If you need a proof-of-individuality scheme in order to implement a basic income, and at the same time you reject anonymity, then there is also an alternative for duniter.
You can use the public keys, issued by the states to their citizents.
For example in EU, there is a law and every citizen can ask for a public key from its EU state. So you can use that key to prove the individuality, in order to give a basic income in duniter.
That would work in “trusted” states. Seems to me that trust in State Power is eroding by the minute these days, even for some that were “kind of trustworthy” before. I believe the whole point of Duniter (and new “people-empowering” tools in general) is to get rid of corrupt-prone central authorities. So I would personally frown upon such a scheme - but this is only my own opinion, and as I’m really new in the community, this may not reflect other’s beliefs in here (although I believe it will).
… and note that your community can still have a simple rule to say “we accept anyone with a State-issued public key” and you’re good to go with State credentials.
But the goal (from what I understand) is to build a “community” that is bonded by common interests rather than having automatic acceptance for all human beings.
We do not reject anonymity, that’s your interpretation.
For example you say that if a “State” knows you deeply, then you are still considered anonymous. So here your definition implicely refers to an anonymity where your are not known by your peers. But the State, that’s OK.
So inversely if some peers were to deeply know each other but the State wasn’t knowing you, then according to your reasoning you would consider these peers would have no anonymity.
I personaly would say they would have it, even more if they use pseudonyms.
For example you say that if a “State” knows you deeply, then you are
still considered anonymous. So here your definition implicely refers to
an anonymity where your are not known by your peers. But the State, that’s OK.
So inversely if some peers were to deeply know each other but the State wasn’t knowing you, then according to your reasoning you would consider these peers would have no anonymity.
I personaly would say the would have it, even more if they use pseudonyms.
I dont understant your syntax. Could you please repeat it in french?
I never said that if a state knows you, you are anonymous. You are anonymous when nobody knows you in the digital life. Anonymity applies in digital life, in real life there is not real anonymity.
Digital is not different from real life. Because it’s still you sitting in front of a computer/tablet/smartphone connected to a network. Most of what you do is traceable even more than in real life (before cellphones and credit cards ). If I leave you an unsigned message in your mailbox, I’ll be anonymous to you in real life, won’t I?
Anonymity is always relative to some other group. At least you know you are yourself and what you did (at least to some extent! ). And maybe a group of people know that what you did “anonymously” was actually done by you, but for the rest of the world, these actions may still have been done by someone whose identity is hidden to them.
To get back to the point: from what I understood so far, members are not anonymous to the other members who certified them (well otherwise there’s no point in certifying anyone at all). To the rest of the network and to the rest of the world, they may still be anonymous.
Most of what we do is traceable because we chose to walk in traceable roads.
But we can follow digital roads that do not trace us, and that way become untraceable.
Digital traces are highly related to the routing protocols. For example although IP protocol is initially created to be untracable, when we use BGP routing, this turns IP to traceable one, because all IP packets from source to destination pass from a single routing path. Onion routing is trying to resolve anonymity issue, but as long as onion routing is usually established through BGP routers, it is still a problem when someone is capable to analyze all traffic from those BGP routers.
[quote=“jytou, post:8, topic:897, full:true”]
Anonymity is always relative to some other group. At least you know you are yourself and what you did (at least to some extent!
). And maybe a group of people know that what you did “anonymously” was
actually done by you, but for the rest of the world, these actions may
still have been done by someone whose identity is hidden to them.[/quote]
There is a complete anonymous scheme that can prove also your individuality, and this is the cryptoparty assembly, where you put your public key in a physical ballot box. In a cryptoparty assembly you can appear masked, so nobody knows you.
This is not the case in a masked cryptoparty assembly where we put printed public keys in a ballot box. In that case members are anonymous to the other members, but everybody certifies that the final list of public keys is valid and can be used as a proof of individuality, whithout the fear of sybil attacks.
). If I leave you an unsigned message in your mailbox, I’ll be anonymous to you in real life, won’t I?
). And maybe a group of people know that what you did “anonymously” was actually done by you, but for the rest of the world, these actions may still have been done by someone whose identity is hidden to them.