Just to add to your excellent description, one can draw an analogy between the id_token and a VC.
But an id_token usually has an audience which is the RP, and a short expiration. A VC is issued for the user (aka holder), with long or no expiration to store in wallet.
A VC is bound to the user’s did (think pk thumbprint) and is useless without a proper presentation. A verifier does not expect just the VC but a V. Presentation signed by the user.
This is where using id_tokens as vcs will fall short. Once you give it to one verifier, you could assume is public.
The good thing about VCs is that is standard and easy to grasp. There are too many flavors though
- When auth0 act as an issuer, it issue credentials with did:web
- when auth0 act as a verifier it can verify credentials and presentations issued with: did:web, did:key, did:ethr and did:ion
- The provided demo wallet at https://wallet.verifiablecredentials.dev/ supports did:key, did:ion and did:ethr
This is possible currently with zero knowledge proofs.
There are mainly two different types one is "selective disclosure", where the verifier require some fields but it is up to the Holder to select which one to disclose.
The other one allows the Holder to create proofs about claims, like "I am over 18" without disclosing the birthday. The cryptography for this seems sound, but to be honest it is hard to grasp.
For a working example you could have a look at this:
I remember we played Price of Persia without soundcard and one day my father came to tell me he saw the game in someone’s else computer and he could listen the steps and the junp.. we got a Sound Blaster 16 for that Christmas which came in a huge box. Bigger than a laptop today
Edit: maybe it wasn’t prince of persia, I am confused now.
The Prince of Persia had such iconic footsteps. I think in part it was the rhythm. You could never go more than one screen-width before the steps would pause as the next screen appeared, so even when you were zooming through well-known territory, there was a start-stop rhythm.
If I close my eyes, I think I could even work out the width of the screen in steps. I think around 10 or 11.
True, but I would argue that oppressive facist regimes pretty much exists because they can print their money to rip off common and working people. I am sure that if you ask russians if they are willing to give away their hard earned money to buy tanks in order to support a crazy dictator they probably will answer no.
So they must have solved the problem of writing completely bug-free software then? Otherwise leaving your money with an unpatchable service seems like a really bad idea.
I can see you didn't click the link otherwise you will have read the section about that.
"They" didn't solve that problem, it is not the solution to all problems in finances. So, whats your point? Vaccines does not prevent 100% of infections, does that means that they are worthless?
Which section are you referring to? The one that says "Coding errors and hacks are common in DeFi"?
You said that the contract, i.e. the software, is immutable. This means that it can't be patched. If it can be patched it's not immutable, excepting semantic trickery like each version of the contract being immutable while what "the contract" points to can be changed in order to patch it.
Fair point, I shouldn't have mention that you can put your stable coins into a DeFi protocol because even if that's interesting is not the point of the answer.
I wanted to address that in the world of crypto there are stable assets pegged to some other FIAT if you want that.
Sorry if this becomes long but I need to explain my point of view. I live in a country that is not as authoritarian as Russia but is not a free economy like the US, people don't trust on FIAT and on banks because it had happened before that they took all our savings [1]. Even if this might seem like an isolated event, it happens every day. For example, if you work remote for a company abroad, the gov will exchange your USD on a wire transfer for the local currency and then not allow you to buy back USD. Our currency had a 60% of inflation last year.
I don't like the speculative aspect of crypto currencies, its volatility creeps me out. I wouldn't want to put my life saving on this. But I can see its value to circumvent corrupt governments and to make a free world. I do believe in humanity, the Putins are an exception and when you give people the opportunity to collaborate, most of them will choose to have a peaceful living.
Now, going back to your Turkish bonds vs DeFi. The difference is you can't buy those anonymously and at any point the gov. or exchange. They actually pay that much because no one wants to buy them, primarly because they don't trust they are going to pay that much. In a way, you can think of DeFi protocols are immutable math functions [2].
It's true. Crypto-currencies operate in a black market and therefore enable people to circumvent financial regulations. But circumventing regulations put up by incompetent governments doesn't address the root of the problem which is the fact that you have an incompetent government, and this has a whole range of consequences that go beyond mere currency issues, and that you won't be able to "circumvent" with or without crypto-currencies. So, in my opinion, you really need to address the problem and abandon the illusion that crypto-currencies will fix anything.
it is interesting that you referred to “black market”. If you come from a working democracy where what is “just” is close to what is “fair”, then “black market” can make you think of drugs, weapons, or these sort of ilegal things. But I want to let you know that in some countries we have to go to the black market to buy another FIAT with less inflation because it is illegal to exchange our currency even to protect our savings.
So, yeah we can call it black market but I like the term “free market”.
Say the central bank of XYZ set a fixed rate of 100 $xyz per USD but it becomes illegal to buy USD and no any bank is willing to sell you USD. In a country like the United States you might hedge against inflation by buying some treasuries.. but in other places they just make it illegal to do anything else.
This automatically creates a “black market” of USD where the price is whatever the people are willing to pay, in the end the free market finds its way.
Again, a black market is not a free market. A free market exists within a legal framework in which rules are enforced. In contrast, a black market is a clandestine market, where illegal transactions take place. This means, for example, that participants in the black market don't have legal recourse in the event of fraud.
“ In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market without market coercions. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority other than those interventions which are made to prohibit market coercions.”
The definition doesn’t say anything about legal, illegal or regulated.
So, you have a different definition to most economists.
It is a market where prices are self regulated by supply and demand, without coercion. It perfectly suits for the exchange of of FIATs (or crypto) between parties.
You can call it whatever you want, anyways.
I recommend “Free to Choose” from Friedman as starting point.
You're mistaken. Most economists understand the difference between a free market and a black market in the same way that I do (I am an economist myself). The very definition of free market that you quoted implies the existence of a legal framework and of an authority with coercive power, since some behaviours are prohibited:
"In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority other than those interventions which are made to prohibit market coercions. Examples of such prohibited market coercions include: economic privilege, monopolies, and artificial scarcities."
Further, a market in which fraudsters can commit fraud with impunity is also not a free market but a dysfunctional market.
At any rate, the notion of free market is only vaguely defined, as it's not an important theoretical construct in economics.
As far as crypto-currency markets are concerned, these are not a single market, but many different markets, some of which are heavily regulated, so it's hard to argue that it's a free market.
My point is exactly the opposite, incompetent gov are a byproduct of having too much power to control the money supply. Do you think Putin will still be in power if he couldn’t control the economy, ie if he had no money? In that case, what’s the point of the sanctions?
The cicle which I am most familiar with, goes by like this: gov destroys private enterprise and free economy thru regulations and expropriations, unemployment goes up and people gets dependent on hand outs, the remaining jobs bears all the costs. Unemployed sees gov are they gods, they will kept voting for them forever, even if they live in complete missery, it is all they have.
Well, this theory is easily refuted by the fact that there are governments that have the same degree of power and control over the economy and don't wreck the economy. Some governments cause hyperinflation, but most don't, even though all are in control of the money supply. The fact that a government can mismanage the economy doesn't mean that it will mismanage the economy. In fact incompetent governments such as the Argentinian government are not that common. In many parts of the world the rule is for governments to be competent, or at least to be competent enough to not cause an economic catastrophe.
Unfortunately data is not in your side. Most countries do not have economic freedom, moreover the less the economic freedom the worse the living conditions [1].
You might think that any country controls their money supply, that’s a fact. But can Biden for example, double the monetary base with his sole signature?
People in those countries could have great aspirations, to have a fair system, a working democracy, a better government and all that… but don’t forget they also need to live in the meanwhile, while fixing all those problems.
I’m not a user of crypto currently, but I see it as a way of shifting power. Similar to what the internet did for information.
All I'm saying is crypto is not going to make the institutions of your country work any better. Don't create the illusion that crypto solves a problem that it doesn't solve.
> So what did I do? I simply told him I would never give him a raise again.
It is true that salary have been always losing purchasing power but don't forget also that employees have compulsory raises. This comes from two sources:
1. minimum wage raises
2. believe it or not, unions negotiate with the gov the raises, those are called here "paritarias".
Everything is broken here, laws favor the employees always and that's why no one wants to start a business. When you talk with small businesses this is their number one fear.
Half of the population is convinced that business and owners are the devil, and that they need to die in fire.
I moved from a broken society to a first-world one. I’m supremely lucky in this.
There are many interlinked systems that have to work for a society to progress. It’s nearly impossible to line up all the required factors at the same time. Makes it rather frustrating when first-worlders shit on their own cultures.
Maybe a little off topic, but in my country you will have a very good life with $390 per month and yet we have near 35% of our population living on poverty.
The minimum wage is a little lower than that and there are a lot of laws favoring employees which makes it really hard for companies to hire. Just to give you an example, last year the president signed a decree to forbid companies firing people with the excuse of covid, nothing but a populist measure. The result is that no company will ever hire here, which creates more unemployment.
I mention this because giving a lot of rights to employees by law sounds good but I have seen and lived the consequences my entire life.
Should apple on their own pay more to chineese people? I think another comment address that, at the end is an scarcity problem, supply and demand.
But an id_token usually has an audience which is the RP, and a short expiration. A VC is issued for the user (aka holder), with long or no expiration to store in wallet.
A VC is bound to the user’s did (think pk thumbprint) and is useless without a proper presentation. A verifier does not expect just the VC but a V. Presentation signed by the user.
This is where using id_tokens as vcs will fall short. Once you give it to one verifier, you could assume is public.
The good thing about VCs is that is standard and easy to grasp. There are too many flavors though