@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
WholesomeCrypto
@rudy
@dwr.eth what do you think of requiring the use of brightID?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Ayush
@ayushm.eth
Fc would become one of the most hated crypto products immediately And this wouldn't even be a stated/revealed pref thing since brightId ux sucks (scalable Sybil resistance with good ux is still an unsolved problem)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
WholesomeCrypto
@rudy
I didn’t know brightID was so hated. Is it only because of the ux?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ayush
@ayushm.eth
Plus hard for the anons... It's great that they are tackling the problem imo but no one wants to sit through a zoom call to be able to access a new app lol
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
WholesomeCrypto
@rudy
Lol yeah I mean I was slightly annoyed by it too but it works for the initial traction. But if you know two friends, they can verify you. Any form of identity verification is annoying though, I don’t see that going away. As for the anons maybe there’s a way to be verified via ZK.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
nixo
@nixo
imo, the 'anon' issue needs to be solved before any protocol like this could become canon unless we wanted something dystopian crypto's main use cases right now are financial and we haven't yet built fully functioning ways for people to be private, so we'd onboard people onto a transparent system & then doxx them
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ayush
@ayushm.eth
Agreed; I can't think of a good solution But I would rather live with a bit of a bot problem rather than impose brightId Also, would be interesting to see how the problem evolves with permisionless sign-ups since cost is the best Sybil resistor anyway 😉
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
