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?

I saw the best minds of my generation certain they could solve really hard problems if they could just verify people on the internet first, inadvertently choosing a harder problem as their adversary.

co founder of @metamask . Making computers behave for us.

https://warpcast.com/danfinlay/0x3a0a5b03

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:

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

in a world with asymmetrical consequences trust isn't as transitive as we'd like it to be 

when it comes to money or reputation, you can always lose way more than you put into the account

I agree on the first part… fortunately gator.metamask.io always lets users choose when they reshare, so any transitivity is fully manual.

Not sure what you’re saying with the second part.

build, lift, & coffee | ENS Steward | namestone.xyz | slobo.xyz

the simplest example is that if someone donates "my" money to restricted countries i'm in a world of hurt 

the set of things that can't / shouldn't be done with money is likely larger than what can be encoded in code, especially if you take into account personal political preferences