ID only as a last resort

If this were an open access system and economy it may be possible to almost eliminate the need for ID and use it only it as a last resort. In general such a system would only supply plausible ID in individual cases but still avoid manipulation on the aggregate scale.

Even the network delivering time based safe coin to end users need not accurately identify end users. It need only avoid too much slippage. When an end user clicks a micro contribution to encourage a future work that should be a blind transaction with no ID.

States may complain about the potential for laundering but states engage in laundering and aren’t credible and its a characteristic of p2p.

I’m sorry Warren, but I’m having trouble decyphering what you’re saying. Some of it almost makes sense to me but I can’t seem to pen down the context of each sentence.

It seems that you’re wishing for things that the SAFE network already accounts for.

Could you rephrase?

@fergish you might be right. As I understand it the end user’s data is their password and regardless of whether they fully sign in they are anonymised. They need only fully authenticate when viewing or manipulating their private data. The same would hold for private funds. But in both cases the end user could still be and by default would be anonymised relative to any human being.

There will of course be joint situations both prior to and after any kind of authentication. Some may opt to share id on a system. A group of people may share an ID. And a group of group IDs may share a joint account in some application. I think my concern would be that plausible deniabilty be maintained where ever possible as a hardwired feature of the system and as culture where aps would have ratings or rep scores marked down or face even a delisting if it were a manipulation type spam angle. The developer “feels more secure” is unlikely to be a good reason. End users should never be asked to trade in their security.

Let me update this response with a couple other elements

There is a push for individual reputation. I think that’s more credit reporting gossip style dead end. That’s enclosure. There is also a push to back that up with machine mitigated contracting. I can see smart contracts as simple conditionals but that’s the kind of coercive stuff I think we need to ditch. We don’t do contract or individual reputation or even modal windows. That stuff in aggregate always goes to the same place. Look how easily it corrupts and addicts governments. We do open ended no strings attached universal open access. Open, not closed. Contract in many ways has become a farce anyways, enforceability and remedy are a coin toss. We want systems that don’t unnecessarily bind or limit people. Its better to simply de-list sites or organizations from honest (sponsor ad conflict free) search and trending as we find them (not quite reputation) engaging in limiting our options, censoring our expression or try to profit or promote any sort of manipulation including spying/tracking/secrecy and to be redundant censorship. They do profit from artificial scarcity and they are gone. Where there is a market it must be a pure buyers market- if free has any connection to market, that’s it. But I think open micro contributions may be able to take us beyond markets- starting with the virtual.

1 Like

How can you trust anyone without reputations? The network will never be useful if you don’t have reputation just like EBay would never work without reputation. I don’t need to know who you are I just need to know you’re a human being with a reputation.

1 Like


I can see the point of trying to screen bots with reputation, but is that really reputation? Bots in this sense might fit under the expanded definition of spam.

My sense is you can use community input to delist sites but that is not reputation and its only one component and it would be done by criterion of perceived manipulation. Reputation for individual users is just another attempt to set up hierarchy (always arbitrary in practice) and a misuse of power. Its a distraction. Think of people being graded by MBNA for credit worthiness instead of society grading MBNA and removing it from the markets. Again its power flowing in the wrong direction.

We don’t need to pinch people. Will you allow people to cycle pseudonyms endlessly with reputation tracking of each? With one pseudonym a person behaves as an angel and with the other a psycho path? With the angel there may more vestment in preserving the reputation but that’s not much to go on. When it comes to people its more BS. This is enclosure and a backwards use of information. You can know someone ten years and still find you are not able to trust them. People who are worthy of trust in a deep sense are deeply mature but personal reputation (which is the idiocy of credit systems- its gossip) would only take you so far. Its an invitation to enclosure, its a kind of measurement uninvited of people which is a kind of violence or coercion. It can be set into contexts and manipulated. Lets say with great effort one a group of people are made into Cool-Aid drinkers. If one encounters then and one is a bit more sober one will be down graded. Lets say the tracking were still private but truly invasive like Would we be willing to marry someone based on the recommendation of this mutual voluntary fully invasive system? No. But its a reputation customized for use with full knowledge of both parties.

When it comes to delisting spam and its influence in conjunction with other elements like intelligent code and conflict sponosor/ad free honest search and trending it makes sense but its also not reputation, its more black and white than that.

This is where in the virtual I think all content and services should be in universal open access so there is no competition. People will hand over the end income that the system gives to end users to developers and service providers that they want to encourage continued effort from. To me this voucher-izes away the obvious points of useless manipulation. It may be only one income flow for providers but let it be big enough to be the deciding one. Reputation is a function of trying to turn end users into products.

The power has to be in the base. Was it Proudhon who characterized communism and ostensibly flat systems like it as the weak ruling over the strong. And Plato who based on his experience with the mob sought to temper its input. But the issue with hierarchy and power concentration is that it guarantees the weak rule over the strong. In capitalism if they weren’t just murderous lottery winners in a generation the or two comparative equivalent will be in power, especially relative to the “strong (really virtuous)” who statistically emanate from the base. Also, those mature enough for to handle crowd control type stuff tend to consider it useless relative to their own development and don’t want to waste time on it. Want their input consistently and reliably? Maximize the base.