New section on environmental impacts #27
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1412,6 +1412,153 @@ <h3>Biometrics</h3> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </section> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </section> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h2>Environmental and Ethical Considerations</h2> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The following section details certain key areas of focus when implementing a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| new DID menthod, or implementing a solution that incorporates DIDs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A reliable guide for making assessments of various technologies and weighing | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ethical considerations is the | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/">W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles</a> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| document. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Broad Ethical Principles</h3> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Decentralized Identifiers may come to underpin much of our digital life. This | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| may include our public social and career personas, as well our private personas | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| shared between friends and family. Identifiers representing these personas and | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| relationships are some of the most important in people's lives, and great care | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| should be taken when securing an identifier system that supports these critical | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| activities. As with all things, strong consideration for the appropriate and ethical | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| use of technology should be made when implementing items related to DIDs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As noted in the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#principles">Principles</a> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| section of the Ethical Web Principles, there are certain key goals that should | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| apply to all Web standards and technologies. DIDs explicitly support several | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| of these goals, especially the following: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <ul> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <li><a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#privacy">Privacy</a></li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <li><a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#control">Individual Control</a></li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <li><a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#multi">Device Independence</a></li> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </ul> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </p> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| </section> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <section class="informative"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Energy Usage and Environmental Impacts</h3> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <h3>Energy Usage and Environmental Impacts</h3> | |
| <h3>Cost Considerations for Securing Decentralized Identifier Systems</h3> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed - I think the trick is to fully acknowledge some of the concerns from folks looking at DIDs, but show clearly where we think there are tradeoffs that merit a developer picking one approach vs another. e.g. DIDs engaged in use cases related to requirements for strong personal privacy and control vs other cases
Going to be taking a pass on a rewrite of this whole section today
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Showing tradeoffs that you think merit one thing or another is inappropriate for guiding implementations, and is appropriate for the Rubric work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Referring to the Rubric -- including its developing metrics/focuses regarding energy consumption and security features and other features, and the relations between these (which may include notes like "barring special attention, a change in the level of this benefit/cost will typically cause a parallel/inverse/multiple change in the level of that benefit/cost") -- all of which will play a role in deployment choices a/k/a method adoption -- is appropriate for the Implementation Guide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Securing Decentralized Identifier Systems" is defined in the spec as https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#dfn-verifiable-data-registry and we should avoid inventing new words for the same concept.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <p class="advisement"> | |
| Utilizing or authoring DID methods that require unsustainably-sourced | |
| energy as part of their technical implementation or utilization should | |
| be very carefully considered in balance against alternative approaches. | |
| </p> | |
| <p class="advisement"> | |
| Utilizing or authoring DID methods that degrade security and | |
| protection against the full range of attack vectors, interdiction | |
| points, and centralization forces in trade for perceived gains in | |
| system-external subjective factors should be very carefully | |
| considered in balance against alternative approaches that | |
| provide the highest levels of security and protection. | |
| </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@csuwildcat how about something like this:
<p class="advisement">
Utilizing or authoring DID methods that compromise on
the principles of security and / or control for other principles
of such as environmental concerns should be very carefully
considered in balance against alternative approaches that
provide the highest levels of security and protection
depending on the use case involved. For matters that concern
human rights, selection of approaches that are weighted towards
privacy and control should outweigh other considerations.
</p>
Thought being, that for areas where personal ID is involved I am highly skeptical of methods that do not opt for a proof of work approach at the current time, simply because of the privacy, security, and end user control compromises that are made with other approaches. However, there are a lot of use cases for DIDs that may have lesser requirements in those areas. A specific case I am thinking of is an area where our system issues a DID for discrete sources of data that have been identified. We often utilize did:key for this, which then gives us options depending on the scenario and environment as to how to approach anchoring, etc. if required, but also gives us the option to lighten compute and network load where appropriate, while still being able to benefit from a DID based approach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The above is written in very strong subjective language (degrade, perceived, subjective, highest) which appears to be intended to be read as an objective analysis. I wanted to suggest some language to help improve it, but it's as above -- switch from "try to conserve energy in your efforts to increase 'security'" to "consume all energy to increase 'security'!" -- to which I strongly object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TallTed thoughts on the alternate language I offered? I think it could use some edits
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TallTed this is actually shifting the conversation to the more empirical topic of security, specifically protecting against "the full range of attack vectors, interdiction points, and centralization forces". These are critical aspects of system design that can be addressed with specific technical mitigations within implementations, thus it's probably a better basis for framing the considerations at bar.
