3 ms·

Someone is gonna reverse engineer their orb and add a couple thousand fake people with fake biometrics to the database - or just pay people to borrow their Worl

Someone is gonna reverse engineer their orb and add a couple thousand fake people with fake biometrics to the database - or just pay people to borrow their WorldID.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
drdeca 2y ago
I feel like the former could probably be avoided if they use an ORWL-PC-like thing to ensure that an on-device generated private key can’t be extracted, and use some kind of like, video recording from multiple cameras to demonstrate that the construction of the device didn’t differ from the standard, and showing the public key it produced, and had such footage signed by trusted parties, as part of the like, certificate for the public key that the device uses? Of course, 1) I doubt they did this 2) This still kicks the can down to “why do you trust the authorities who signed the alleged footage showing the construction of the device”. (You can kick the can further by having the cameras also have such infeasible-to-extract private keys, but encounter the same problem)
- jt2190 2y ago
  The white paper has all the details https://whitepaper.world.org/ https://whitepaper.world.org/
- strogonoff 2y ago
  If there is a problem with trust, in human-made technologies there will always be a link in the chain where trust can be violated by a human; the higher up the chain the link, the bigger the impact of the violation. On the other hand, if there is no problem with trust (humans are all nice to each other), then trying to enforce trust through the straightjacket of Worldcoin and other blockchain technologies is a complete waste of resources. And it’s more than just waste. There is a well-known labeling effect in psychology, where the way people are treated affects the way they act by making them subconsciously adapt to what is expected of them. (If you are treated as if you were dumb as a student, your actual capability and intelligence may not even matter: unless you happen to be sociopathic enough—no judgement, welcome to the club—it becomes your persona; later, every verification in daily life is a subtle invitation into the mind of those abusing the system and benefitting from it enough to warrant the extra checks.) It always makes me think about the implications of such technologies becoming part of the fabric of society where all humans are treated as inherently untrustworthy. Making it more difficult to violate trust, with appropriately increased payoff, is never the solution—it only raises the incentives. The solution is to work with humans, understand what causes us to want to violate it in the first place, and treat them as inherently trustoworthy by allowing violation at lower levels where the impact is smaller.

Someone is gonna reverse engineer their orb and add a couple thousand fake people with fake biometrics to the database - or just pay people to borrow their WorldID.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

drdeca 2y ago

I feel like the former could probably be avoided if they use an ORWL-PC-like thing to ensure that an on-device generated private key can’t be extracted, and use some kind of like, video recording from multiple cameras to demonstrate that the construction of the device didn’t differ from the standard, and showing the public key it produced, and had such footage signed by trusted parties, as part of the like, certificate for the public key that the device uses? Of course, 1) I doubt they did this 2) This still kicks the can down to “why do you trust the authorities who signed the alleged footage showing the construction of the device”. (You can kick the can further by having the cameras also have such infeasible-to-extract private keys, but encounter the same problem)

jt2190 2y ago
The white paper has all the details https://whitepaper.world.org/ https://whitepaper.world.org/
strogonoff 2y ago
If there is a problem with trust, in human-made technologies there will always be a link in the chain where trust can be violated by a human; the higher up the chain the link, the bigger the impact of the violation. On the other hand, if there is no problem with trust (humans are all nice to each other), then trying to enforce trust through the straightjacket of Worldcoin and other blockchain technologies is a complete waste of resources. And it’s more than just waste. There is a well-known labeling effect in psychology, where the way people are treated affects the way they act by making them subconsciously adapt to what is expected of them. (If you are treated as if you were dumb as a student, your actual capability and intelligence may not even matter: unless you happen to be sociopathic enough—no judgement, welcome to the club—it becomes your persona; later, every verification in daily life is a subtle invitation into the mind of those abusing the system and benefitting from it enough to warrant the extra checks.) It always makes me think about the implications of such technologies becoming part of the fabric of society where all humans are treated as inherently untrustworthy. Making it more difficult to violate trust, with appropriately increased payoff, is never the solution—it only raises the incentives. The solution is to work with humans, understand what causes us to want to violate it in the first place, and treat them as inherently trustoworthy by allowing violation at lower levels where the impact is smaller.