> NoZebra120vClip: What's the point of some random person "endorsing" an edit? I'm not sure how a wholly external PKI could be any help in "endorsing" edits. A user's ETH wallet has no relation to their reputation or trustworthiness on WMF sites.
> World177: ... Though, I think blockchain based identities are objectively better. In implementation, it doesn't have to be a random person, it could be anyone or any organization that could endorse changes...
OP: Actually to use this tool we don't require anyone to own any ethers. It's just a digital signature signed with Ethereum compatible wallet.
And I am super glad that @World177 pointed it out. That's exactly what where we are going. If we could let people sign with identities that's crypographically and blockchain native, we could further expand it with other social and tech architecture. For example, with support of Ethereum Name Service or other DID, people could sign with their identiteis associated with some institutions or organizations. Or they could collaboratively sign - e.g. a committee of reputable peer review group would only sign as a whole when their signatures aggregates to beyond the threshold.
There is also another possiblitity that we establish a decentarlized computer graph based on "who has endorsed whose edits" so that the editors who are endorsed by more people, has a greater power endorsing others. Visualize the similar approach of Google's PageRank or Facebook's EdgeRank except for each vertex could be an editor's decentralized identity or an article, and each link could be the endorsement relationship or the author-article relationship.