Human-First: Decentralizing Identity and Governance in the Era of AI(words.democracy.earth) |
Human-First: Decentralizing Identity and Governance in the Era of AI(words.democracy.earth) |
Has anyone else read this article and had the same experience as me? I genuinely second guess myself when reading it: have I lost the ability to read? Am I stupid? I read all these words on the page yet I have absolutely no comprehension of what was said. What on Earth was written on the “formalising humans on the blockchain” section for example? There sure are a lot of words, but nothing actually got said.
What, exactly do they want to do with a blockchain and why? It’s a simple question.
Oh, they have some cryptocurrency token they want to sell. Gotcha.
You obviously won't talk about anything technical to do with the blockchain: how the consensus algorithm works and why you chose it, who sells the coins and why, why you need coins, what security guarantees it has, why having all nodes of a network sharing a copy of the same ledger and constantly engaging in a protocol to agree on the state of the ledger is at all a good idea, and so on and so on... You just want to argue with me a bit to muddle the waters so people side it's one side against another and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Fact is, this project makes no sense.
Regarding the meaning of 'formalizing humans on the blockchain" - I think the point here is, social media and the nation-states (driver's licenses, passports) are the centralized entities that control formal identity - this project is layout out an approach to decentralize the ability for a person to claim a digital ID, which is a keystone challenge to be met for digital governance to not be overrun with bots and sybils like current social media platforms are.
Also if you research the co-founder, he is a college drop out game developer and founder of a political party in Argentina - pretty far from an MBA type.
Here’s my take: they want to enable voting online with some level of trust. One major problem with online voting is ensuring each voter only votes once. In traditional voting (e.g. for a political office) the government is the one ensuring each eligible voter only votes once. Since the point of this is to “decentralize” voting, they need a complicated cryptographic approach to stand in for the governments role in ensuring one person one vote instead.
Even the hash of the video of the father declaring the birth of his daughter; all it proves is that the video was _created_ before some specific date. It _doesn't_ prove that the details in the video are real, or even that the video wasn't just created by an AI.
Why do they have three types of coin they want to sell? So you’re suggesting the whole point of this is for voting with governments you don’t trust. Why would such a government implement this then? How does having the entire blockchain public to all help with voter anonymity? Do blockchain schemes actually have a good record of not being hacked (answer: hell no). The article never made any specific claims as simple as “we are using s blockchain because...”
Basically, they used a lot of buzzwords to try to confuse people into “investing” in their coins.
You obviously won't talk about anything technical to do with the blockchain: how the consensus algorithm works and why you chose it, who sells the coins and why, why you need coins, what security guarantees it has, why having all nodes of a network sharing a copy of the same ledger and constantly engaging in a protocol to agree on the state of the ledger is at all a good idea, and so on and so on... You just want to argue with me a bit to muddle the waters so people side it's one side against another and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Fact is, this project makes no sense.