You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Consider whether the division into stand-alone approaches and multi-party approaches is still valuable, and wehther there is a better way of organizing the discussion.
After a conversation by e-mail, it was agreed by several of us that Cryptographic Attestation of Personhood doesn't fundamentally engage any third parties - at least, not in verifying the humanity of the individual user. However, also raised as part of this conversation was the question whether the stand-alone/third-party distinction is still valuable, and whether a different document structure would be better for future drafts.
Note: this issue does not affect the first public working draft, as was also agreed. It should be addressed only for subsequent drafts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Consider whether the division into stand-alone approaches and multi-party approaches is still valuable, and wehther there is a better way of organizing the discussion.
After a conversation by e-mail, it was agreed by several of us that Cryptographic Attestation of Personhood doesn't fundamentally engage any third parties - at least, not in verifying the humanity of the individual user. However, also raised as part of this conversation was the question whether the stand-alone/third-party distinction is still valuable, and whether a different document structure would be better for future drafts.
Note: this issue does not affect the first public working draft, as was also agreed. It should be addressed only for subsequent drafts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: