Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
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
93 reactions
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0x3a0a5b03
1 reply
0 recast
25 reactions
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
I've been suggesting an approach to solving basically the same category of problems that doesn't require global purity tests for years. One simple intro: https://medium.com/capabul/grassroots-insurance-8b353a1670f6
4 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
I think this stuff is good and ideal for these kinds of use cases where you're solving a lender-to-borrower trust problem. It's less ideal for _governance_ use cases (which is a term I use broadly, eg. I include social media voting as governance). In those cases, there are mathematical reasons why you explicitly want to count people, and not just count dollars available. Granted, there _are_ graph-theoretical approaches to try to do that too.... the core difference is that instead of the key building block being "A trusts B to honor their commitments", it's "A trusts B and C to be different"
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
I agree, there are two distinct components at play. What you’re calling “needs governance” I might define as “involves a decision that must be made atomically”, basically an actor in the actor model. Things like the next version of a piece of software, the next resident of a location, next block, or the uses of a specific pool of funds could all be examples. I see the gator toolkit as tooling for composing those kinds of actors in a consistent topology with individuals. That article depicts an idealistic individual topology, but realistically there is a weaving of many kinds of actors. There’s a bit of history and relationship from the actor model to the capability security model that grew very organically, and I think “government as multi agent actor” works well. https://eighty-twenty.org/2016/10/18/actors-hopl
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
I guess my core critique I’m trying to convey is that proof of humanity is often treated as a panacea in this ecosystem. This reflex implies that only larger individual governments can solve a broad category of problems, and I’m working to introduce a very flexible and nimble primitive into the conversation that can be composed, even in environments where a large identity verifying government doesn’t exist.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Finlay 🦊
@danfinlay
Btw, I think this model is friendly to your glue code model: If we describe users or orgs largely connecting together larger systems, we can prioritize higher level abstractions for that kind of interaction, which is really the goal of object capability syntax: concise syntax that is maximally secure but expressive for multi-system composition. https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/09/02/gluecp.html
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
