Conversation

Replying to and
Is there currently a value-creating purpose to wallets 'owning' identity tokens within the blockchain, or are the positive use cases you've outlined (distributed content-based addressing and automagical consequences thereof) just the bait on the hook of automagic DRM?
1
1
Replying to and
In what way is it analogous to owning a right to privacy? There's no hermetic effect here. Nothing sufficiently valuable about the information is or can be concealed. All I see is an obstacle to interoperability within this domain without recognition of the assigned rights.
1
1
Replying to and
Tokens are keys that everyone has. They have been given out to everyone already. What everyone does not have is the recognition of association within the ledger. That is of value only when operating in the context of the ledger. Why do I need to accept the rules of the ledger?
1
1
Replying to and
Not sure what you’re getting at. Yes you can steal. Yes thieves can steal keys to your home and burgle it. That doesn’t mean locks are useless or that real estate ownership laws are meaningless. Just that there’s a cost to enforcement.
1
1
Replying to and
Most proximately, I am trying to understand what "giving the keys to my home out randomly" would be analogous to. Fundamentally, I am trying to understand why web3 is so valuable that the encumbrance introduced by automagic property law is something I should disregard.
1
Replying to and
It’s not an encumbrance if you think default private. We don’t think about having to be careful with house keys as an encumbrance. The default of open access does not make sense in a world based on significant privacy. Public is special/private is natural vs other way round
Replying to and
And “automagic” seems to be doing weird blocking work for you here and leading you to foreclose on possibilities that are still being explored in early stage ways. I get if ideologically you’re not sympathetic but clearly there’s tons of ideas that can be explored here.
1
1
Show replies
Show replies