Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New section on environmental impacts #27
New section on environmental impacts #27
Changes from 32 commits
850d182
c7355c9
7e4093e
eb86210
7561e14
29e2d39
b508dbb
c961d1f
cbb379b
78abe49
a1e9ee4
1e8fce6
2fb6306
5fe1f17
3064e2f
d65ed98
4820791
b13b97a
22c6943
90d6e16
e4b620c
a0a3a10
0fa5901
6c798be
93870c3
02317a8
5528479
f578a20
23a2273
989686b
3839b6c
1174832
6f51ec9
06a563a
67b5c83
9053df0
a476381
b0d199f
34b7d3a
f5b3c95
6bf9c01
2ee868d
2d82297
1310b0c
2e296c1
35e8147
171176c
bfe1e39
961c3cf
e046d08
b2f7768
4e2b768
eee9e0c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@brentzundel agree - attempted to do that with this section, but i think there are improvements that could be made to wording
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should consider reframing this section to address the issue from an empirical perspective, for example:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Elevating energy use is political rather than technical. This should be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Section has been removed - @jandrieu are you ok with me resolving this and the other "outdated" feedback now that that tradeoff section is pulled?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
of such as --> such as
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
<3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@csuwildcat @selfissued does Microsoft have any similar initiatives for ION?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
<3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.