I must push back strongly against the hyperbolic framing that this is switching to a premise that implementers should "consume all energy to increase 'security'!". There are many things wrong here, not least of which is that electricity != emissions (all electricity generation worldwide = just 25% of emissions), but the whole point of these changes is to avoid opening this up to inherently subjective value perceptions that the other premise will draw into the discussion.
If we assume a basis for articulation that invites subjective value perceptions, you may see PRs adding text that challenge people to justify why what may become some of the most important infra in human life is not valuable enough to protect with implementations that provide the highest levels of security. The most notable exemplar of a highly secure substrate commonly used today is equivalent to ~1/100th of the emissions impact from cow farts or 1/24th the emissions impact of clothes dryers. I personally believe what may become some of the most important infra for humans is worth ~1/100th of the emissions impact from cow farts or 1/24th the emissions impact of clothes dryers, but I don't want to have to ask others why they don't, which is why we should avoid that previous premise for articulating the considerations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[@csuwildcat] the more empirical topic of security, specifically protecting against "the full range of attack vectors, interdiction points, and centralization forces".
At minimum, for this phrasing to do what you apparently meant, "full range" should be "full known range", as new vulnerability specimens surface regularly.
Next, please note that I referred nowhere to (presumably CO2 and other greenhouse gas) emissions in my words. I was reacting to what you said earlier --
ultimately security and protection of critical systems, like identifier networks that may become the foundation for critical activities in human life, are the most important factors to account for.
-- which I read as it was written -- i.e., security over all other considerations, amongst which I'm pretty sure you'll agree we find energy consumption.
Now, as to cow emissions... "Over 95 percent, actually, is from the mouth, from the front end of the cow." and In a year, a single cow can belch around 220 pounds of methane. Those articles show a cute new mask for the cows that can reduce their belch emissions by ~98%, and they've also separately found that adding a bit of seaweed (~1% or less, because of flavor issues -- not in the milk or beef, but the cows don't like >1%) to the cows' diet reduces overall emissions by ~80%, so your examples and/or figures will need some reworking.
Regarding clothes dryers, are you talking about gas or electric? Or is this some magic aggregate? Not that this is actually relevant to the discussion at hand, which, to my mind boils down to --
Balance the concerns associated with the DID methods you're considering using or implementing, including their relative energy consumption at scale, their relative security, etc. Sometimes higher security [note: there is no "highest" nor unbreakable security] is worth more energy consumption. Sometimes lowering energy consumption is worth lower security. It's horses for courses. The right tool for the right job. Don't use a hammer to drive a screw. Don't use a saw to drive a nail.
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This section starting with "avoidance of excess energy use" is inappropriate. The very term "excess energy use" presumes that such a thing is possible absent a political agenda that aligns priorities with different uses. One party using a million watt-hours to establish a censorship resistant, global currency--which has no other known solution--might be an underutilization of energy (efficient optimizations would find a supply/demand curve that meets at a much higher cost), while using that same electricity to power electric dryers--which literally have free alternatives available for those with lower time preferences--is a waste.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Best practice that serves the interest of all" is inappropriate as it presumes a common political framework and asserts its own politics as an unstated truth, so evident as to not need explanation nor citation.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From "Notably" onward, this paragraph devolves into an unfounded attack, asserting a false dichotomy between energy consumption and privacy. First, no such dichotomy exists. Second, statements like "XYZ might be found to [do bad stuff] with [the thing I don't like]" is blatant disinformation, distraction, and FUD, attacking the [thing I don't like] without actually claiming that it, in fact, DOES the bad thing.
If the bad thing is found to be causally linked, then cite the reference and make the argument. If it is NOT found to be a real effect, then such a statement is at best misdirection, but I would call it unaccountable libel: where you get away with maligning comments by prefacing them with insincere caveats that exist purely for deniability.
"might be found to" is a phrase that is unacceptable without expansion on the arguments both for and against. When exactly has it "been found to" and when doesn't it?
This is an implementation guide, not a political treatise for maligning methods the editors have a financial interest in challenging.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This entire paragraph, starting at "As part of this principle" is inappropriate and should be removed.
There are no known DID methods that require unsustainably-sourced energy.
None.
In fact, the DID methods that are being falsely maligned in this manner, those based on PoW chains, especially BTCR and did:ethr do not themselves require a new proof of work network. Rather, they utilize an existing infrastructure at extremely low marginal costs. The methods themselves don't require any new network infrastructure to be deployed, nor do they require that the energy used by the miners on those networks be "unsustainable". In fact, those methods ABSOLUTELY allow for sustainable mining, just like their underlying PoW networks do.
Blindly echoing the disinformation that censorship-resistant networks are environmentally unsustainable is not appropriate in this document.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This entire paragraph should be removed.
Minimizing energy consumption is not the point of identifier technology. Rather, it is a political opinion with which some people have incorrectly maligned PoW networks. One should choose the energy consumption profile that adequately addresses ones needs, and to do so as sustainably as possible.
This entire argument has also missed the very real fact that not only is bitcoin mining attracted to the lowest cost energy sources (which are increasingly sustainable), mining capacity is often added to energy systems that have unused capacity, enabling economic capture of of the excess energy produced when water that falls over the damn or wind that turns a turbine when demand is low. The net result is an increased profitability from these types of low-variance energy sources, which further decreases the cost of sustainable electricity, which further grows the percentage of energy WORLDWIDE that is sustainably produced. Shifting the break even point of new sustainable energy systems like wind farms, geo, hydro, and solar is already producing a shift in energy development and investment toward sustainable systems. Contrary to the disinformation narrative, there is a very real and non-zero increase in sustainable energy capacity precisely because PoW can turn fallow electrical production into positive economic returns.
In short, PoW networks already exist, they can be, and are, sustainably (as well as unsustainably) mined, and have a non-zero but hard to quantify positive impact on global, sustainable energy production, while providing a global service that many agree is worth the expense. Given that these networks already exist, utilizing them for globally resolvable proof of control for cryptographic identifiers is not a significant marginal impact on our environment.
Furthermore, DID methods, such as Ion make it possible to execute as many as 35,000 update transactions per second without requiring any additional energy expenditure (that is the total addressable opportunity for did:ion under the current specification).
I challenge anyone who claims that PoW is a waste of energy to demonstrate how you get a globally distributed transaction layer at that volume with less energy and without a central authority.
As such, arguing that "energy minimization" should "generally be chosen" is exactly the kind of politically manipulative language that needs to be excised from this implementation guide.
If all we wanted was to minimize energy, then we could just centralize everything into a single, bespoke asynchronous ASIC-based system that we all simply trust to be accurate.
But that's not what we are doing.
Centralizing can give you incredible economies of scale. That's why we have centralized systems.
But that's not what we are building here. As such, the innate hatchet job of this PR remains, IMO, completely inappropriate.
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strike "energy use" here. It's not appropriate to call that out. ALL environmental impacts should be considered equally, without elevating any. It is that selective elevation that makes these comments political and inappropriate.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| in when performing an assessment of energy usage and environmental impacts | |
| in when performing an assessment of environmental impacts |
Elevating energy use is political rather than technical. This should be removed.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This claim presents a false dichotomy of a tradeoff between environmental concerns and security. There is no such tradeoff inherent in DIDs. This is not zooko's triangle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Section has been removed - @jandrieu are you ok with me resolving this and the other "outdated" feedback now that that tradeoff section is pulled?
Outdated
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@csuwildcat @selfissued does Microsoft have any similar initiatives for ION?
Outdated
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consumed energy is not an appropriate call out here.
I tried to replace that language with "environmental impact" but then the entire sentence didn't make sense.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.