Kyle ~

Before my statements on this matter, I read thoroughly and carefully
all materials publicly available on Windhover principles.

I don't disagree with the idea of a decentralized identity and/or
reputation system. In fact, most of the Windhover points circulate
around those very issues, which is plain to see from both the public
announcement as well as the materials available from ID3.

It should be plain to see, and I'll only emphasize this one more time
here because I think it is so painfully obvious, that the Windhover
regulation principle (an element of the overall Windhover proposals)
is what has doomed the Windhover concept to die in a fire.

Again, in case it was not clear:

>> they have chosen to back Windhover. I cannot support them in
>> any way in their endeavor, but I do suggest that to the extent
>> they have open source code (as both above examples do) that we
>> use their code to do better things with than they can. For
>> example, we can use 37coins' code to make lightweight versions of
>> things that will have greater privacy protections and that won't
>> ever require that identities you use in tandem with the
>> applications/implementations be "lawful" or "compliant."

And:

>> Not even slightly. We're supposed to be building a way out of
>> the corporation-state controlled ID morass - identifying us in
>> any way, shape or form within the context of regulation is the
>> whole basis for how societies have been enslaved. We have a
>> better way now, and a chance to build something new that serves
>> all facets of identity while freeing them from any regulatory
>> controls or mandates whatsoever.

"Math will defeat your political opinions."

And so, we will create alternatives to defeat Windhover
regulation-related proposals (or anything else like that), in much the
same manner as CoinValidation was stopped by CoinJoin and similar
developments.

This is a core point: Whether you are an advocate of approaches such
as those within the Windhover regulation principle, or anything
similar which now or in the future would be endorsed by anyone (in NY,
Russian Federation, USA, North Korea, Iceland, or wherever dinosaur
politicians go to die), those proposals will be met with technological
alternatives and the smoldering rubble of your regulatory efforts will
be cast back into the fire from whence it came.

This will be a long struggle and journey. It will not end with any
particular software package, or incantations of code, or whatever
implementations might emerge. These will simply be part of the longer
battle within which we aspire to make the slavery to
corporation-states that is now commonplace, either impractical or
impossible. It is a journey.

Cheers,

- -Odinn

"The ring cannot be destroyed, Gimli, son of Gloin, by any craft that
we here possess.
The ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be
unmade. The ring must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the
fiery chasm from whence it came.

One of you must do this."

