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?
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.
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.
So again, they're all scumbags.
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'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.
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...
> 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.
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.
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.