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 +1412,128 @@ <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.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <p> | |
| When implementing or utilizing a DID method, consideration should be given | |
| to the environmental impacts of any underlying technologies. | |
| Avoidance of excess energy use that does not further other equally important | |
| goals such as human rights or personal privacy, particularly when that energy | |
| is sourced from non-sustainable energy creation methods, should be a best | |
| practice that serves the interest of all. | |
| </p> | |
| <p> | |
| When securing Decentralized Identifier systems, consideration should be given | |
| to the full range of attack vectors, interdiction points, and centralization forces | |
| vs the level of security required, or desired, to protect against them. Costs are | |
| often associated with securing a wide array of systems, both digital and physical, | |
| from computational systems to brick and mortar facilities. Decentralized Identifiers | |
| may become the foundation for some of the most valuable activities in human life, | |
| thus the level of security and protection against the harms outlined above should | |
| be commensurate with the level of importance of what is being secured. | |
| </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
s/vs/relative to/
s/often associated/associated/
s/thus the level/and the level/
s/importance of what is/importance of the thing(s)/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But that's not really enough... @csuwildcat, your suggestion completely changes what's being said, eliminating the concern of energy consumption, which is not completely eliminated by switching to solar or wind or other generative methods because each has its own cost -- and by consuming those generative resources (including the resources involved in converting solar rays or wind to electricity, and getting that electricity to its point of consumption, including battery or other storage), you are potentially depriving other consumes of those resources, who are just trying to switch from non-renewable to renewable energy sources (a/k/a the general populace), not trying to add new consumption.... sigh
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <p> | |
| The guiding principle that | |
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable">the | |
| web must be an environmentally sustainable platform</a> should be followed. | |
| </p> | |
| <p> | |
| Implementers should keep in mind the guiding principle that | |
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable">the | |
| web must be an environmentally sustainable platform</a>, but 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. | |
| </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are the most important factors to account for is a rather strong and subjective statement, which does not flow from nor integrate well with the quoted W3 principles.
I suggest a larger revision here --
s/
web must be an environmentally sustainable platform</a>, but 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.
</p>
/
web must be an environmentally sustainable platform</a>, and balance this with
the security and protection of critical systems, like identifier networks that
may become the foundation for critical activities in human life.
</p>
/
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.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we have the sections above, which talk about weighing these same things, I don't think we need to reiterate it here. If desired, we can just add the mention of privacy and interoperability to the text alongside security.
| <p> | |
| When selecting a DID method, the method that minimizes energy consumption | |
| while meeting privacy, interoperability, and other technical requirements | |
| should generally be chosen. | |
| </p> |
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is really outside the bounds of what a protocol implementer should be asked to do by a developer guide. Additionally, every DID method imaginable (besides self-resolving ones like did:key) will change in consumption and behavior over time, so to ask people to do running third-party energy assessments is particularly strange.
To illustrate how strange this is, imagine you asked everyone using BitTorrent as the basis for file transfer to do an environmental report on all BitTorrent servers, traffic, and resource usage on machines across the world. We should not be injecting ourselves into the use of systems like this, imo.
| <p class="advisement"> | |
| It is strongly recommended that authors of DID methods provide an assessment | |
| of energy usage and impact of their DID method, preferably performed by | |
| an independent third party. | |
| </p> |
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <p> | |
| When implementing or utilizing a DID method, consideration should be given | |
| to the environmental impacts of any underlying technologies. | |
| Avoidance of excess energy use that does not further other equally important | |
| goals such as human rights or personal privacy, particularly when that energy | |
| is sourced from non-sustainable energy creation methods, should be a best | |
| practice that serves the interest of all. | |
| </p> | |
| <p> | |
| Direct comparison of each factor, and the balances between them, should be | |
| considered when evaluating particular methods or approaches. Notably, the | |
| ability to misuse or control DIDs that could impede privacy might be | |
| found to be inversely correlated with additional energy consumption. | |
| </p> | |
| <p> | |
| The guiding principle that | |
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable">the | |
| web must be an environmentally sustainable platform</a> should be followed. | |
| </p> | |
| <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> | |
| When selecting a DID method, the method that minimizes energy consumption | |
| while meeting privacy, interoperability, and other technical requirements | |
| should generally be chosen. | |
| </p> | |
| <p class="advisement"> | |
| It is strongly recommended that authors of DID methods provide an assessment | |
| of energy usage and impact of their DID method, preferably performed by | |
| an independent third party. | |
| </p> | |
| <p> | |
| The energy usage and other environmental impacts of a DID-based solution | |
| should also be compared to existing approaches, which are often paper based | |
| and/or require shipment of legacy certificates via air or other methods, and | |
| thus can have extremely high environmental impacts. These should be factored | |
| in when performing an assessment of energy usage and environmental impacts | |
| of potential replacement DID-based solutions. | |
| </p> | |
| <p> | |
| When implementing or utilizing a DID method, consideration should be given | |
| to the environmental impacts of any underlying technologies. | |
| </p> | |
| <p> | |
| Decentralized Identifiers allow people to use identifiers that | |
| are not under centralized control, | |
| which supports the guiding principle that | |
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#control">the | |
| web must enhance individuals' control and power</a>. | |
| Where there is environmental impact in maintaining unique | |
| infrastructure to support a new DID method, the W3C would like | |
| DID method developers to weigh the importance of user control | |
| and privacy against the guiding principle that | |
| <a href="https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable">the | |
| web must be an environmentally sustainable platform</a>. | |
| </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This section should be drastically simplified because it (still) reads like an attack on proof-of-work. That was clearly intended, but is not appropriate for the following reasons:
-
there is technically no other way to provide the decentralization functionality that proof-of-work ledgers provide to users who need it most;
-
Bitcoin-anchored DID methods do not increase the hashrate when a user joins on, and they would not decrease the hashrate if they were magically shut off;
-
the cost the end user pays to use the DID method is already a good indicator of the energy-inclusive expense of creating their DID, so there's no need to ask DID method editors to attempt an estimate when more accurate data is impossible to gather;
-
CBECI's dramatic Bitcoin mining energy use estimates (as linked earlier in this thread) rely on stale inefficient hardware assumptions which make the numbers look bigger; and
-
there is a lot of other misinformation that takes time to explain out there about the whole energy argument, and we need less scaremongering.
