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

[demo]

@Inso

Omg tell me this is not happening again.

Objection in the model of the web of trust of Ucoin - #333 by Inso

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.

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

[Nartagnan]

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

[demo]

@Nartagnan

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

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

[Nartagnan]

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

[demo]

@Nartagnan

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

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]

[demo]

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]

[demo]

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]

[demo]

@Nartagnan

@demo

I dont think it is constraining to gather everybody once every 1, 2 or 4 years

No policeman, fireman or doctor ? Anything could happen.

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.