If you misbehave you lose money (a fine) or time (jail) or both.
Not even close. a tiny fraction of human misbehavior is legibly punished. We keep the world safe from humans by the fact that they’re generally not powerful enough to destroy the world. This has been changing in recent history, and we probably will NOT keep the world safe from humans.
I will now dive right into a concrete and crazy idea, however, I am trusting you to be smart and extract the general principles instead of focusing on the exact tunable parameters:
Yeah, this pattern-matches so strongly to crank bullshit that I am unable to take it seriously. This comment is a courtesy to let you know why you’re being downvoted.
httpi adds a third job: the client has to prove who it is too.
How? Even assuming the client WANTS to prove anything, how would it do so? Remove the passive voice from all of this—what human, agency, or AI is performing any of these validation/adjudication/enforcement actions?
AFAICT, you’ve written a bad sci-fi scenario, handwaving all of the difficult parts
free and reliable identity
free and perfect adjudication
side-effect-free punishment and enforcement
If you can actually solve, or even slightly improve, ANY of these, great. Otherwise, you’re not really furthering the discussion.
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.
Not even close. a tiny fraction of human misbehavior is legibly punished. We keep the world safe from humans by the fact that they’re generally not powerful enough to destroy the world. This has been changing in recent history, and we probably will NOT keep the world safe from humans.
Yeah, this pattern-matches so strongly to crank bullshit that I am unable to take it seriously. This comment is a courtesy to let you know why you’re being downvoted.
How? Even assuming the client WANTS to prove anything, how would it do so? Remove the passive voice from all of this—what human, agency, or AI is performing any of these validation/adjudication/enforcement actions?
AFAICT, you’ve written a bad sci-fi scenario, handwaving all of the difficult parts
free and reliable identity
free and perfect adjudication
side-effect-free punishment and enforcement
If you can actually solve, or even slightly improve, ANY of these, great. Otherwise, you’re not really furthering the discussion.
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.