Pre-Proposal: Would you like this proof of individuality to be implemented in Dash?

[demo]

The proof of individuality idea is supported by a few people and very few are aware of it as a concept.
<vote history>
Would you like a proof of individuality for the Dash community?
*yes 3 vote(s) 16.7%
no 12 vote(s) 66.7%
other 1 vote(s) 5.6%
Proof of potato(e). 2 vote(s) 11.1%
</vote history>

The proof of individuality is usefull for several reasons, this one included.

I would like to know your opinion about the below specific implementation of the proof of individuality, and maybe if it gets popular to add a proposal for it, in order similar meetings to get funded by the dash budget system.

Let me asnwer your above questions.

Its not a masternodes event. It is an empty_dash_wallet holders event. There is no kidnapping risk! You are among ordinary people who are not masternodes, and who may attend the same meeting in order to get their universal dividend. There is not ID card or Social Number required. And it is totaly safe, as long as you do not advertise eponymously (in your everyday life or in the internet) that you own a masternode . But even in the case you did the mistake and everybody knows that you are a masternode owner, the cryptoparty procedure allows you to appear masked, so you are safe that way (as long as, of course, you are not the only one masked and there are many other masked people that attend the same cryptoparty).

You will not attend the cryptoparty with your private keys! You participate by having several empty_wallets (their public keys) printed in QRcode. During the cryptoparty (which takes place in a closed door room where nobody is allowed to leave until the procedure ends) everyone puts one QRcode wallet in an envelope and then the envelope into a physical ballot box. Then all the wallets are extracted from the ballot box, they are counted, scanned, added in a digital list, and their number is expected of course to be found equal to the number of the attendees. If someone objects that the list of wallets is not equal to the number of attendees, or if he claims that his wallet is not into the list, then the voting is repeated, and until nobody objects (due to the possibility of voting repetition, everyone should have more than one printed QRcode wallets pre-created, so that he can re-vote in case an objection occurs). Finally, when there is no objection, everyone receives the final list of the valid wallets, the door opens and the cryptoparty finishes. All the wallets that are contained in the final valid list, can be considered now as a proof of individuality, that can be used online in the internet. And as long as every single attendee is allowed to object, this is considered as a decentralized (and unanimous) process, isn't it?

For even more decentralization, many similar cryptoparties may be organized in several towns, as long as those cryptoparties are absolutely concurrent, and a web of trust among cryptoparties is established so that all the wallet lists of all the cryptoparties are recognized as proof of individuality. A web of trust among cryptoparties means that all the attendees of a specific cryptoparty sign whatever else cryptoparty they trust it is legitimate. This multi-signature may occur immediately after the creation of the final valid list of wallets, and just before the door opens.

Having your proof of individuality (I remind that you put it into the ballot box, so it is anonymized), you can now claim anonymously in the internet your masternodes, by signing the dash addresses of your masternodes with the private key of your empty_dash_address which you put in the ballot box, during the cryptoparty.

This is a preproposal. In case it gets enough yes votes and be able to find the 5 dash proposal fee, it will be added in the budget system in order for the dash community to fund similar proof of individuality meetings.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

Hello @demo . I am sorry but I do not understand the proof of individuality you are proposing. As soon as I understand it I will cast my vote .
I am in favour that each person votes only once. But to avoid making confusion I shall probably start another thread with my suggestion.

 

[demo]

Hello @demo . I am sorry but I do not understand the proof of individuality you are proposing. As soon as I understand it I will cast my vote .
I am in favour that each person votes only once. But to avoid making confusion I shall probably start another thread with my suggestion.

This proof of individuality proposal is an answer to your below question.

One idea could be to ask a proof of individuality from each masternode. But this has privacy problems, as well as security problems (what if someone decides to abduct the masternode owners? Or a government decides to arrest them?).

I tried to explain it as simple as I could. The fact that you dont understand it (and obviously others dont understand it too) is maybe because I have not added some url links to some of the terms I am using. If you dont understand parts of my proposal, please elaborate. I will try to explain it further.

<vote history>
Would you like this proof of individuality to be implemented in Dash?
*yes 1 vote(s) 100.0%
no 0 vote(s) 0.0%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote history>

 

[Pietro Speroni]

The suggestion is this, if I understand it:

You will not attend the cryptoparty with your private keys! You participate by having several empty_wallets (their public keys) printed in QRcode. During the cryptoparty (which takes place in a closed door room where nobody is allowed to leave until the procedure ends) everyone puts one QRcode wallet in an envelope and then the envelope into a physical ballot box. Then all the wallets are extracted from the ballot box, they are counted, scanned, added in a digital list, and their number is expected of course to be found equal to the number of the attendees. If someone objects that the list of wallets is not equal to the number of attendees, or if he claims that his wallet is not into the list, then the voting is repeated, and until nobody objects (due to the possibility of voting repetition, everyone should have more than one printed QRcode wallets pre-created, so that he can re-vote in case an objection occurs). Finally, when there is no objection, everyone receives the final list of the valid wallets, the door opens and the cryptoparty finishes. All the wallets that are contained in the final valid list, can be considered now as a proof of individuality, that can be used online in the internet. And as long as every single attendee is allowed to object, this is considered as a decentralized (and unanimous) process, isn't it?​

It seems very complicated, because it requires everybody to travel to a certain location. Plus you cannot have people join or leave the group which is something that happens all the time among masternodes. So if this is the solution I would vote no just out of the fact the solution is too complicated. Plus if all the masternode owners are in one room that would be very unsafe for the Dash community, right?

 

[Super8]

Demo is a massive time-waster.

....

If you're so desperate to match up everyone's individual identity, why don't you go on Facebook or Instagram?

(I'm sure you'd be happier there..... please go.)

 

[demo]

The suggestion is this, if I understand it:

You will not attend the cryptoparty with your private keys! You participate by having several empty_wallets (their public keys) printed in QRcode.

​

It seems very complicated, because it requires everybody to travel to a certain location.

You dont need to travel to a certain location, if the cryptoparty is combined with some sort of universal dividend. A universal dividend similar to what @amanda_b_johnson already did. Similar but not identical, as long as my version requires physical presence and offers anonymity to the attendees. The masternode owner could secretly fund and organize such a cryptoparty in his own town, and hide among ordinary people who are asking their first dash wallet. As I said:

You are among ordinary people who are not masternodes, and who may attend the same meeting in order to get their universal dividend.

Plus, concurrent cryptoparties around the world may occur. So you only need to find the closest to you cryptoparty to attend. As I said:

For even more decentralization, many similar cryptoparties may be organized in several towns, as long as those cryptoparties are absolutely concurrent, and a web of trust among cryptoparties is established so that all the wallet lists of all the cryptoparties are recognized as proof of individuality. A web of trust among cryptoparties means that all the attendees of a specific cryptoparty sign whatever else cryptoparty they trust it is legitimate. This multi-signature may occur immediately after the creation of the final valid list of wallets, and just before the door opens.

Plus you cannot have people join or leave the group which is something that happens all the time among masternodes.

You can leave the masternodes group. Using your proof of individuality, you sign the masternodes. So if you dont own the masternode anymore, your signature is invalid.Or if later on you buy a masternode, you can sign it . As I said:

Having your proof of individuality (I remind that you put it into the ballot box, so it is anonymized), you can now claim anonymously in the internet your masternodes, by signing the dash addresses of your masternodes with the private key of your empty_dash_address which you put in the ballot box, during the cryptoparty.

Plus if all the masternode owners are in one room that would be very unsafe for the Dash community, right?

They are not in the same room for sure.

So if this is the solution I would vote no just out of the fact the solution is too complicated.

Vote yes. I really need the third vote.

<vote history><-- why vote history is usefull?
Would you like this proof of individuality to be implemented in Dash?
*yes 2 vote(s) 100.0%
no 0 vote(s) 0.0%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote history>

 

[demo]

Demo is a massive time-waster.

....

If you're so desperate to match up everyone's individual identity, why don't you go on Facebook or Instagram?

(I'm sure you'd be happier there..... please go.)

My proposal is about individual identity AND anonymity (the AND is a logical and).
Anomymity is not facebook's or instagram's property. Au contraire , anonymity is prohibitted in these sites.

As I said:

There is not ID card or Social Number required. And it is totaly safe, as long as you do not advertise eponymously (in your everyday life or in the internet) that you own a masternode . But even in the case you did the mistake and everybody knows that you are a masternode owner, the cryptoparty procedure allows you to appear masked, so you are safe that way (as long as, of course, you are not the only one masked and there are many other masked people that attend the same cryptoparty).

 

[Super8]

Demo, why don't you fork Dash and create the version you truly desire.

If it's good, you will have a cryptocoin, exactly to your specification.

People who agree with you will follow you.

(Good luck.)

 

[demo]

Demo, why don't you fork Dash and create the version you truly desire.

If it's good, you will have a cryptocoin, exactly to your specification.

People who agree with you will follow you.

(Good luck.)

It is not only a fork's issue.
I also need servers, in order to support a cryptocoin.
Servers are costly.

And who will support this idea?
It is only me and @GrandMasterDash at the moment.

 

[Super8]

Maybe you could do an ICO?

 

[demo]

Maybe you could do an ICO?

This idea is not about Initial Coin Offer or about a universal dividend (although I am a universal dividend proponent)

This idea is about proof of individuality. In order to incetivize people to attend the cryptoparty meeting, you have to incentivize them with some real money, so an established currency (like dash) is more approriate for this purpose.

