WoT is a perfectly reasonable way to establish trust about the link between an online identity and a real world identity. In the case of a developer with an existing reputation for his online identity, that link is just irrelevant. On Sep 15, 2014 4:52 PM, "Brian Hoffman" wrote: > In the context of Bitcoin I will concede that perhaps it holds true for > now. > > I also never said the actual credential you receive from a government > agency is trustable. I completely agree that they are forgeable and not > necessarily reliable. That was not my point. I was referring to the vetting > process before issuance. > > Just as you have behavioral characteristics online that contribute to > trusting an "identity" you also exhibit in person attributes, such as > physically being in a specific location at a certain time or blue eyes or > biometrics, that are valuable. You simply cannot capture those in an > online-only world. I don't see how you can deny the value there. > > You are most certainly and undeniably the expert in the Bitcoin context > here so I will not even attempt to argue with you on that, but I just think > it's not realistic to ignore the value of an in-person network in other > contexts. You called it "geek wanking" with no qualifier "in the Bitcoin > context" so excuse me if I misunderstood your intent. > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> It applies to OP, bitcoin community development and Satoshi. >> >> "value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable"... no it is >> quite deniable. Satoshi is the quintessential example. We value brain >> output, code. The real world identity is irrelevant to whether or not >> bitcoin continues to function. >> >> The currency of bitcoin development is code, and electronic messages >> describing cryptographic theses. _That_ is the relevant fingerprint. >> >> Governmental id is second class, can be forged or simply present a >> different individual from that who is online. PGP WoT wanking does >> not solve that problem at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Brian Hoffman >> wrote: >> > I would agree that the in person aspect of the WoT is frustrating, but >> to dismiss this as "geek wanking" is the pot calling the kettle. >> > >> > The value of in person vetting of identity is undeniable. Just because >> your risk acceptance is difference doesn't make it wanking. Please go see >> if you can get any kind of governmental clearance of credential without >> in-person vetting. Ask them if they accept your behavioral signature. >> > >> > I know there is a lot of PGP hating these days but this comment doesn't >> necessarily apply to every situation. >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Thomas Zander < >> thomas@thomaszander.se> wrote: >> >>> Any and all PGP related howtos will tell you that you should not >> trust or sign >> >>> a formerly-untrusted PGP (or GPG for that matter) key without seeing >> that >> >>> person in real life, verifying their identity etc. >> >> >> >> Such guidelines are a perfect example of why PGP WoT is useless and >> >> stupid geek wanking. >> >> >> >> A person's behavioural signature is what is relevant. We know how >> >> Satoshi coded and wrote. It was the online Satoshi with which we >> >> interacted. The online Satoshi's PGP signature would be fine... >> >> assuming he established a pattern of use. >> >> >> >> As another example, I know the code contributions and PGP key signed >> >> by the online entity known as "sipa." At a bitcoin conf I met a >> >> person with photo id labelled "Pieter Wuille" who claimed to be sipa, >> >> but that could have been an actor. Absent a laborious and boring >> >> signed challenge process, for all we know, "sipa" is a supercomputing >> >> cluster of 500 gnomes. >> >> >> >> The point is, the "online entity known as Satoshi" is the relevant >> >> fingerprint. That is easily established without any in-person >> >> meetings. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jeff Garzik >> >> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist >> >> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Want excitement? >> >> Manually upgrade your production database. >> >> When you want reliability, choose Perforce >> >> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. >> >> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Garzik >> Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist >> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want excitement? > Manually upgrade your production database. > When you want reliability, choose Perforce > Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > >