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.
I am not saying those pieces are solved. I am claiming they are the right pieces (identification and logs).
Government-provided identity is the most widely deployed identity primitive we have, and we already use it for many of the interactions we consider most consequential. My thought is that something like zkPassport could provide a privacy-preserving identity/attribute layer for a protocol.
I do think semi-automatic adjudication is the inevitable future for many high frequency interactions. The level of automation is being researched; I think Vitalik’s post points in a good direction.
On enforcement, I don’t have a strong claim about the adoption mechanism. Some protocols became widespread without a government mandate (e.g. HTTPS); others depend heavily on mandates (e.g. KYC in banking). I think both paths are plausible, and I don’t think the proposal needs to assume one or the other yet.
On 2. the main risk this tries to mitigate is giving more power to misbehaving agents. The more assets (compute, robots, etc) are behind a layer of identity and logs the easier it becomes to 1) identify misbehaving agents and 2) reduce their power.
0. I think it is useful to name early ideas/concepts. 3. Everyone acknowledges we are far from solving these problems. but we have to start somewhere.
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.
much clearer, thank you!
On 1.
I am not saying those pieces are solved. I am claiming they are the right pieces (identification and logs).
Government-provided identity is the most widely deployed identity primitive we have, and we already use it for many of the interactions we consider most consequential. My thought is that something like zkPassport could provide a privacy-preserving identity/attribute layer for a protocol.
I do think semi-automatic adjudication is the inevitable future for many high frequency interactions. The level of automation is being researched; I think Vitalik’s post points in a good direction.
On enforcement, I don’t have a strong claim about the adoption mechanism. Some protocols became widespread without a government mandate (e.g. HTTPS); others depend heavily on mandates (e.g. KYC in banking). I think both paths are plausible, and I don’t think the proposal needs to assume one or the other yet.
On 2. the main risk this tries to mitigate is giving more power to misbehaving agents. The more assets (compute, robots, etc) are behind a layer of identity and logs the easier it becomes to 1) identify misbehaving agents and 2) reduce their power.
0. I think it is useful to name early ideas/concepts.
3. Everyone acknowledges we are far from solving these problems. but we have to start somewhere.