3 ms·

> I think we'll see them again. Not as something you own like property but as something you own like responsibility. We have those already, it's a certificate.

> I think we'll see them again. Not as something you own like property but as something you own like responsibility. We have those already, it's a certificate. [edit] Also, DAOs votes are exactly as binding as twitter polls.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I don't work with certificates often, but my impression is that when the statement that they certify changes in some way, trusted back channels must exist to put a new certificate in place. You can use clock time to control when they're valid, but they can't adapt to more complex conditions than "what time is it?" This means that they can't be any more trustworthy than the least trustworthy admin who as access to those back channels. That's unnecessary attack surface. It's also a transparency problem because there's generally not a way for consumers of the certificate to audit the workings of those back channels.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  A blockchain doesn't address the people-trust issue at all. Anyone who has the keys to the address can do whatever they want. You can give other people the keys, just like you can give other people access to the certificate issuance and validity tooling.
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    That's like saying that cars don't address the where-to-park issue at all. It's up to you, the author of the contract/dapp/whatever, to decide on the conditions under which it should make changes, and its up to the users to decide, based on its code, whether they should trust whatever other users (or keys, or data) that it indicates. Users trusting users, not users trusting infra. (Yeah, ok, you could call the contract "infra", but the difference is that once you publish it, you no longer have a privileged position to alter its behavior. It is to be trusted, or not, based on its merits, not on yours. The same cannot be said for certificate authorities, DNS records, databases, or websites, whose maintainers typically retain privileges that are not shared with the rest of us.)
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      > That's like saying that cars don't address the where-to-park issue at all. They don't. Trains and busses do, though, which is why they're better - that’s the difference between a functionally equivalent technology and a superior one. Not really sure what you're getting at.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

I don't work with certificates often, but my impression is that when the statement that they certify changes in some way, trusted back channels must exist to put a new certificate in place. You can use clock time to control when they're valid, but they can't adapt to more complex conditions than "what time is it?" This means that they can't be any more trustworthy than the least trustworthy admin who as access to those back channels. That's unnecessary attack surface. It's also a transparency problem because there's generally not a way for consumers of the certificate to audit the workings of those back channels.

arcticbull 3y ago
A blockchain doesn't address the people-trust issue at all. Anyone who has the keys to the address can do whatever they want. You can give other people the keys, just like you can give other people access to the certificate issuance and validity tooling.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  That's like saying that cars don't address the where-to-park issue at all. It's up to you, the author of the contract/dapp/whatever, to decide on the conditions under which it should make changes, and its up to the users to decide, based on its code, whether they should trust whatever other users (or keys, or data) that it indicates. Users trusting users, not users trusting infra. (Yeah, ok, you could call the contract "infra", but the difference is that once you publish it, you no longer have a privileged position to alter its behavior. It is to be trusted, or not, based on its merits, not on yours. The same cannot be said for certificate authorities, DNS records, databases, or websites, whose maintainers typically retain privileges that are not shared with the rest of us.)
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > That's like saying that cars don't address the where-to-park issue at all. They don't. Trains and busses do, though, which is why they're better - that’s the difference between a functionally equivalent technology and a superior one. Not really sure what you're getting at.