How a possible governance balance can be created with a biometric proof-of-identity system
How a possible governance balance can be created with a biometric proof-of-identity system
-Anonymity isn't what the world needs, fair governance influence is.
We often talk about governance and how crypto has managed to decentralize things, with every reference heading at the functionality of a "DAO" but in reality, this is a capitalist structure, and not purely fair when you consider that stakes influence it. Decentralization should imply that a system leverages the wisdom of the people, individually, at a fair shot. If we're to apply that to governance based on the structures of the current "DAOs" we have, it just doesn't have a chance to scale if there's a price on it.
Reputation based governance system - based on one token influence( a non-fungible one).
I believe I'm most definitely not the first to think of things from the ankle of reputation, though the word "reputation" means a lot more, but in this context, we're only looking at it from an identity point of view, a "proof-of-identity" concept.
A truly decentralized structure has to allow everyone, with or without good intentions, a fair shot at governance influence. The world is a shit show today because most people that got up there did it with money, and so, nothing else matters as they sit at the very top based on the weight of their pockets.
The only way to rule out that poorly designed system of governance is to reduce everyone to "1" token based influence.
The problem with such a system is how to verify that one is who they claim to be( considering it's a digital space), and not one creating multiple identities to rig the governance voting process. We can achieve this through biometric screening.
As weird as it might sound, here's a much more detailed explanation:
Proof-of-identity: Biometric verification based system of governance.
Biometric verifications are usually the simplest security structures, it takes the shortest time to get it all running, we have lots of people already using this in different ways, but primarily via smartphones, why can't it be used as a reputation system in blockchain powered projects?
It can and it should.
A biometric scan doesn't reveal one's face to everyone, so for starters, it's not a threat, even if it did, I don't think anyone has ever cared much as many already use it.
With this concept, we have to first understand that it isn't a requirement, yes, hive accounts should be free for anyone to create and function with, so operating without partaking in this process would still be possible, but taking `` governance'' into consideration, this verification process is adopted to prove one's identity and issue a token validating one and equally granting the governance influence.
How would it work?
Let's reflect on how a transaction on the Bitcoin network works. When a bitcoin transaction is initiated, its first destination is the mempool, until it is picked by a miner and grouped into blocks, each transaction has a hash, which together forms a merkle tree with a root hash when grouped in blocks, representing all of them.
Now, for a block to be added to the chain, the header has to be hashed in an attempt to meet the difficulty level of the network. When energy is expended and a proof is acquired, the miner of that block earns a reward.
A similar concept with a little more can be adopted here, but this time, we're working with biometrics also, not just tokens or coin transactions. When a fingerprint enrollment perhaps begins(a minimum of 7 fingerprint enrollment should be required by default to combat fraud), the converted prints would first find its way to a pool where it waits to be picked, when a miner picks a the transaction, considering the transaction is signed with both an active key and a memo key, what would actually separate this with other transaction would be the encryption of these print codes.
A miner should not be able to decrypt the information and can only tell what transaction it is by its unique hash. That tells it that there are more, signed with the same private keys and memo keys with a special tag that identifies it as an enrollment. So basically, 7 different transactions with print encryptions, creating a unique hash that would always turn out the same provided the same information is entered.
These print codes are converted into hashes, these hashes would then form a merkle-tree-like structure, where a single root hash would represent the rest. The block header of this transaction would contain the account name, timestamp, block height and print root hash(merkle root like function). To keep things simple, such blocks would be dedicated to a single account.
In more details, every account on hive(for example) is given one opportunity to do this, and to make it possible for this transaction to appear on the network, an account would be required to have a tiny hive balance(or probably a token that is issued to every account upon creation, this token would not be tradable), which would always be directed to an autonomous address that would issue a unique NFT minted with the metadata of that enrollment transaction. The NFT becomes a governance influence, it is not tradable or transferable, it's just an added piece of the account, an identity verification.
Why would it work?
A fingerprint returns a specific code, and all codes run through a hashing algorithm will always return the same hash. This hash makes up the print tree, with a root hash representing all of them. A change in any of the print codes would result in a totally different hash. Not to forget that these enrollments are posted to the chain, and so, trying to change or manipulate the data would require re-enrolling and each account only gets to do this once.
An added security for this concept would be to limit the process to a certain validation time frame, where a larger number of witnesses have to sign that the following print hashes do not already exist on the network.
This makes it impossible for a user to register multiple accounts, worst case scenario two accounts can be registered with toe prints, but what harm can that do when there are thousands of accounts with equal voting rights?
What are the downsides of this?
The unfortunate scenario where one has no fingers or toes to enroll.
In situations like this, a means for the community to trigger the autonomous to issue an NFT of proof of identity to such people could be developed, in this case, the people in mention have to prove their identity in some other way to get enough support to get verified.
In summary, the NFT is the proof of identity and also what grants accounts governance influence, the biometric is only a means of earning it. In such a system, everyone has equal influence in decision making.
August, this was when I wrote down this concept but was sceptical to publish, but after seeing this introductory guide to humanode on cointelegraph, I was triggered to share.
Let me know what you think.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta