You seem to agree that they don't collect biometric data, so I'm not sure exactly what "intrinsics" is being "stripped down" from individuals, in this case. Could you clarify?
I don't agree to anything, because I don't know enough about it. They SAY they don't collect data, they SAY it's a zero knowledge proof. Who knows about that.
What I know is that they're extracting some value from people who (like me) likely don't understand the implications. This isn't complicated.
Because you so confidently asserted that they were "all scumbags" who have no "credibility", I'd expected much more certain evidence about the nefariousness of Worldcoin.
I, like you, believe it is very important to remind folks that they should clearly understand the value prop of an exchange before they participate in it.
But I don't think that calling "scumbags" the folks behind any proposed value exchange (like Worldcoin) that you yourself (self-admittedly) don't fully understand the implications of, is a way to achieve that.
You asked me exactly what "instrinsics" are people being stripped from. So according to that article, people are being robbed of the ability of proving their own identity. If that startup succeeds, people will no longer be able to prove their identity other than thru them. This is really dangerous stuff.
You see, the mistake you made here is assuming that without understanding the details you can't come to any conclusions. But that is wrong. There's some things that I don't need to know the details of to accurately determine they're nefarious.
> If that startup succeeds, people will no longer be able to prove their identity other than thru them.
The article doesn't at all claim that the startup seeks to monopolize world wide human authentication!
For the benefit of "bystanders", the TLDR of the article is that (1) WorldCoin is collecting biometric data (not just a cryptographic hash of it), (2) Worldcoin switched compensation of its "operators" from a stablecoin to a brand new cryptocurrency, (3) perfecting the tech to authenticate being a human while preserving anonymity itself might be very valuable, and (4) the fact that brand new cryptocurrency is distributed to everyone might make the cryptocurrency itself very valuable.
I think 1 is valid concern if true; 2, IIUC, wasn't done "behind the backs" of anyone, so it's fine, 3 and 4 are very true. Thank you for linking the article!
> The mistake you made here is assuming that without understanding the details you can't come to any conclusions.
You are free to choose whatever standard of evidence you see fit, but personally, I will always choose to reserve strong judgement (like calling someone a scumbag) until I am confident that I fully understand the details.
> You are free to choose whatever standard of evidence you see fit, but personally, I will always choose to reserve strong judgement (like calling someone a scumbag) until I am confident that I fully understand the details.
You'll get played in life a lot.
Example: you were repeating zero-knowledge nonsense, whereas I saw right thru it. You get played a lot.
What I know is that they're extracting some value from people who (like me) likely don't understand the implications. This isn't complicated.