Systèmes de reconnaissance d'identité alternatifs (votez, s'il vous plait)

Well, have you read what is written at the top of the page ?

Ce forum n’est pas un lieu pour débattre d’autres domaines que le développement informatique des logiciels de l’écosystème Duniter.

Ce forum n’est pas non plus un lieu pour faire la promotion d’autres systèmes ou exprimer son rejet du concept.

Someone pays for this forum. It is a private place, like a shopping mall - anyone can enter a shopping mall, but you cannot do or say what you want. Because it is private.

Public space, for public (aka free) speech, is “on the internet” or on the public streets and places, not precisely here. Create your own place, blog, forum, what you like.

Here is a place to discuss about Duniter, not about other projects. Voting for a proposal that noone will implement is not how you make things happen.

1 Like

I do not accept rules that are not voted.
This is my rule.

So the universal dividend is a private issue???
This is ridiculous!!!

I do not accept rules that are not voted.
This is my rule.

Then you don’t have to complain if administrators don’t accept people who don’t follow the rules, you said it :

C est universel seulement pour ceux qui veulent participer et qui respectent les règles communément acceptées.

also :

So the universal dividend is a private issue???
This is ridiculous!!!

I don’t write about Duniter rules, I write about this forum’s rules.

Votre regles ne sont pas communément acceptées.
Nobody voted about them.

The problem of the vote is the electoral roll (electoral list)
Who can vote for the 1st rule ? Do you need unanimity ? Of 7 billions of humans ?

What would be the list for the opening of a forum ? And someone like me, who discovered the project 2 years ago, have I the right to refuse things decided at the beginning because I was not part of it ?

The first rule will be voted by the first participants.
Then everyone, both old and new participants can re-vote and change their mind regarding this first rule and the following ones.

Of course you have the right to vote against already established rules, especially in case these rules are voted by a majority of people who are now dead or inactives.

That is exactly what happen here. Someone opened this forum by voting between him and himself. He choose some rules for this forum and everybody came after that.

This is maybe fair in case of a private forum.
But a forum that deals with a universal dividend, it is ridiculus to behave like a private one, and not accepting new rules to be voted.

Omg tell me this is not happening again.

Please stop now, remain on technical talk or the topic will have to be locked.

Its really annoying, it generates too much noise for the development team.

5 Likes

I agree with that.
Please ask me about my proposal on the proof of individuality.

Nobody voted for the fact that THIS topic is so important.

Please remain in questions related to the proof of individualty I proposed.

1 Like

The concept could be ok, but the actual proposed solution has (in my opinion) too many problems and I prefer the actual WoT.

2 Likes

Matthieu 10:34 “Ne croyez pas que je sois venu apporter la paix sur la terre; je n’y suis pas venu apporter la paix, mais l’épée.”

[vote history]
Voulez-vous que cette preuve d’individualité soit implémentée dans duniter/g1?

non 66%
oui 33%
autre 0%
[/vote history]

Ce vote est permanent, vous pouvez changer d’avis quand est que vous voulez. C’est important de annoncer ce que chaqu’un dit, mais puisque les opinion change a ce vote, c est plus important de annoncer le vote du chaqu’un. Donc, je vais annoncer l’histoire des votes ici

J’espère que toutes les autres décisions initiales en duniter/g1 seront également votées. Et que l’histoire de leurs votes sera conservée, alors nous saurons à l’avenir qui a voté sagement et qui était le stupide.

[vote history]
Voulez-vous que cette preuve d’individualité soit implémentée dans duniter/g1?

non 83%
oui 17%
autre 0%
[/vote history]

9 messages ont été déplacés vers un nouveau sujet : La notion de “communauté” existe-t-elle dans l’espace-temps ?

Un grand avantage de ma proposition est que nous n’avons pas de bureaucratie lorsque nous jugeons les membres inactifs. Le vote est répété à intervalles réguliers et les inactifs sont automatiquement rejetés s’ils n’ont pas participé au vote.

[vote history]
Voulez-vous que cette preuve d’individualité soit implémentée dans duniter/g1?

non 88%
oui 12%
autre 0%
[/vote history]

8 messages ont été intégrés dans un sujet existant : La notion de “communauté” existe-t-elle dans l’espace-temps ?

The people on duty are not anonymous. So as long as it is verified they are outside a closed assembly at the time the “curfew” occurs (the command of their chief and an online timestamped camera may help on that) they can participate in a non synchronized closed assembly, later on. The synchronization among assemblies is mainly needed in order to protect the anonymity of the citizens (otherwise we could use biometrics). And we choose anonymity and not biometrics, in order to protect the anonymity of the vote (as long as people will use the wallet they put into the ballot box, both for voting in the internet later on, and for receiving the dividend).

So we can have a non sychronized assembly , later on, for all these people on duty, and all these people on duty could also become anonymous too (unfortunately anonymous only among themselves as long as they have not the choice to participate to whatever closed assembly they want). Anyway, NOT the same individuals will be on duty whenever a “curfew” occurs, and this non repeatability minimizes the disadvantage of the relative lack of anonymity for those few who will be on duty.

This is a tiny detail and this problem will occur in the distant future when (hopefully) this type of proof of Individuality will prevail. In that future, most of the people “on duty” that will patrol outside will be robots.