I didn't mention sexism in the post because I was afraid it would overshadow my primary point i.e. "Large amount of funding in this space should come with the expectation of responsibility"
But that has happened anyway so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Many in the Zcash community think it is a higher evil to notify users about unsafe software than it is to build unsafe software in the first place. Without substantial changes to that culture, I can't see how it has a future that people should trust.
But maybe I'm just being "emotional" and thin skinned. Sounds like me.
With Zcash Foundation board members now adding fuel to the fire by literally misstating ZOMG grant decisions, I have no idea what else to add here.
For the record I really like(d) Zcash, the technology and cryptographic engineering behind it is second-to-none. But that isn't enough to build secure software. You need a willingness to apply oversight and an ability to read to the end of sentences.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I regret to inform you that the tone in which I tweet about vulnerabilities in my free time has no bearing on how impactful that vulnerability may be to you.
The nice thing about public demonstrations of vulnerabilities is that you can't argue about them until you've fixed them, after that I don't particularly care if you think I should have been nicer about it.
I've been called every name in the book at this point, some not in the book, threatened with lawsuits, prison, one comedian even remarked that I look like I might have been burned at the stake after a disclosure.
Promising security or privacy is a responsibility you shouldn't take lightly. It's not about your brand; it's not about you.
People will put their lives in your hands, it must always about their ability to consent, manage risk and reduce harm.
The only way to build a robust system is to open it up to the world. To have it be radically transparent from end to end.
It's a responsibility you shouldn't take lightly. It's not fast, or glamorous or easy.
We don't do those things because they are efficient, we do them because they are the right thing to do. To keep us accountable to those who entrust us with parts of their lives.
Every time the UK decides to breathe life into its "Online Harms" proposal I feel the need to remind you about Section 28 - a backdoor amendment that was inserted as a legislative compromise a few months after the government realized they couldn't *prosecute* a book publisher.
What originally started as a generalized "public outrage" over a number of sex education books and "protecting children" narrative developed into legislation which effectively censored any acknowledgement of non-cis-heteronormative people or couples in schools or children's media
It's not hard to draw that line today. Until very recently "Extreme Pornography" in the UK included water sports, and by a ridiculous twist of regulation, squirting. Those laws were (and have been in recent history) used to mostly target queer people.
First, let me zoom all the way out and state that under the right conditions, using a blockchain as part of the voting process isn't an absurd idea - there are actually a few schemes that have some nice properties, and we will get to them...but all those words are important.
Let me take you all the way back to 2018, when I bright eyed technocratic clusterfuck of a project called Voatz was awarded a contract to pilot "blockchain" voting for overseas military.
The core thesis of Das Kaptial is that labourers should share in the profits of their labour & in ownership over the means of production - it's effectively a more pointed version of Smith's scattered critique of landlords and economic rent in Wealth of Nations.
Had Adam Smith written Wealth of Nations 90 years later, in Marx's time, it would have probably echoed many of the criticisms of labour exploitation that were described in Das Kapital - the seeds were there in his disdain for those who profit without producing.
Marx and Smith would have likely disagreed on how best to structure such arrangements - Smith was big on rewarding risk, and Marx was more concerned about the material realities of an exploited class of workers - but those are not irreconcilable philosophies.