[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/07/worldcoin-cofounded-by-sam...
In broad strokes, this is how World ID works.
- User gets their World ID in a compatible wallet (e.g. the World App).
- User receives credentials in their World ID. The flagship credential is biometric verification, currently available by using the Orb. The user can also verify their phone number to obtain the respective credential.
- Project integrates with World ID.
- User connects their World ID to authenticate, and optionally prove they are a unique human doing something only once. The user's wallet will generate a Zero-Knowledge Proof to accomplish this.
- Project verifies the Zero-knowledge Proof, either by using the API or by verifying on-chain.
Interestingly: Tamper detection system not disclosed For obvious reasons, these files do not including the PCBs and sensors related to the Orb's tamper detection system.
Worldcoin gives off really similar vibes. The footer of their website reads:
> Worldcoin tokens are not intended to be available to people or companies who are residents of, or are located, incorporated or have a registered agent in, the United States or other restricted territories.
That doesn't sound very good! And then there's this critical review of Worldcoin's operations in Indonesia https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...
I really don't get good vibes from this whole thing...
This iris hash should then be stored in some decentralised database like a blockchain or something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA2ttYtUbF8&ab_channel=ETHGl...
This whole thing gives me the heeby jebies...
https://twitter.com/marcfawzi/status/1636115903959158785
Obviously, it's a no-brainer idea at a high level. The devil is in the details.
Then it's also great to see that they seem to be pretty open about stuff, [including their hardware](https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/opening-orb-look-insi... ).
That said.. it's hard to see terms like "coin", "wallet", "Web3", "NFT", etc., without a bit of concern -- even if, admittedly, such terms might be appropriate and justifiable in this sort of application.
Is there a page that shows their overall economic model, perhaps with flow-charts and such? This is, where are the cash/token/hardware/etc. in-flows and out-flows?
And is there an early-adopter incentive? And if so, is it significant, or is the system designed to be fair to folks whenever they might join?
Asking in part because the classic pyramid-scam thing, where early-adopters end up collecting huge rewards at the expense of late-adopters, seems like a major hallmark of dubious projects. Projects without such asymmetries would seem more credible, both in terms of not being yet another pyramid-scam and long-term viability.
Yet their actual ethics are pretty abysmal. Worldcoin is a known scam. Notably, it’s also by Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...
So Sam Altman first creates the situation that we can no longer distinguish humans from bots, then asks everyone to trust him with even more biometric data to get around the problem he created.
Either way he wins at everyone else’s expense. I urge you to not take this at face value, Sam has already shown with Worldcoin that he is not trustworthy.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...
In what way is it a scam? For example, is it a pyramid-scheme, pump-and-dump, pretext to trick people into downloading malware, etc.?
[That story (2022-04-06)](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi... ) did offer one major concern:
> Others took issue with the company’s purported focus on fairness given that 20% of the coins had already been allocated: 10% to Worldcoin’s full-time employees, and another 10% to investors, like Andreessen Horowitz.
20% of coins being in the hands of a few does sound potentially pretty corrupting -- at least, if it's a system like Bitcoin, where there's a cap on the total such that, if mass-adopted, that small group of people would end up controlling 20% of the total wealth. But does it work like that?
Beyond that, it sounds like the article's suggesting that it's a scam to get iris-scans:
> Meanwhile, those who fear that the whole thing may have been a scam want to know what they’ve lost. “50 KS is not enough to give an eyeball away,” says Okach, the university student in Nairobi that spent a weekend recruiting others to Worldcoin. “That’s manipulation, taking advantage of students without clear clarification about what it is they are doing or what they want.”
But the idea of a scam to get folks' iris-scans, especially iris-scans of people in less-developed areas, sounds a bit strange.
I mean, if someone has a database of folks' pictures, DNA, or fingerprints, then that database might help track folks without their knowledge or consent -- plus DNA might also reveal things about a person that they'd rather have kept private.
But what might scammers do with iris-scans that might potentially justify the trouble of collecting them like that?
I was tricked by a machine yesterday. I had to call up the bank because their online banking website had booted me out.
After only a couple of rings, and no hold music, I was straight through to a person! This is unprecedented. The call was something like:
"Hi, you're through to foobank. How can I help you today?"
"Hi, your online banking has locked me out and said I need to call this number to get my account re-enabled."
"No problem. What message do you get when you try to login?"
"Oh, I haven't actually tried to login again, I can try if you want. It just kicked me out and said my account was locked and I need to call to get it re-enabled".
"No problem. If you click the 'reset my password' button under the login form, you'll be able to reset your password."
"I'm not sure that's going to work, but I'll give it a try. It definitely said my account was locked and I need to call to get it re-enabled."
"No problem. If you click the 'reset my password' button under the login form, you'll be able to reset your password."
"...are you a machine?"
"I'm Ava (edit: maybe Ada[0]?), a virtual assistant. Would you like me to put you through to a member of staff?"
"Yes please".
And only then did I get to spend 10 minutes listening to hold music and ads, before a member of staff actually unlocked my account.
I felt stupid and deceived.
For instance, many of us are already offloading memories onto our phones, Johnny Mnemonic-style, wirelessly. Just because it doesn't look the way it does in science-fiction doesn't mean it isn't happening.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/08/05/1022041...
You were breaking the site guidelines repeatedly in that thread.
> And when I asked you where you said that you didn't reply
Sorry — usually I do reply — I must not have seen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34856255. FWIW in retrospect, here are some places where we asked you to stop (I don't remember why I used the word 'just' though, since these are older):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30293928 (Feb 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699914 (Sept 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28650525 (Sept 2021)
> when I emailed to ask nicely to be unbanned, as you requested, you ignored it
I can't find any email that references your username. When did you send it?
> Kindly take your gaslighting and passive aggression somewhere else
That's aggressive name-calling and flamebait.
> I'm allowed to "yell" and write how I like. I haven't taken any personal shots at anyone - unlike yourself.
That's flamewar fodder which adds no information.
> Even if shrill is "gendered" (The Google says it "hints" at gendered language, btw), *so fucking what*.
"So fucking what" is gratuitous, aggressive flamebait.
> The implication in GPs comment is that this justifies Newspeak-ification... It doesn't.
That's an on-topic statement! but a shallow one. This part could have been the kernel of a good comment if you had expanded on your argument instead of just saying "It doesn't."
> And neither does referencing less "agreeable" authors, such as Joseph Conrad.
That's fine, but again would have been much better with more information.
> I mean, wow dude. Talk about the worst possible takes.
That's more name-calling and flamebait.
I don't know how to read that comment except as exactly the sort of flamewar that we don't want on HN. And you broke the site guidelines repeatedly in other comments in that same thread:
I re-read tptacek's comments in the same thread and your comments were far, far more aggressive and flamewarrish than his. It's not close. I realize it doesn't feel this way because it always feels like the other person started it and did worse. But this is an illusion we all suffer from when we get into those sorts of conflicts. (The solution is to cultivate the habit of responding less in kind, not more; if one does that enough, it can partially correct for that bias.)
All that said, I could probably have warned you rather than banned you at that point. I don't understand why I wrote "we just asked you to stop" - assuming you weren't using multiple accounts to post, it's possible I simply mistook you for someone else that I had recently scolded, and if so, that could have tipped me in the direction of banning you.
If you want to commit to editing out flamebait and name-calling from your posts and not being aggressive in HN comments in the future, I'd be happy to unban you. Please make sure you're up on the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html because those set the parameters of how we interpret these things.