Author Topic: The case against reputation systems and the identibit philosophy  (Read 907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thom

Andreas Antonopoulos as usual very eloquently explains why reputation systems are contrary to the vision and principles of Bitcoin and by extension why Identibit is as well.

What are we trying to accomplish with cryptocurrency? Answer: MANY things, some of which are contrary to the reasons Bitcoin was invented. Identibit is such an example, however it would also be hypocritical and contrary to the principle of freedom to say Identibit should not be allowed to exist. If Mr. Underwood can make it happen let him try, I wish him the best of luck. If his efforts are successful it could have an indirect benefit to BitShares, not only by sharedropping on owners of BROWNIE.PTS but in getting a more mainstream audience introduced to cryptocurrency that otherwise would never learn of it. Once exposed they would be that much more open to the benefits of other crypto ecosystems like Bitcoin and BitShares that do not impose the restrictions that Identibit does.

When Identibit was initially announced I was very vocal in my opposition of it, primarily b/c it sounded to me like CNX would be doing all of the technical work which I saw as a conflict of interest and a derailing of the focus towards BitShares' goals and vision. I still have some of those concerns, however I am not seeing Identibit gain much traction yet, and it maybe it won't, possibly because the banking industry may be open to cryptocurrency only as a closed, proprietary, internal system.

As I have said all along, AML / KYC compliance is contrary to the disruptive technology BitShares / Bitcoin is based on, and compliance to those regulations simply perpetuates the injustice and facilitates the war-mongering practices of the existing bankster cartel.

The choice is in our hands. Will you choose freedom or the illusion of safety that complying with corrupt rules and regulations give you?

Consider where your personal vision lies and act accordingly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuA2kr3tXL8
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline underwun

  • Board Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 61
  • Life Matters
    • View Profile
Re: The case against reputation systems and the identibit philosophy
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2016, 05:30:01 am »
Andreas Antonopoulos as usual very eloquently explains why reputation systems are contrary to the vision and principles of Bitcoin and by extension why Identabit is as well.

  • I could not disagree more with AA, as always he intimidates the interviewer and offers unquestioned authoritative overarching statements that lack credibility, he argues that reputation plays no role in diversified lending, to me these are words of a dogma fed by absolutes. I fail to see how anyone can argue that money will cost the same no matter who you are and that criminals should be able to reinvent themselves in order to rip off more people.

What are we trying to accomplish with cryptocurrency? Answer: MANY things, some of which are contrary to the reasons Bitcoin was invented. Identibit is such an example, however it would also be hypocritical and contrary to the principle of freedom to say Identibit should not be allowed to exist. If Mr. Underwood can make it happen let him try, I wish him the best of luck. If his efforts are successful it could have an indirect benefit to BitShares, not only by sharedropping on owners of BROWNIE.PTS but in getting a more mainstream audience introduced to cryptocurrency that otherwise would never learn of it. Once exposed they would be that much more open to the benefits of other crypto ecosystems like Bitcoin and BitShares that do not impose the restrictions that Identibit does.

  • What are we trying to accomplish with cryptocurrency? is the only question that fails to be sensibly answered by the likes of AA as he bathes in self serving rhetoric instead of saying how to succeed in slaying the institutional dragons that dominate the landscape.

    Surely the argument for all of us is how to win, how to marginalise and disintermediate in order to see the financial benefits digital money reach the people that need it most.

    Our goal is to see costless transactions replace exorbitant fees, for centralised funds management to be eliminated and passed on to those that own the asset and eliminate the role of big banks as controllers of our financial destiny and let’s emphasize that anonymity isn't needed for any of these goals to be achieved.

    In fact if we introduce identity, not only can achieve all of the above without restriction but we can also bring security and efficiencies to the shared and IoT economies that currently don't exist.


When Identabit was initially announced I was very vocal in my opposition of it, primarily b/c it sounded to me like CNX would be doing all of the technical work which I saw as a conflict of interest and a derailing of the focus towards BitShares' goals and vision. I still have some of those concerns, however I am not seeing Identabit gain much traction yet, and it maybe it won't, possibly because the banking industry may be open to cryptocurrency only as a closed, proprietary, internal system.

  • Re the banking industry, it’s spoken of as one and it’s not, it is made up of protectors and disruptors and there are plenty of new-bankers that have little or no regard for heavy weight bullies and long to disintermediate them.

    Progress seems slow because we are laying foundations, making sure we have a solid commercial plan before making claims. The past three months has been spent satisfying those doing due diligence into our adoption plans and the business models that will enable traction, ours it not a ‘build and they will come’ model.

    Everything is about execution, technology hardly features as we have for over a year believed in the original Bitshares features, we would argue that had Bitshares remained consistent and persistent with original objectives and promoted DPoS as the valid efficient alternative to PoW, today Bitshares/Identabit would be sitting pretty ready to take Bitcoin's place.

    As it is, this is now our job as DPoS, like so many Bitshares initiatives has been left behind as a great idea that didn't stick, I will argue that consistency and persistency based on a sound strategy is what it takes to succeed and I remain a huge believer in all of Dan's original thinking but today we need to take those ideas and blend them into a series of initiatives that pay respect to reality.

As I have said all along, AML / KYC compliance is contrary to the disruptive technology BitShares / Bitcoin is based on, and compliance to those regulations simply perpetuates the injustice and facilitates the war-mongering practices of the existing bankster cartel.

  • I ask WHY? Why is it necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water to disrupt and disintermediate Wall Street. Anonymity has little or nothing to do with new-banking.

    New-banking is all about empowering citizens, reducing the cost of money, denying centralised institutions control over our financial freedom, eliminating fees and creating competitive global borrowing. Anonymity adds nothing to any of these objectives but if you add assured identity and digitised collateral you can change the world and this is our goal.

The choice is in our hands. Will you choose freedom or the illusion of safety that complying with corrupt rules and regulations give you?

  • What are these corrupt rules, why is it corrupt to report suspicious transactions? What is wrong with protecting our children from extortionists, what's wrong with identifying ISIS funding. I get that bank data can be exploited and so we argue that if a government wants access they must be limited to the gateways that agree to data exposure and that as citizens we can bank with those that confirm every time we sign on, that the institution confirms our privacy is secure at the risk of their being sued for a false declaration.

    Personally I don't care if a bank sees my records but, like I respect those with beliefs that are different to mine, I respect those with a contrary opinion.

Consider where your personal vision lies and act accordingly.

  • Could not agree more. So let's join hands and use our agreement to offer a contrasting opinion to that of Antonopoulos, let's focus on winning not parading arguments that undermine our objectives to disintermediate the greedy. Let's make sure we don't let R3 or AA undermine the potential of digital money for the people and let’s stay true to a common objective.

    Dan has been right in so many ways but to succeed you don’t just need to be right, you need to be determined and its for this reason we believe in the mix of our respective strengths.

    WTS (what this space) there is a lot happening under this here duck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuA2kr3tXL8

Thanks Thom and if you're inclined please feel free to call me John or Underwun
There's a reason for everything and if there isn't there should be...