I posted a reference to this idea to pivx forum and I am planning to add a preproposal there too.

 

[Super8]

There are other crypto currencies like Dash. Have u considered Pivx?

@demo , maybe you would get more traction for your ideas there because it's a younger project, with a smaller community and a much more affordable coin.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

if you need the third vote to start coding, I would rather have you code the vote by number (and take the median). Which instead is really important, and I am sure someone will use sooner or later.

 

[demo]

if you need the third vote to start coding, I would rather have you code the vote by number (and take the median). Which instead is really important, and I am sure someone will use sooner or later.

Vote the numbers is an extremely important issue, thats why I always have it in my signature.
Do you want a dash fork, that allows the masternodes to be able to vote the numbers?

 

[TroyDASH]

@demo That just gave me a great idea. We can Code with Numbers™. Every line of the dash codebase can be put to a vote with multiple choice options, use proof of individuality to vote and the mode average prevails.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

@demo That just gave me a great idea. We can Code with Numbers™. Every line of the dash codebase can be put to a vote with multiple choice options, use proof of individuality to vote and the mode average prevails.

remember that the result will be the condorcet winner only if the votes are independent.

 

[Pietro Speroni]

Vote the numbers is an extremely important issue, thats why I always have it in my signature.
Do you want a dash fork, that allows the masternodes to be able to vote the numbers?

yes. And the miners too (on each block they put their votes and the system extracts the last x votes; x voted by the masternodes). And the miners and the masternode together if necessary (just in case).

And this is just the beginning ...

 

[demo]

@demo That just gave me a great idea. We can Code with Numbers™. Every line of the dash codebase can be put to a vote with multiple choice options, use proof of individuality to vote and the mode average prevails.

This does not work. Vote the numbers is just a component of the knowledge tree. The knowledge tree is primarily and above all a logical tree. Logic is not established by voting the sentences of a serial logical text. Logic is established through interdependant polls. The serial logical text is extracted from these intedepentant polls.

Here is an example where two logical sentences are considered logical if seen separately.

Lets go to bed <-- seems logical if seen separately
Lets wear our shoes <-- seems logical if seen separately

But if those two logical sentences are sequential inside a serial logical text, the result is irrational:

Lets go to bed. Lets wear our shoes. <---irrational, nobody wears shoes in bed.

The irrationality appears due to the interdependacy.

Here is a desciption of the knowledge tree, I wrote:

The random selection of cheaper masternodes, or alternative the reduction of the masternodes price, is the subject of yet another vote. A vote which depends on the result of the previous vote, this one. This is how the tree of the votes, the knowledge tree, is built. The knowledge tree is actually a tree (or a graph) of interdependent votes, where the result of one vote makes another vote to appear or to dissapear. So first of all a structure of interdependent permanent votes, that affects the dash protocol in the runtime, must be created. This structure can be used to take all decisions, like this one also. This tree can be written into the blockchain, so that a votechain is created. Every votechain block will preserve the current voting tree structure, and the current result of the votes (the vote history).

 

[demo]

yes. And the miners too (on each block they put their votes and the system extracts the last x votes; x voted by the masternodes). And the miners and the masternode together if necessary (just in case).

And this is just the beginning ...

The miners issue turns complicate for my coding capabilities.
For the beginning I will try to focus in the governance system, and just give to the masternodes the ability to vote not only (yes/no/abstain) but also numbers.
This is much more easy to code.

<vote history>
Would you like this proof of individuality to be implemented in Dash?
* yes 2 vote(s) 66.7%
no 1 vote(s) 33.3%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote history>

 

[demo]

Some questions regarding the protocol of this proof of individuality procedure have been answered here.

Let me copy paste them here also:

I like your answer, demo! It seems that you're working on the design of a system and dealing with all the troubles it involves.

However, your improved procedure still has some safety bugs:

1.- If the public key does not hold the 1000 dashes, then anybody can issue several public keys and pay to several guys (not necessarily related to dash) to deposit different envelopes. Then, a single guy (the owner of several masternodes) can later claim a separated identity for each public key. (It means that your procedure is vulnerable to a sybil attack)

The guy who is the owner of several masternodes and wants to hide has to pay his puppets more than the universal dividend. Otherwise why the puppets to give them their wallet? Do you think you can find someone who can pay the people more than the universal dividend? I dont think so! And how many puppets can he pay? He has to be very very rich in order for his sybil attack to have a real impact, but if he so rich then in that case he owns the cryptocurrency anyway! Of course everything depends on how big the dividend is. Offering a decent dividend is not only a philanthropy, it is also a safety measure in order to prevent the coin for being compromised. And lets suppose that someone succeds in his sybil Attack and manages to buy many proof of individuality. What is the real impact? All his puppets will vote identicaly, so the statistics will still reveal that they are puppets! And he owns those proof of individuality not forever but until the next cryptoparty, which whenever it happens (for example after 2 years) will result in paying the puppets again.

