Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Finlay 🦊 pfp
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
People throwing around "proof of personhood" like it's a problem that has already been solved, or is trivially solved. I can't shake the feeling we've done our people wrong by letting this stuff slide. Is it too late to adopt a culture of being specific about the solutions we're referring to?
5 replies
2 recasts
39 reactions

polymutex pfp
polymutex
@polymutex.eth
I am guilty of this. The reason for imprecision is that I don't know what will work in practice. See Vitalik's take that multiple PoP solutions can complement each other. Gitcoin Passport's approach follows this: Let users decide how to prove their personhood. https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/07/24/biometric.html
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Finlay 🦊 pfp
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
Or instead of hedging solutions because we know none of them work, we can choose solutions that are correct by construction but don’t have strict humanity requirements. https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0x2764ba64
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Finlay 🦊 pfp
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
I guess in Vitalik’s framework, I’m saying we can now get more serious about the social graph phase. https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0xcfce474b
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction