<story><title>Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?</title><url>https://blog.mollywhite.net/is-acceptably-non-dystopian-self-sovereign-identity-even-possible/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>strogonoff</author><text>The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust.&lt;p&gt;Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly.&lt;p&gt;However, blockchain-adjacent initiatives  seem to suggest a future where we implicitly label[1] every human as motivated to hurt another by making all aspects of their activities subject to verification checks.&lt;p&gt;In addition to strong dystopian vibes, won’t this act of labeling everyone as potential threat actually be instrumental in bringing this motivation to everyone, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Aren’t we sort of codifying malicious intent, instead of trying to remove it from the equation? Whom would this serve?&lt;p&gt;There is place for verification in the interim, such as maintaining security of your home, but if we are looking ahead (as blockchain enthusiasts do) we should strive for a future where humans are not motivated to hurt other humans. Not treating it as some sort of default is  a good start.&lt;p&gt;[0] Their core motivation to benefit at others’ expense is to me indicative of mental health issues, possibly caused by insecurity and upbringing trauma.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Labeling_theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Labeling_theory&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kibwen</author><text>Even without considering the social benefits of trust, from an economic perspective, trust is often enormously, ridiculously efficient compared to distrust. If I need to borrow my neighbor&amp;#x27;s weed whacker, I don&amp;#x27;t need to determine its value (plus interest and opportunity cost) and write up a contract and register collateral on the world&amp;#x27;s slowest and least efficient database, I can just say, hey, mind if I borrow this? Trust and reputation are force multipliers.</text></comment>
<story><title>Is “acceptably non-dystopian” self-sovereign identity even possible?</title><url>https://blog.mollywhite.net/is-acceptably-non-dystopian-self-sovereign-identity-even-possible/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>strogonoff</author><text>The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust.&lt;p&gt;Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly.&lt;p&gt;However, blockchain-adjacent initiatives  seem to suggest a future where we implicitly label[1] every human as motivated to hurt another by making all aspects of their activities subject to verification checks.&lt;p&gt;In addition to strong dystopian vibes, won’t this act of labeling everyone as potential threat actually be instrumental in bringing this motivation to everyone, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Aren’t we sort of codifying malicious intent, instead of trying to remove it from the equation? Whom would this serve?&lt;p&gt;There is place for verification in the interim, such as maintaining security of your home, but if we are looking ahead (as blockchain enthusiasts do) we should strive for a future where humans are not motivated to hurt other humans. Not treating it as some sort of default is  a good start.&lt;p&gt;[0] Their core motivation to benefit at others’ expense is to me indicative of mental health issues, possibly caused by insecurity and upbringing trauma.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Labeling_theory&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Labeling_theory&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rglullis</author><text>&amp;gt; The problem with blockchainers&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s hard to take any of what you say seriously when you start a comment with such a blanket statement.&lt;p&gt;Also, I think I&amp;#x27;ve already seen your type of &amp;quot;argument&amp;quot; so many times, I think I am able to just play the whole tape by just pointing out to previous comments I&amp;#x27;ve made:&lt;p&gt;- &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=31195939&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=31195939&lt;/a&gt; &amp;#x2F; &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=31545427&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=31545427&lt;/a&gt; (trustlessness is not about &amp;quot;eliminating trust&amp;quot;)&lt;p&gt;- &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=31463534&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=31463534&lt;/a&gt; (Yeah, you are right that there is no such thing as an &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; world. What you are missing is that also applies to the &lt;i&gt;anti-crypto&lt;/i&gt; mentality, who think that just because &lt;i&gt;they&lt;/i&gt; were born in a place with functional institutions, they think that is the natural state of things. It&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;good&lt;/i&gt; when institutions work, but they are not perfect and we need to prepared for the times when they fail.)</text></comment>