I hope that explains why this undue focus on proof-of-work energy usage is inappropriate from a technical perspective. My edits above allow the W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles their say, which is enough.
For more information, in addition to the articles linked above, Andreas Antonopoulos recently made an 8-minute video about energy regulation and carbon taxation as it relates to Bitcoin mining.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an editor (and the author of this original PR) I like the additional language you have added. That language is very clean. The key thing from this PR is is to show that regardless of personal feelings that there is a lot of balance that needs to be carefully considered, and that we clearly show to voting parties that we have considered possible arguments both for and against POW. There is a clear balance between energy usage, privacy, and application of the tech (e.g. some problems are worth throwing high amounts of resources) that the developer should consider when selecting or authoring a did method, including overall purpose of that method. Being that this is non-normative note, calling out specific details of things to consider is not, nor should be considered harmful. I agree, that in many (if not most cases) energy use criticisms of certain ledgers are unfounded, especially as we see a move towards location near and sourcing of energy from renewable sources, as well as a general trend (driven by economics) to source power from "overflow" or excess generation as required to keep the grid stable. These are good trends.
Selection of an approach that has higher energy consumption, but that sources that energy from renewables, and solves a problem related to forced labor with better privacy and individual control than any other technical approach, would be highly justified and defensible, as opposed to an approach that gives up privacy or individual control. Laying that thought process out is helpful.
The reality is, that as an editor on this guide, I need to consider the arguments being raised against DIDs as a whole, regardless of my feelings or thoughts on the matter, and right now several prominent groups/individuals, primarily those who have not been engaged with DIDs from either a spec or implementation perspective, are publicly raising concerns regarding possible negative ESG impacts from the use of DIDs.
While within the community these conversations have been had, and the trade offs are well understood, outside the community headlines grab attention, and it is up to us to demonstrate to the outside world that "we have considered these trade offs, and you should too". As an editor, I have to consider the public "attack on proof-of-work", even though I feel that it has inherent fundamental flaws, especially because it looks only at the "Environmental" aspect of ESG, and then, only narrowly, not looking at the total energy balance and benefits, especially on the "Social" aspect of ESG. This is very clear when we look at paper or plastic based systems for people and things identification systems in place which have huge overheads from an energy and environmental impact standpoint, especially in the supply chain. If we can document some of these trade offs an concerns, and clearly show that as a community we have considered these items, and encourage developers to do so as well, then, while certain objections to DIDs based on ESG concerns may not be retracted, they certainly can be shown not yo be a a reason to reject the spec and approach as a whole.
In general there is a balance to be had. If this were the spec itself, i would strongly object to adding any of this kind of language. As guidance to a developer however, thinking through the full implications of an approach is a good thing, as too often we see the adoption of cool new tech for its own sake, and then pay for the consequences as a society later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an editor (and the author of this original PR) I like the additional language you have added.
LOL, "stop hitting yourself!"
I do not consent to the use of my name on the patch as you have applied it, because I do not consent to leaving 7.2 as is.
I proposed to remove the inappropriate language in section 7.2, for the reasons I've given, and the words I offered were in place of it. My patch should be applied as it was offered.
[...] and that we clearly show to voting parties that we have considered possible arguments both for and against POW.
That's what this Github record is for. The plainly negative scaremongering going on in section 7.2 does not show such consideration. The way to remove the scaremongering is to apply my patch as intended.
[...] and right now several prominent groups/individuals, primarily those who have not been engaged with DIDs from either a spec or implementation perspective, are publicly raising concerns regarding possible negative ESG impacts from the use of DIDs.
"Concerns regarding possible" is not a specific complaint that can be resolved. The specification process works best when technical concerns are brought to be judged on the technical merits. That is what is going on in this proposed pull request, with specific proposed words. You are responsible for words that you propose until the unnamed parties show up and take responsibility for words that they propose. Either way, the technical merits should prevail.
[...] If we can document some of these trade offs an concerns, and clearly show that as a community we have considered these items, and encourage developers to do so as well, then, while certain objections to DIDs based on ESG concerns may not be retracted, they certainly can be shown not yo be a a reason to reject the spec and approach as a whole.
Our discussions show what we have considered. We do not need to scare developers using vague derogatory warnings that don't stand on the technical merits.
In general there is a balance to be had. If this were the spec itself, i would strongly object to adding any of this kind of language. As guidance to a developer however, thinking through the full implications of an approach is a good thing, as too often we see the adoption of cool new tech for its own sake, and then pay for the consequences as a society later.
My patch, offering a Section 7.2 pointing at the TAG principles, offers balance.
The existing Section 7.2's vague derogatory warnings about energy usage are not okay, because as I've already shown in this thread, they promote an unbalanced and ignorant narrative that is being aggressively pushed despite lacking technical merit.
As things stand now, I object to this entire pull request.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@csuwildcat @selfissued does Microsoft have any similar initiatives for ION?
Outdated
mprorock marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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.