RE: Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols

I just scanned the paper at a high level, and I think many of the topic areas have merit, but since the analysis primarily focused at Ethereum at Layer 1/2 it’s doesn’t account for the Indy/Aries framework being advanced for SSI. I think there are elements throughout the paper to consider if we contrast it to the TOIP stack, to include consideration of VCs.

Best Regards,
________________________
Jim St. Clair
Chief Technology Officer
Dinocrates Group LLC
One Research Court, Suite 450
Rockville, MD 20850
Office: 240-403-4103
Mobile: 228-273-4893<tel:(228)%20273-4893>
jim.stclair@dinocrates.com<mailto:jim.stclair@dinocrates.com>
www.dinocrates.com<http://www.dinocrates.com>
Calendly link - https://calendly.com/jim-stclair<https://via.intercom-mail-100.com/e?ob=2it%2FEFwfiO0RnjFn65EB2QRujZBxGJaSUK4x3Adx5BN1UfRAPUb2nyP0ckyG%2FAKh&h=8e0e3ad8c52dd472bbb90ea5991927dbde1c3dd3-17690316241>
[d,d]
[cid:image009.png@01D68688.123CFF70]
[cid:image010.png@01D68688.123CFF70]







*******************************************************************************
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, by you is strictly prohibited.

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 5:55 AM
To: Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols

I think this was the important insight of the paper here.  And I wonder if it can be solved with verifiable credentials?

"If blockchains are to become a significant public infrastructure, particularly in the space of civic engagement, then Proof of Work's “one-CPU-one-vote” or Proof of Stake's “one-dollar-one-vote” systems will not suffice: in order to enable democratic governance, protocols that signal unique human identities to enable "one-person-one-vote" systems must be created."

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:50, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com<mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
PDF is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.05300.pdf


Keywords: decentralized identity, Sybil-protection, crypto-governance

Abstract.

Most self-sovereign identity systems consist of strictly objective claims, cryptographically signed by trusted third party attestors. Lacking protocols in place to account for subjectivity, these systems do not form new sources of legitimacy that can address the central question concerning identity authentication: "Who verifies the verifier?". Instead, the legitimacy of claims is derived from traditional centralized institutions such as national ID issuers and KYC providers. Thisarchitecture has been employed, in part, to safeguard protocols from a vulnerability previously thought to be impossible to address in peer-to-peer systems: the Sybil attack, which refers to the abuse of an online system by creating many illegitimate virtual personas. Inspired by the progress in cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, there has recently been a surge in networked protocols that make use of subjective inputs such as voting, vouching,and interpreting, to arrive at a decentralized and sybil-resistant consensus for identity. In this review, we will outline the approaches of these new and natively digital sources of authentication - their attributes, methodologies strengths, and weaknesses - and sketch out possible directions for future developments.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 03:21, Wayne Chang <wyc@fastmail.fm<mailto:wyc@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.05300


discussion from strangers on the internet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24411076