3 ms·

How do you make decentralized identities that are spam-proof? You have to make them cost something, that's how. That's what this argument misses, and why you ar

by yebyen 3y ago

How do you make decentralized identities that are spam-proof? You have to make them cost something, that's how. That's what this argument misses, and why you are all wrong about this IMHO.

cesarb 3y ago
> How do you make decentralized identities that are spam-proof? You have to make them cost something, that's how. Not all costs have to be expressed as money or as a money analogue. For instance, a web-of-trust system could have reputation as the cost: someone who introduces too many spam accounts to the network could be marked as a spammer in turn.
- yebyen 3y ago
  OK, but if it has value (utility) and it has scarcity, then it's going to get a cash price. My favorite internet argument about Web3 was the time that I had two people on Twitter telling me that "scarcity" was a problem with my imagination. If I could just imagine a world with no scarcity, then it would be so! Shame for this tremendous failure of my imagination. It's clear enough that I'm the problem now. Well friend, I'm here to tell you that it isn't so. There will always be some kind of resource scarcity, and as long as there is money, people will be putting dollar amounts on our million dollar art projects. Whether or not we think they are worth the money, is not at issue. Whether someone will pay the money, is not at issue. If there isn't a "finitely deep supply" for long-term holders to protect somehow, and the "cost to create more supply isn't negligible" then what cost is there to burn your pseudonymous identity? Just mint another one. It has to have some cost, or spammers will just push this button continuously and ruin it for all us good people. It only takes a few bad apples, (but there is really nothing worse than infinitely many procedurally generated bad apples!) It requires someone (it can be a shared job) to take ownership of these barrels, and occasionally remove some dangerous bad apples. There can be enough barrels for everyone (even the bad apples! they can get a barrel to themselves...) even if a few are spoiled, but there cannot be infinitely many barrels with infinitely many apples and still make a good community platform. It has to have boundaries. This is just IMHO. These are the table stakes for a successful distributed community platform to grow without limits. (It has to have limits!)

by yebyen 3y ago

How do you make decentralized identities that are spam-proof? You have to make them cost something, that's how. That's what this argument misses, and why you are all wrong about this IMHO.

cesarb 3y ago

> How do you make decentralized identities that are spam-proof? You have to make them cost something, that's how. Not all costs have to be expressed as money or as a money analogue. For instance, a web-of-trust system could have reputation as the cost: someone who introduces too many spam accounts to the network could be marked as a spammer in turn.

yebyen 3y ago
OK, but if it has value (utility) and it has scarcity, then it's going to get a cash price. My favorite internet argument about Web3 was the time that I had two people on Twitter telling me that "scarcity" was a problem with my imagination. If I could just imagine a world with no scarcity, then it would be so! Shame for this tremendous failure of my imagination. It's clear enough that I'm the problem now. Well friend, I'm here to tell you that it isn't so. There will always be some kind of resource scarcity, and as long as there is money, people will be putting dollar amounts on our million dollar art projects. Whether or not we think they are worth the money, is not at issue. Whether someone will pay the money, is not at issue. If there isn't a "finitely deep supply" for long-term holders to protect somehow, and the "cost to create more supply isn't negligible" then what cost is there to burn your pseudonymous identity? Just mint another one. It has to have some cost, or spammers will just push this button continuously and ruin it for all us good people. It only takes a few bad apples, (but there is really nothing worse than infinitely many procedurally generated bad apples!) It requires someone (it can be a shared job) to take ownership of these barrels, and occasionally remove some dangerous bad apples. There can be enough barrels for everyone (even the bad apples! they can get a barrel to themselves...) even if a few are spoiled, but there cannot be infinitely many barrels with infinitely many apples and still make a good community platform. It has to have boundaries. This is just IMHO. These are the table stakes for a successful distributed community platform to grow without limits. (It has to have limits!)