Sure you could store the whole edit on the blockchain, but how do you prove that is the same edit as the one that used to be on wikipedia and is now censored? How would an outside observer be able to tell that the whole edit isn't faked? That instead of wikipedia censoring the edit, what actually happdned was the edit was never submitted to wikipedia at all but made up.
  - xinbenlv 3y ago
    > bawolff@: So assuming the context is to prove if wikipedia is "censoring" you, i dont get how this would work. OP: The main goal is not to avoid Wikipedia censoring.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      What is the goal then? I mostly went with the censoring thing because someone suggested it upthread.
      - World177 3y ago
        Endorsements. (specifically to edits they approve) While this prototype did not consider much, most applications on Ethereum do provide high levels of interoperability. An organization (or DAO) could write their own implementation for how their domain uses the endorse function on a contract, then have their members endorse information, which results in the organization endorsement (ex. endorsed by who.int) showing up when requirements are met, etc. A high profile person, like Elon Musk, could also sign stuff to have his signature show up on a reference. (ex. ElonMusk.eth endorses this reference as accurately representing the truth) I think with this specific use case, the purpose is not as clear because endorsements on social media are already trusted by users. For users, even if this was correctly decentralized through a blockchain domain, it still would likely require developer interpretation for them to understand if the decentralized service is operating as expected.
xinbenlv 3y ago
> bawolff@: You could definitely do better than what they were doing, but i dont see how you would be able to distinguish between a signature on a real edit and one on a fake edit that never existed on wiki. OP: In our prototype, an endorsement is being signed. In production, it's possible that people will add their signature for their edits tool. We hope increasingly people will sign their edits so there is an increasing subset of Wikipedia edits that could benefit from decentralized signature that doesn't rely on Wikimedia or centralized entities to verify. The adoption will not happen overnight, just like The HTTPS.
xinbenlv 3y ago
> bawolff@: Of course you could have a trusted third party verify the edits, but in that case you might as well just use a normal website. OP: In that version of future, we no longer need a trusted third-party to verify the edits.