Objection in the model of the web of trust of Ucoin (v2)

  • Web of trust among assemblies is a good idea.
  • Web of trust among assemblies is a bad idea.
  • other
0 voters

The original thread (the most popular discussion thread ever in this forum) was locked by the admins.

So I continue here the thread, as an R&D thread.

We have upcoming news related to the web of trust among communities.

wrrichter@polkadot said:

With the backdrop of the dystopian implementation of retinal scanning proof of personhood, projects like Encointer brings back “humanity” to the space. As a common good, it is unfortunate that funding for these utilities is neglected without the promise of profit or depraved ROI. As far as I can tell, real-world applications are already live thanks to Encointer, which is more than can be said for many other projects with much higher funding. After meeting Malik from Encointer in the Polkadot Safari and witnessing the support that, despite the financial situation, the team is happy to provide to help empower and bring communities together, it reflects what Web3 should be. I support Encointer and their proposal and hope they can continue building and demonstrating that predatory profit is not the status quo, and there is still some space for the real “common good.”

image.png (891×529) (ibb.co)

Duniter Ğ1 Web of Trust - YouTube

Imagine the above not being a web of trust among individuals, but a web of trust among assemblies.

Do you figure out how great duniter would be in that case?

Abandoning the web of trust among assemblies idea, and banning every discussion about it, this was a crucial error that still prevents duniter from scaling.

What would this web of trust represent? “Trust” in our WoT has a very specific meaning, defined by the G1 license.

What would be its purpose?

It would be a trust among communities, in contrast to the trust among persons that is the dominant model here in duniter. The (encointer) communities are formed by a protocol of regular real life meetings, so their trust is based on these meetings.

Encointer implemented a similar to the idea I was suggesting here in duniter since 2016, and you refused it.

Have a look at the current encointer communities, on which it is planned a community web of trust (similar to the persons’ web of trust you have here in duniter) to be created.
Encointer Explorer

I still believe that a web of trust among communities/assemblies scales much better than a web of trust among persons. So duniter is in the wrong path.

We all know you opinion here, and I think @cgeek has already answered your question about our approach to Duniter.

Unlike others, I don’t think you’re a troll. You support this point of view quite heavily, of course, but it’s worth defending.

We believe that the induvidual approach is entirely compatible with the collective approach, which is what happens at Ğmeetings and meetings of all kinds organized by local, independent and self-managed groups.

I simply don’t see the point of incorporating such management into the protocol. We’re sticking to an anarchist approach, where individuals are free to join the groups they want, according to their locality and affinities.

I don’t see how this would pose a problem in terms of scalability. You can repeat it if you want, but I don’t see any concrete argument.

But let’s see what happens with the human encoiner network, in all honesty, I’m curious to see how it evolves, for the moment I don’t really see a human network anchored in the real world outside the blockchain protocol (which isn’t theirs, by the way, just a Kusama slot).

It’s a great opportunity to compare these two approaches, don’t you think?

By “very specific meaning”, I meant that a certification does not mean “I trust this person”, but “I trust the fact that this account is controlled by a living person who has read and understood the G1 license, and respects it”.

I guess your proposal implies that a defined group of people can certify another. Would their certifications have the same meaning as in Duniter, replacing “person” with “any person in the group”, or “a majority of the group”, or else? Would the WoT work the same, but with groups? (e.g. 5 group certs to become a member group)

I’m just trying to understand, because for now it seems too vague.

1 Like

You misunderstood, in Encointer individuals are also free to join any group they want.

Thank you for you questions. I will answer soon.

Trust among Encointer communities does not enforce any political belief. Trust among encointer communities means “I trust the fact that this community/assembly consists of a specific number of living persons that passed a proof of personhood protocol challenge”.

Yes, but also there is an algorithm that can support the decision of a group when judging the proof of personhood protocol credibility of another group.

Yes, any person of a trusted group passed the Proof of Personhood test, so any person of a trusted group can be considered a real person and deserves a basic income.

You can read more info here:
Pre-Proposal: Would you like this proof of individuality to be implemented in Dash? | Dash Forum

or more specifically read for Encointer here:
Pre-Proposal: Would you like this proof of individuality to be implemented in Dash? | Page 3 | Dash Forum

1 Like

There is also an upcoming vote in Dash cryptocurrency, that aims to offer a Basic Income paid in Dash to all the Encointer members, but it has not reach yet the required 10% participation.