[davidatbu]

> 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.

[sdfhdhjdw3]

> 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.

[davidatbu]

> you were repeating zero-knowledge nonsense,

A "one way function" (ie, a hash) is not non-sense. It is entirely technically feasible (eg, Apple's NeuralHash)[0]. WorldCoin still maintains that participants can elect to submit only the hash of their iris scans.

> You'll get played in life a lot [if you reserve strong judgement (like calling someone a scumbag) until you're confident that you understand the details].

I mean, I can just refuse to play games I don't understand? For example, I don't know enough about the web3 space to cast strong judgement (positive or negative) on it. So I simply don't participate in web3. (But I keep on trying to learn about it).

Personally, I think I can avoid "being played" without calling folks whose work I don't understand scumbags.

[0] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...

[skinnymuch]

Sam Altman has done other stuff too. Like this comment asks, the same thing for you https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32087778. Why so focused on defending someone who failed upward (see what happened to his startup Loopt) and is now super powerful?

[davidatbu]

That comment is flagged so I can't see it.

> Why defend [Sam Altman]?

That's not my intention! For all I know, he might actually be a scumbag (to borrow the term from our friend in this thread). I'm genuinely trying to understand the web3 space (you can look at my comment history), which is why I started this thread by asking about whether our friend was aware of the zero-knowledge proof thing.

The quibble over the "scumbag" name-calling is because I was surprised that our friend would feel comfortable calling someone a scumbag, when they, self-admittedly, don't understand how WorldCoin even works.

[skinnymuch]

You kept focusing on the scumbag thing though. Seemingly more than web3. At least three comments specified having issues with the scumbag specific issue as if it’s some insane social faux paux and even if it was, this isn’t some fancy dinner. All of this is why it’s so curious

No one said that’s the only thing that makes him a scumbag. Do we now need to dutifully lay out all our arguments for why someone might be a scumbag before saying so? That seems like a really high bar to push for. It would take far too long to do that each time especially as proponents for the person can just demand more arguments and proof.

[davidatbu]

> All of this is why it’s so curious.

To be clear, I am not invested in anything Sam Altman is (financially, academically, or any otherwise). This maybe what you're trying to get at?

> Do we now need to dutifully lay out all our arguments for why someone might be a scumbag before calling someone a scumbag?

Yes, I 100% think so.