W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > September 2016

Block-Chain - Cost of Existence vs. Proof of Existence Re: DID

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 08:26:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok0LNFjPQpJBinPwBCgJ3vb99hKiB3LoRuLNeepqxROPiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
What are the pro's and Con's for various technology stack's (that are not
HTTP related in nature) to perform 'proof of existence'.

BACKGROUND TO QUESTION
With Credentials CG is involved in the production of a 'verifiable claims'
solution.  In a publicly reviewable context; has identified 'frustrations'
with pre-existing W3C process; of which, i hold a personal opinion of not
being entirely apposed to; however, being in AU - with few funds (as the
'advocate' of 'humans' rather than 'legal personalities'[1] i feel it is
important to validate the concept that providing means to potentially
'privatise' the management of a HTTP alternative to be valuable; alongside
question the validity of the demand.

HTTP/HTTPS currently faces the strategic issue of decerning URI's in a
rather human-readable state.
https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000000d2961f448defb0dde7683808aed88837927bb873c3e8d5
may seem less 'identifiable' as may an  an IPFS hash:
QmTfCejgo2wTwqnDJs8Lu1pCNeCrCDuE4GAwkna93zdd7  but it doesn't mean much to
computers, so the delivery of outcomes suggests - it must mean more to the
humans controlling the computers rather than the computers themselves.

AML/KYC is a foundational aspect [2], yet the works presumably do not seek
to diminish the virtue of 'human rights' or 'human values' to afford rights
to 'things' over and above the rights afforded to organic life / humans.

so whilst the notion of 'actor' is 'dense' in nature; lets grow-up...

Even within the domain of Quantum Computing - the utility of
advancements[3] directly relates to 'software'.  Given the number of humans
on the planet who can make these things, i think it's potentially
reasonable to call these individuals 'hidden gods'...

so many billions of others don't even have electricity, regardless of the
environmental impacts experienced due to the decisions of few others.

VERIFIABLE CLAIMS
The Verifiable Claims Task Force was established to form a very narrow
function; which is not identity, but rather, means in which to describe
what 'people say about you' in a verifiable and standardised way.

I too had hopes to produce, within the Credential CG more advanced
outcomes; yet, i'm concerned about our means of delivering the basics and
what makes that worse; is a lack of awareness of individuals involved in
this group who actually understand, in a STEM[4] fashion, what they're
talking about and the implications of those representations.

IMHO
- W3C is not a sales platform. It is a place for people who care about
'shared values' as humans, to define the future.
- The result of defining via Stem[4] techniques - shared values; results in
commercially advantageous experiences.
- If i were to develop a 'bot' that were able to represent the inventors of
our web-science world in a very, modern [5] and capable realm [6] - i'm not
sure you many of the representations are 'in-school', nor do i think we'd
be able to discuss it (perhaps without being all citizens of a particular
place in the world, with threats to life relating to breach-of-contract).

That's not what i've been engaged in defining...

I'm also not interested in economic loss by early-stage investors (let
alone 'inventors')...

So.

I encourage others to review the documentation again; to assist with scope
definition as required by broad-stakeholders who are seemingly waiting for
us to make sensible suggestions.

lets not talk about cryptography or Civilizations that can be produced in
association to specified cryptography related scientific endeavour.

We advance in a new Epoch[7]. I think we should be proud of that, as we're
defining the foundations.  But lets do it properly as humans - not as
'employee's'.

it's important to make the distinction between terms that will last, vs.
those that may be transitory.

The web we define will probably last at least 25 years.

STATS

I'd like to see some stats about the computational load of block-chain
related infrastructure vs. other (unknown) forms.  a sky-scaper lasts x
years and has an energy cost.   Tell me what your energy cost is; and i
consider that value to be important.

TRUST THY NEIGHBOUR
A variety of formats exist around social-identity definition - but...

whether or not the patents hold-up, it's a fact of life.  it's like
patenting nature.  Therein also; is a definitional opportunity in defining
humanity in a reasonable manner.

'web-scale' is not always needed - as much as can be inferred by my
representations in how i know you.  that said, it's important to understand
a little more when trust is made important, at a baseline.

Perhaps some theology can be presented about the human values of identity
it is; that we're trying to support.

Kind Regards,

Timothy Holborn.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality
[2]
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/publications/anti-money-laundering-know-your-customer-quick-reference-guide.html

[3]
https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/news/quantum-computing-first-two-qubit-logic-gate-in-silicon

[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology,_engineering,_and_mathematics

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDHEuOUE
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 08:27:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:31 UTC