Not even close. a tiny fraction of human misbehavior is legibly punished.
The more powerful can cause more damage. Also, some human interactions can cause more damage than others. We try to surround interactions where more damage is possible with identification and logs. If the entity is more powerful we should protect more (or all) interactions with identity and logs.
How? Even assuming the client WANTS to prove anything, how would it do so?
In the post, I use zkPassport as an example of identity that could be required. It’s not sci-fi, some internet services already require zkPassport to be used (one example was the token sale of a crypto project called Aztec).
The pieces you list exist and are described in the posts I linked: identity (zkPassport), adjudication (the Vitalik post, Kleros and others are implementing it).
Finally, no protocol on the internet assumes a client WANTS to do anything. They MUST do it to interact or they don’t interact.
If you can actually solve, or even slightly improve, ANY of these, great. Otherwise, you’re not really furthering the discussion.
I do appreciate you taking the time to explain the downvote, but I still don’t understand why the post is being downvoted:
httpi even if possible would not work
httpi if possible would be great (but you think it’s not possible)
one sentence pattern-matched to “crank bullshit” and the whole post got classified as such
The first part of your comment pointed to 3. This last sentence points to 2.
I think deciding between 1 and 2 is already furthering the discussion. There is no point tackling the hard challenges if we think it’s 1, but we should look seriously into this if we think it’s 2. If it’s 3, that is a problem with one sentence, not with the idea.
httpi is a premature label for a set of semi-related huge projects.
no part of it is solved. - zkPassport doesn’t solve any identity problems. It only separates identity (government-provided, very limited) from attributes like age. - examples of contract-as-code or automatic adjudication are limited in scope and ALREADY are showing some fragility and error. - enforcement (why would a consumer want this) seems to require government mandate or something.
Some of these technologies and behaviors would be good for some interactions. It wouldn’t help very much for most types of agent misbehavior.
The sentence is the clearest indication of crank bullshit. The rest of the post doesn’t even acknowledge how far it is from a workable proposal, which also supports this.
Thanks for the reply. Point by point:
The more powerful can cause more damage. Also, some human interactions can cause more damage than others. We try to surround interactions where more damage is possible with identification and logs. If the entity is more powerful we should protect more (or all) interactions with identity and logs.
In the post, I use zkPassport as an example of identity that could be required. It’s not sci-fi, some internet services already require zkPassport to be used (one example was the token sale of a crypto project called Aztec).
The pieces you list exist and are described in the posts I linked: identity (zkPassport), adjudication (the Vitalik post, Kleros and others are implementing it).
Finally, no protocol on the internet assumes a client WANTS to do anything. They MUST do it to interact or they don’t interact.
I do appreciate you taking the time to explain the downvote, but I still don’t understand why the post is being downvoted:
httpi even if possible would not work
httpi if possible would be great (but you think it’s not possible)
one sentence pattern-matched to “crank bullshit” and the whole post got classified as such
The first part of your comment pointed to 3. This last sentence points to 2.
I think deciding between 1 and 2 is already furthering the discussion. There is no point tackling the hard challenges if we think it’s 1, but we should look seriously into this if we think it’s 2. If it’s 3, that is a problem with one sentence, not with the idea.
httpi is a premature label for a set of semi-related huge projects.
no part of it is solved.
- zkPassport doesn’t solve any identity problems. It only separates identity (government-provided, very limited) from attributes like age.
- examples of contract-as-code or automatic adjudication are limited in scope and ALREADY are showing some fragility and error.
- enforcement (why would a consumer want this) seems to require government mandate or something.
Some of these technologies and behaviors would be good for some interactions. It wouldn’t help very much for most types of agent misbehavior.
The sentence is the clearest indication of crank bullshit. The rest of the post doesn’t even acknowledge how far it is from a workable proposal, which also supports this.