Identity Is Fundamental(djcodes.substack.com)
djcodes.substack.com
Identity Is Fundamental
https://djcodes.substack.com/p/identity-is-fundamental
8 comments
I like their observation that you don't need the currency part of blockchain to solve (or help) this. The scam-laden coin/wallet/currency part of blockchain could be dropped if you just want a global, distributed ledger with some proof of work or proof of stake -- plus the usual private key cryptography to establish identity, sign messages etc -- to add a block to the chain.
So it's conceivable a non-currency blockchain could be a path forward.
So it's conceivable a non-currency blockchain could be a path forward.
I honestly don't understand how the blockchain solves any of the problems around all this.
PKI by itself is not enough because of key distribution.
In the old days, we had "signing parties" where your friends in meatspace would sign your key and that was robust. At least you know by N degrees of separation, if your friend had signed someone's key, then that someone was probably OK trust wise. Repeat for N degrees of separation on your keychain. That's "pretty good" trust with poor scalability.
We also had public key servers which would somehow link an email to a public key. I guess a key server could validate the email, so at least you know that email went with that key. And by reputation on the intertubes, you might infer a frequent committer (email) to some project seemed ok, so maybe you could trust them. Less trust with better scalability: keyservers and emails can always be pwned.
A blockchain is an immutable, global, ledger. Everyone knows what old entries were added by what key signing whatever payload; they're all cemented in there for the world to read. There's no way to un-publish an old entry. So I can put my pub key on there, then sign commits in my project with it. Now, you don't have to trust any email server or any keyserver: you can look at a new commit in that project, see who signed it, and then go find my key and earlier commits on that blockchain. You still don't know if I'm evil or not, but at least you know I'm the same signer of all the other commits.
In the old days, we had "signing parties" where your friends in meatspace would sign your key and that was robust. At least you know by N degrees of separation, if your friend had signed someone's key, then that someone was probably OK trust wise. Repeat for N degrees of separation on your keychain. That's "pretty good" trust with poor scalability.
We also had public key servers which would somehow link an email to a public key. I guess a key server could validate the email, so at least you know that email went with that key. And by reputation on the intertubes, you might infer a frequent committer (email) to some project seemed ok, so maybe you could trust them. Less trust with better scalability: keyservers and emails can always be pwned.
A blockchain is an immutable, global, ledger. Everyone knows what old entries were added by what key signing whatever payload; they're all cemented in there for the world to read. There's no way to un-publish an old entry. So I can put my pub key on there, then sign commits in my project with it. Now, you don't have to trust any email server or any keyserver: you can look at a new commit in that project, see who signed it, and then go find my key and earlier commits on that blockchain. You still don't know if I'm evil or not, but at least you know I'm the same signer of all the other commits.
Would I tell my layman friends to use a crypto product or program? Definitely not. It has been abused extensively by scammers, money laundrers and all sorts of bad people. I can't say to them "trust this". On the contrary. My advice is: if you see crypto (coin, identity or anything), get away from it. That's a sensible advice to give to non-technical people.
People that know a little bit more, also know blockchains are not invulnerable. No technology is. And the whole technology stack is too damn complex for a single person to understand. You can sort of trust by principle, but there could be all sorts of practical issues (implementation, networking, keeping keys secure, majority attacks, and so on). Definitely can't trust my identity to it.
Trust, is gone. It's only a downhill from here. From crypto, to AI, to anything really... the perception on technology is only going to get worse.
That's a genie that got out of a bottle. I cannot see a path to change the increasing mistrust.
People that know a little bit more, also know blockchains are not invulnerable. No technology is. And the whole technology stack is too damn complex for a single person to understand. You can sort of trust by principle, but there could be all sorts of practical issues (implementation, networking, keeping keys secure, majority attacks, and so on). Definitely can't trust my identity to it.
Trust, is gone. It's only a downhill from here. From crypto, to AI, to anything really... the perception on technology is only going to get worse.
That's a genie that got out of a bottle. I cannot see a path to change the increasing mistrust.
Thanks for your input. Once we launch the the product itself we will make no mention of crypto for exactly this reason.
Lofty.ai used crypto as the back end for their fractionalized property platform, but there is no mention of crypto. I used it to sell a portion of my rental property. Here's a video I made about the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgPLXFwhZbY&t=2s
Lofty.ai used crypto as the back end for their fractionalized property platform, but there is no mention of crypto. I used it to sell a portion of my rental property. Here's a video I made about the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgPLXFwhZbY&t=2s
I agree with all your points and my only suggestion is there is such a thing as "more trustworthy" and we should try to maximize that where we can, as tech people.
Absolutely we can distance blockchain from cryptocurrency to reduce the scam affiliation for lay people. There are chains for that purpose, even. In fact you would wrap this in a more usable UX hopefully.
Absolutely we can distance blockchain from cryptocurrency to reduce the scam affiliation for lay people. There are chains for that purpose, even. In fact you would wrap this in a more usable UX hopefully.
Usability and security are very hard to conciliate. One usually compromises the other.
I don't see blockchains as particularly "more trustworthy", specially in the current state of things.
I don't see blockchains as particularly "more trustworthy", specially in the current state of things.
Yes. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle.
> Then anyone can verify the provenance chain: Was this made by a human? Which AI created it? Has it been altered since creation? Who owns the rights to it?
Oops, seems like you are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
---
What is the genie that got out?
*Trust*
What if someone tempered with the crypto? What if quantum starts breaking cryptography?
We will never, ever acquire trust in digital platforms again. It is bound to be ephemeral. That ephemeral part of it is what deus-ex-cryptos supporters don't understand. Maybe you can in fact fix the tech, but fixing the human minds is not going to work.
Consider me, for example. I'm an idiot in crypto. For me to trust it, I need to understand it completely. There is no way in hell I'm going to be able to learn all those algorithms, and no way in hell I'm going to inspect their implementations (it's too much work for a single person), and not doing that is not good enough for me anymore.
This brings back all the same cans of worms. Infiltrators in crypto implementations, bad actors, state influence.