2.- Your checking procedure may fall in an endless loop of objections. It's something very creepy regarding that nobody can leave until the procedure ends.

"Nobody can leave" means that if someone leaves, the procedure is repeated! Leaving in the middle of the procedure is considered as a type of objection. And It is not an endless loop of objections. If someone objects too many times, they can throw him out of the room! The proof of individuality remains for those who are inside the room. Of course the one who is out of the room will sign that the cryptoparty was not appropriate. And the rest cryptoparties that occur simultaneously around the globe, they will judge the testimony of the persecuted accordingly, and sign or not sign the cryptoparty where this incident occured. There can be a camera in every cryptoparty after all, as long as people can be masked! If such an incident occurs, and before throwing the guy out of the room, the attendees can wear their masks and open the camera, for the incident to be recorded live and for the other cryptoparties to see and judge whats going on.

A crypto-party with masked people?... Sounds scary!... Resembles me the movie "eyes wide shut"

It may look like "eyes wide shut" but it may also look like this.

 

[jimbursch]

What prevents someone from attending several crypto parties, thus creating several "individuals"?

 

[Super8]

What prevents someone from attending several crypto parties, thus creating several "individuals"?

Yep... and what about gate crashers?

Maybe we could have some masked 'bouncers' for security.

(Hmmm... but who's gonna watch the watchers I wonder...?)

Any ideas @demo ??

 

[demo]

What prevents someone from attending several crypto parties, thus creating several "individuals"?

All cryptoparties occur concurrently. It is like the elections day. It is impossible to be in two places at the same time!

 

[demo]

Yep... and what about gate crashers?

Maybe we could have some masked 'bouncers' for security.

(Hmmm... but who's gonna watch the watchers I wonder...?)

Any ideas @demo ??

In case someone crashes the door then the cryptoparty is obiously canceled as invalid.
The solution is not masked bouncers but rather rooms where the door cannot be crashed.
A cryptoparty may elect its trusted watchers which mission will be to attend other cryptoparties at the day the next concurrent cryptoparties will take place again (normaly the concurrent cryptoparties may occur every 2 or 4 years)

 

[Super8]

In case someone crashes the door then the cryptoparty is obiously canceled as invalid.
The solution is not masked bouncers but rather rooms where the door cannot be crashed.
A cryptoparty may elect its trusted watchers which mission will be to attend other cryptoparties at the day the next concurrent cryptoparties will take place again (normaly the concurrent cryptoparties may occur every 2 or 4 years)

Fabulous!

 

[demo]

Fabulous!

Additionaly there is no reason for a group of people to want to crash the door of a cryptoparty.
They can create their own concurrent cryptoparty in another room, so for what reason they want to crash the door?

 

[Super8]

Additionaly there is no reason for a group of people to want to crash the door of a cryptoparty.
They can create their own concurrent cryptoparty in another room, so for what reason they want to crash the door?

They could be working for the Feds... or they could be archons (or some shit like that.)

 

[demo]

They could be working for the Feds... or they could be archons (or some shit like that.)

There is nothing illegal in the proof of individuality concurrent cryptoparties, so the feds are not legalized to crash the door. However the feds can show their credentials to the attendees and then attend the party as individuals, and confirm that nothing illegal occurs during the proof of individuality procedure.

 

[Super8]

The Feds could attend undercover upon the basis of mere suspicion of illegality alone. They would need to provide no further justification.

Perhaps the individual agent may not want to blow his (or her) individual cover, and yet still announce their affiliation with the FBI...so perhaps they could reveal that they are from the FBI, by all promising to wear the anonymous mask from "V"and to flash a picture of J.Edgar Hoover when asked for their credentials.

Surely, this would be a workable remedy to this urgent problem?

 

[demo]

The Feds could attend undercover upon the basis of mere suspicion of illegality alone. They would need to provide no further justification.

Perhaps the individual agent may not want to blow his (or her) individual cover, and yet still announce their affiliation with the FBI...so perhaps they could reveal that they are from the FBI, by all promising to wear the anonymous mask from "V"and to flash a picture of J.Edgar Hoover when asked for their credentials.

Surely, this would be a workable remedy to this urgent problem?

Let the feds do whatever they want. There is no problem whatever they decide to do.

The only problem is when someone crashes the door and many people enter the room after the procedure has started. In that case the proof of individuality prodedure is canceled and has to be repeated.

But this is impossible to happen, because normal people have no reason to crash the door and the feds are not legalized to do that.