Hacker News Reader

Comment by gtirloni | Hacker News Reader

Why should we base critical infrastructure on completely anonymous building blocks? There is no mention about who is working on this, their motivations, the domain is behind WhoisGuard, etc. Why is it so critical to become anonymous as a developer in this case? Perhaps I'm missing something but is the FBI/CIA going after anyone working on blockchain/crypto stuff nowadays?

It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I can't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes.

View on HN

>It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I can't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes.

What additional information would get get from the name of the people behind this? How is Bitcoin in any way shady? It's an open protocol and most people use open-source clients to access it. You (and anyone else - including people with a lot of money riding on it) can verify that you trust the code, even if you don't have any idea who wrote it. Compare to a bank's process, where if you even try and reverse engineer the protocol you're risking jailtime.

> Perhaps I'm missing something but is the FBI/CIA going after anyone working on blockchain/crypto stuff nowadays?

There's some evidence they're monitoring people who are interested in Tor and the Tails Linux distribution. There's very good reason to assume that working on crypto stuff gets you on a list.

At the bottom:

"currently maintained by the team at onename.io"

https://onename.io/about

There's also links to the github repos.

I like the idea they're going for here, but I agree. For something like this to work, it should be as transparent as possible and easy to audit.

Could you elaborate on your point on Bitcoin? I'm not an expert, but I have some experience with it and it seems to be pretty thoroughly open, transparent, and auditable. It's certainly more clear than banking processes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com