If we are to neuter government power still further, removing their controlling grasp on ID systems is essential. While PGP is not perfect, it is highly functional and proven in several important ways, and over a huge stretch of time (essentially since the modern commercialization of the internet in the 1st half of the 1990's). If we are to continue the manifestation of crypto-anarchy and cypher punk culture into the mainstream (in which Bitcoin is the 1st major success), then understanding the need for decentralized IDs, that allow us to prove who we are and that our messages are authentically our own, then PGP (or some successor tech) will be inevitably a part of it.
Decentralized IDs or free market IDs are indeed a necessary step for rendering governs as irrelevant. At the moment there are many types of IDs which alternate the govern-issued IDs but they function at a small scale and they are centralized, being issued by various entities (mostly companies). For example, let's take the access badges that so many companies issue for their employees. Such badges function as alternate IDs: they authenticate the owner of the badge, they show a picture of the possessor and also the name. Other similar alt-IDs can be considered the cards with points, vouchers or various discounts offered by some companies to the loyal customers. These cards also function as IDs as the customer can be properly identified in a database by the company and in the database are stored his her name, address, a history of the shopping made, the points earned, the vouchers used and so on.
And yet, governs don't object to any of these IDs. Why? Because they are not considered official authentication documents at a worldwide scale. An employee of McDonald's which has a badge issued by the company is recognized inside the company, but is not recognized if he travels in another country and tries to authenticate with that badge in front of another individual.
These IDs are used at a small scale, are not recognized outside the company which issued them and, most important, they are centralized. That's why governs allow them:
because the mean no danger to the governs.
On the other side, the crypto-anarchy approach proposes something completely different: alternative IDs which are worldwide recognized, at least inside a web of trust. The problem and a possible solution were
forseen by Tim May almost 30 years ago:
"Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner. Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other. Interactions over networks will be untraceable, via extensive re- routing of encrypted packets and tamper-proof boxes which implement cryptographic protocols with nearly perfect assurance against any tampering. Reputations will be of central importance, far more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today. These developments will alter completely the nature of government regulation, the ability to tax and control economic interactions, the ability to keep information secret, and will even alter the nature of trust and reputation.
Practically, Tim May was proposing a web of trust based on the participants reputation of free market,
this leading to the others to trust the reputation of one individual, no matter his name, be it John, Mendax or Dread Pirate Roberts. Speaking of which, this form of reputation was also adopted by Silk Road. But not only by Silk Road. It is broadly implemented in various Internet societies, including on BitcoinTalk. I also wrote a topic of the importance of the reputation of the free market, referring also to how this system is used on the forum:
Why reputation is essential on the free market.
So if now a forum member with a great reputation - let's say philipma or mikeywith, both having a great reputation in Bitmain coupons and mining equipment business - would contact a forum member selling some coupons; if they would ask the other member to send the coupon first and they would send the money after, many of potential coupons owners would proceed this way. Why? Because both philipma and mikeywith are illustruous members of the forum, with so many merits earned; because they have positive feedbacks; because they have reputation; and because they have a good Trust Score. For the seller it doesn't matter that he knows philipma by the name philipma and not by the True Name. It doesn't matter where philipma lives, how old he is etc. It only matters that a user
authenticated on the forum as philipma is interested in making a deal with him. And this
name nym, philipma, is the alternate ID used here, inside this society of BitcoinTalk.
In part, Tim May's forecat already came true.Meaning that reputation systems are implemented and vastly used. The problem is that it doesn't exist (
yet) a complete web of trust, where any user can authenticate with an alternate ID on any site. For example, a Reddit user with high reputation to be recognized here, on BitcoinTalk, based on his nym, where his reputation is "stored". We need to develop further this web of trust and find a way for global authentication based on our nyms which wear also our reputation, no matter if my name would be John, yours would be Mike and so on. The nym carries the reputation in this case, not the real name.
So this is the direction where I think the efforts should be focused. This can't be implemented over the night. But in time, a web of trust may develop and expand itself. Once this will be real, the governs won't be able to oppose in any way the alternate IDs, as they will be used at a large scale, on a pure free market, by each participant.
And these IDs would be the Nyms of the users, not their Names.But governs know this. They are aware of the danger. This is why they try to apply KYC everywhere. Even for donations!!! They need KYC, because KYC offers the True Names, while the free market requires only the
True Nyms. And as a justification for the severe enforced KYC they (the governs) always refer to the
Four Horsemen of Infocalypse.
All this KYC nonsense is based on the idea of the
Four Horsemen of Infocalypse. Which are money launderers, drug lords, terrorists and pedophiles. The idea is greatly debated by Julian Assange in his book
Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet. Other great minds are also part of the book, such as Jacob Appelbaum (TOR developer), Andy Müller (a hacker which is a member of Chaos Computer Club (CCC)) and Jérémie Zimmermann (co-founder of
La Quadrature du Net).
Governs are emphasizing that all these decisions are based on combating these four horsemen, but it's a lie. The problems determined by the horsemen of infocalypse can be mitigated with other ways, not with KYC. Besides, make sure to read also 1miau's topic
Why KYC is extremely dangerous and useless which is complementary to OP.
We need to prove to the world that governs' false fears of the four horsemen are, indeed, false. And we need to develop the web of trust. When these will happen, we will be able to authenticate everywhere with alternate IDs: and these will be our
True Nyms.
