Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmillin | Hacker News Reader

GnuPG/PGP and the web of trust[0]. A lot of things I see blockchain being used for today (e.g. NFTs) seems like it would be better solved using standard OpenPGP signatures with no backing chain.

Additionally, as machine-generated content proliferates, I think having services use something like the web of trust concept for membership would be super powerful. The problem is, of course, the terrible UX of cryptographic signatures. But I think there's a lot of opportunity for the group that makes it easy to use.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust

View on HN

There's a problem though: either you have to ban transferring NFTs (or other tokens), which makes those a lot less useful, or you need something to prevent double spend attacks (something that blockchain solves).

GPG is great. It also makes it really easy to encrypt environment dotfiles that safely reside in your source code repository. This is my favorite way of storing sensitive app configs. You don't even need a PGP private key in your keychain to do it. You can use a passphrase.

This sounds interesting. Have you got an example of how you do this by any chance?

I’d really like to hear more about this

As a follow-up to the web of trust, I was pretty excited about Keybase and the breadth of applications they enabled, with a slick UX for web-of-trust. Pity they didn't quite succeed (got acqired/acquihired by Zoom), but it would be wonderful if something like that got another life.

Well thank you! I think that so often ...

Take a look at KERI.

> seems like it would be better solved using standard OpenPGP signatures with no backing chain.

Programmability though

Can you elaborate?

There would be no automated consensus over results of execution of programs that power the applications

Just curious, which would be most reliable? One entity confirms it who confirmed 1000 previous results, 2 who confirmed 500, 10 who confirmed 100 or 1000 who confirmed 1 previously?

How about the actual case: many thousands of entities, who confirmed hundreds of thousands of previous results?

Would many thousands of entities, who confirmed hundreds of thousands of previous results be preferable over hundreds of thousands of entities, who confirmed many thousands of previous results?

I think I'm pretty much ok with either one.

How few executions (or partial?) could one get away with?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com