Topic: Proof of Person? (Read 1091 times)

This was solved between 2015 and 2018 by myself. My system is the logical way to do proof of unique human. Based on the prior work by Bryan Ford from MIT and his Pseudonym Parties, but does them over video (thus solving the fake region problem his offline/physical meetups system had). It is fully anonymous, stores absolutely no personal data, knows absolutely nothing about anyone. It is not resistant to 51% attacks though, it actually breaks at 33% collusion attacks. But, for 8 billion users, that'd be 2.7 billion people colluding to destroy the system. The system was fully implemented by 2020/2021 sometime, the whitepaper contains the full source code and definitions, and has been downloaded by thousands of people and viewed by tens of thousands. The system is very transactions per second heavy though, they need a platform that is at least around 50k transactions per second.

The whitepaper for the system is published on https://bitpeople.org.

But HumanIQ claimed some amazing breakthrough where billions of masses wouldn't have to deal with private keys and could sign transactions with only their face. Which is BS.

Of course, but this is no different with bitcoin and altcoins. Initially people will lose private keys and any money associated with them, but in the long run, people will learn from their mistakes. Third party solutions will come up, including storage of private keys. It will be a weighing of risk and benefit. People already use services like mint which store all their bank passwords.

In the long run, I believe such an approach is superior to adulterating a product in order to allow it to be easily used by the masses.

You are erroneously equating situations which are not at all analogous. An apt analogy is the veracity of a CAPTCHA insuring a bot is not accessing the web resource. And it is a fact that bots trick (or pay) humans to fool millions of CAPTCHAs.

Phishing of email or other resource the user wants is not going to work in most cases because the user will realize at some point that the resource he/she wants was not correctly obtained. Whereas, having a user to complete a CAPTCHA which is for another website before giving the user what he/she wants, is not going to dissuade most users.

 

Yes I did make some specific criticisms of the HumanIQ design which are orthogonal to our discussion.


Then if they've lost their private keys, they can't get access again employing their PoP.

And the masses will lose their private keys. Sheesh are you not aware that most people create a new Facebook account when they can't remember their password. This happens quite often, which is they they end using a password that is easy to crack using a dictionary attack such as "1234mydogSpot".


All of the biometrics can be fooled with unacceptably high EER with synthetic attacks, even if combined. Did you not see the example I cited where tailor made eye glasses could fool face recognition. That is if we are using as a proof to reset private keys, which is what HumanIQ proposed.

Automated PoP has too high of an EER. The only way to do PoP is with a human interrogator which is trusted. But then you throw decentralization out the window and introduce human subjectivity and error.

In reality people are very apathetic about voting, especially if you are going to force them to do PoP again or expect them to still have access to their private keys. People lose access, so they will need to prove PoP again, which they would need a strong incentive to do (such as getting paid to vote in an election). So the ones who are serious about dominating elections need control over only a small percentage of the potential voters.

Also leasing voters for an election doesn't mean those voters need to be leased for every election. Voters who don't really understand or care about the details of what is being voted on for a particular election are ripe for being bought off for that specific election.

It is correct that PoP isn't necessarily incompatible with anonymity. We can in theory cryptographically prove that each transaction has only unique PoP signatories in its blockchain history without unmasking the traceable details of the history.

Sounds interesting. How will you verify who is a person and who is not and then where do you move from there ?
I'm all for anything that is not pos or pow because new things are interesting and innovative.

I am not sure what you are suggesting, the link is to the same forum where the thread was posted?

This is a great point. But I imagine that since decisions would still be made by 51%, to obtain this volume of persons to lease themselves would be impossible if there were even a small uptake of such a currency. And if it would be possible, persons would know that they are being paid and would assess the value vs. the cost, so the outcome should still be superior to alternatives.

You are not understanding this correctly, I am talking about 100% anonymity, with proof of identity, meaning that there would be a way to verify that each person is a human and distinct from all other humans (and from computers). This does not mean that each person has to be limited to one address.

2 words
credit worthiness

ANON will be part of the system, but lending requires know facts, yet remaining anon and borrowing maybe possible given public worthiness facts.

Silkroad feature  credit worthiness/ratings and it was anon in principle.

not a good idea and i don't like it as it destroy the anonimity of crypto, if you need to reveal your identity to carry the money on your private key(if i understood this correctly) it would fade away the pseudo anonimity fo bitcoin, or the 100% anonimity of monero, zcash, if applyed there, a really bad idea

digital money is eventually headed in that direction,
especially if you want democratic platforms.

are you serious Proof of Person 

wow! big idea here.
I would suggest TALK ... https://bitcointalk.org ... is a source root.

Incorrect. People can lease themselves to a whale.

My question was not whether it is technically feasible. If proof of person (but not identity - in other words, maintaining anonymity) was achievable, then would it be superior to PoW and PoS in that a 51% majority (to make any changes to the currency) based on individuals is superior to basing it on mining power or holdings? Not only does it permanently obviate centrality, but quality of decisions related to the currency should be higher over the long-term compared to other methods. Would it solve other problems in cryptocurrency? Would there be any major drawbacks?

There is also proof of importance (PoI), but this has drawbacks of gaming the system by individuals making transactions with themselves, or will benefit banks/exchanges who at baseline have high volume of exchange. If weighting based on individual's importance in the economy or interacting with other users, it also incentivizes behavior that is not necessarily economically ideal, nor from a currency standpoint, which should be neutral.

PoP is this Platform.

Proof of person? um Interesting

Interesting concept, especially given that in real world social science, the individual is much more difficult to predict once singled out of the group. It could be technically more complex to implement but that to me seems more of a one-time hurdle. At the moment, simple steps like unique email/phone verification can be bypassed easily.

What about borrowing once more from the real world? Biometrics. I would rather give out my unique fingerprint for verification than a passport or ID card, for example.

Interesting idea, but i don't think it will work.

I'm not sure if i really understand this, but here is another interesting use of a blockchain involving one account per person.

https://voteflux.org/

Proof of stake and proof of work are based on decentralization, a hallmark of cryptocurrency, but both of these have the undesirable consequence of leading to possible centralization. With proof of work we see the development of large mining pools, eventually a possibility that a cooperation will result in 51%. Proof of stake seems to have an advantage of being greener, but it results in the rich getting richer and eventually, even if in hundreds of years, one party would attain 51%. Even in advance of that date, the currency could become unstable in anticipation of it. In current currency today, we see that 1% of Americans own >40% of the wealth. A consensus mechanism is necessary, but what cryptocurrency seems to want, with PoS and PoW being proxies, is 51% voting rights with proof of person. This would seem to solve several difficulties with cryptocurrency and create a very strong base. This does not have to be connected in any way to distribution, although it could. Proof of person/identity has been discussed at length in other threads:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoUBI/comments/2v2gi6/proof_of_identityproof_of_person_the_elephant_in/
https://www.maidsafe.org/t/proof-of-unique-human/167

If this could be done (which is technically difficult), wouldn't it solve problems of centralization while maintaining anonymity and other features, as well as being superior to PoS and PoW? What would be drawbacks of such a system?