- -Elrond

Kyle Torpey wrote:
> I've reached out to a few of the entities listed as supporters of
> the Windhover Principles for clarification on the AML/KYC points.
> The original guidelines actually seem quite good:
> https://idcubed.org/home_page_feature/the-windhover-transition/
>
> It seems that they're interested in creating a general online
> identity/reputation system. This isn't bad at all. We're using
> digital identities in this mailing list right now. Obviously,
> governments can use this system to tack a social security number or
> some other sort of PII to a digital ID. Having said that, there's
> nothing to prevent from individuals also having pseudonymous IDs in
> the same system.
>
> I'm reaching out to ID3 for further clarification, but it really
> just seems like the inevitable blockchain reputation system that
> was going to be created by someone someday anyway. Seems quite
> similar to Namecoin. Any online reputation system would eventually
> be corrupted by governments for the purposes of tying real-world
> identities to IDs in certain situations.
>
> -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>
>
> On 10/22/2014 07:17 PM, odinn wrote:
>
>
>> Julia Tourianski wrote:
>>> can someone please use ripple's code to build something
>>> sinister. then the regulators or banks wont want anything to
>>> do with them.
>
>> Julia, and everyone else Unsystem: This identity bit is clearly
>> something that's been silently in the works for a while - and I
>> believe those companies have been pressured to adopt something
>> like the Windhover proposal for some time (and in light of TISA
>> and FATCA deadlines coming up, some of the companies may have
>> agreed to comply with identity-oriented regulation for fear of
>> having their domains seized, which has happened before).
>
>> We must deal with this like the community dealt with
>> CoinValidation - (which we defeated successfully, by garnering
>> support for CoinJoin):
>
>> [[[ We must kill the Windhover Principles with fire ~ ]]]
>
>> [[[ by creating software-based solutions which ensure that there
>> will be an alternative rooted in anonymity and to ensure that
>> there will never be consensus favoring Windhover proposals
>> (whether amongst miners, end users, and anyone else). ]]]
>
>> This is part of why I make such a big noise about migrating
>> business models away from websites and getting it really
>> decentralized (or if remaining with server-and-website model,
>> implementing zero knowledge privacy so that you know nothing
>> about the person using your service). Unfortunately, very few
>> companies even grasp what zero knowledge privacy is, and fewer
>> still are willing to implement it.
>
>> But perhaps I was wrong to suggest that this
>> regulation-coupled-with-decentralized-identity thing has been
>> altogether a silent and secretive effort -- for as I've pointed
>> out recently on a different list, the three letter agencies and
>> their corporate shills have been trying very hard to keep
>> certain types of crypto from being used in WebCrypto - namely, a
>> curve used in bitcoin, and another that is used in BCN (schnorr
>> ring sig, etc) called curve25519, which is also used in a nearly
>> uncountable number of software applications already (even in
>> Apple and Chromium worldwide distributions):
>> https://cpunks.org//pipermail/cypherpunks/2014-October/005721.html
>
>> This matter of the WebCrypto bit that I brought up on
>> cypherpunks has not only implications for the use of crypto that
>> is common in decentralized systems, but as well I believe that
>> the attempt of some people in the working groups to carry it to
>> last call without bringing the curves into definitions, was timed
>> to try to frustrate implementation of decentralized identity that
>> would not be tied to regulatory proposals. However, the
>> WebCrypto issue (thanks to eyes on it from @puellavulnerate and
>> others, has largely been resolved as of today:
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618#c62 (with
>> some minor details left to be worked out). The main thing was to
>> keep NSA people from delaying incorporation of needed curves in
>> WebCrypto API and to raise the issue about the NSA's presence at
>> CFRG. That's all done. I don't feel a need to shove that back
>> into the socmedia sphere again, personally.
>
>> One of the first things we need to do is resolve to close our
>> accounts for any companies that back the Windhover Principles,
>> as I've suggested here:
>
>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/525051241286475776
>
>
>> I've also pointed out in recent days that FATCA and TISA alone
>> are reason enough to bail out of web-based wallets and exchanges
>> that are subject to influence from institutions that have to deal
>> with these extremely oppressive laws:
>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524786163916087296
>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524787141084061696 "You
>> Have Been Warned:"
>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524792838723104768
>
>> (I should note that I did get a favorable response back from
>> Coinkite's CEO on the matter...)
>> https://twitter.com/nvk/status/524664009434619904
>
>> I realize that Windhover Principles are backed at this point
>> over 21 organizations and growing, including BitPay(!). I was
>> pleased with BitPay's decision to develop CoPay, a multisig
>> wallet one could have direct control over and run from browser,
>> and I am stoked about 37Coins approach of bringing bitcoin to the
>> masses through text-based solution on not-smart phones, but
>> these companies and others have chosen a course that we cannot
>> follow - they have chosen to back Windhover. I cannot support
>> them in any way in their endeavor, but I do suggest that to the
>> extent they have open source code (as both above examples do)
>> that we use their code to do better things with than they can.
>> For example, we can use 37coins' code to make lightweight
>> versions of things that will have greater privacy protections and
>> that won't ever require that identities you use in tandem with
>> the applications/implementations be "lawful" or "compliant."
>
>> I can't accept any regulatory organization serving whether
>> directly or indirectly as some kind of Sharia court over our
>> identities or regulating what they are or how data will be
>> managed in the context of my authentication with sites or in fact
>> with anything at all. Not even slightly. We're supposed to be
>> building a way out of the corporation-state controlled ID morass
>> - identifying us in any way, shape or form within the context of
>> regulation is the whole basis for how societies have been
>> enslaved. We have a better way now, and a chance to build
>> something new that serves all facets of identity while freeing
>> them from any regulatory controls or mandates whatsoever.
>
>> I have a discussion started around this topic here:
>
>> https://forum.unsystem.net/t/interoperability-and-trans-identical-identity-decentralization-proposals-thoughts-for-review/333
>
>> If you would like, please add your thoughts there for further
>> technical development of alternative, trans-identical proposals.
>> I must state, however, that while I do have an open mind on the
>> subject of how people manage their identities, I do not want to
>> be part of anything that would involve regulation or law in the
>> context of bit-identity or trans-identical proposals. I have
>> chosen a fork in the road.
>
>> "Two paths diverged in a wood, and I... I took the one less
>> traveled by... and that has made all the difference."
>
>
>> -Respect, Odinn
>
>> https://keybase.io/odinn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
>>> https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Julia Tourianski <
>>> juliatourianski@???> wrote:
>
>>>> "Gifford added that the project, if successful, could
>>>> demonstrate how regulators and innovators can
>>>> collaboratively address issues for the greater global good."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.coindesk.com/20-bitcoin-companies-backing-new-deal-digital-identity/?utm_content=buffer9043b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>
> :|
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
>>>> https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>>>>
>
>
>
>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>>>
>
>> -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable
>> decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new
>> social good" https://keybase.io/odinn
>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>

- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn