RT: ✨SOULBOUND✨
@VitalikButerin & @provenauthority discuss:
What does decentralized, trustless, digital identity look like?
On-chain Soulbound NFTs?
OR
Off-chain Verifiable Credentials?
Where will the future of Web3 identity live?
🚨LIVE IN2️⃣HOURS🚨
https://youtu.be/TbyVyVNsyys https://t.co/RxiSdNzpe9
转发：✨灵魂绑定✨
@VitalikButerin&@普罗旺斯当局讨论：
去中心化、不可信的数字身份是什么样子的？
链上灵魂绑定NFT？
或
链外可验证凭据？
Web3身份的未来在哪里？
🚨住在2号楼️⃣小时🚨
https://youtu.be/TbyVyVNsyys https://t.co/RxiSdNzpe9
RT: The Ropsten network just merged!
One of the last testnets until we merge on the #Ethereum mainnet🐼
https://ropsten.beaconcha.in/ https://t.co/knd1IBlD8A
RT：Ropsten网络刚刚合并！
在我们合并到#以太坊主网之前的最后一个测试网之一🐼
https://ropsten.beaconcha.in/ https://t.co/knd1IBlD8A
@NathanpmYoung Or in the cool kids' lingo:
Wordcel accountability vs shape rotator accountability.
@NathanpmYoung或用孩子们的酷行话：
Wordcel责任vs shape rotator责任。
@NathanpmYoung Another way to think about this distinction is linguistic/verbal accountability vs mechanism-driven accountability.
Do you "have to explain yourself" to someone who might then make a decision, or is there an impersonal thing that just imposes the consequence?
@NathanpmYoung思考这一区别的另一种方式是语言/语言责任与机制驱动责任。
你是否必须向可能做出决定的人“解释你自己”，或者是否有一件非个人的事情只是强加了结果？
@danfinlay Right, accountability is about aligning means to ends, so it doesn't make sense for tasks that are fundamentally about choosing the ends.
@danfinlay是的，问责制是指将手段与目的相结合，因此对于从根本上讲是选择目的的任务来说，它没有意义。
@TrustlessState Also, small-block proponents sometimes recommend this book as an expression of their perspective on the situation:
https://www.amazon.com/Blocksi...
First chapter here:
https://blog.bitmex.com/the-bl...
@不可信任的国家同样，小规模的支持者有时会推荐这本书来表达他们对形势的看法：
https://www.amazon.com/Blocksi...
此处第一章：
https://blog.bitmex.com/the-bl...
@TrustlessState This covers only part of the issue but is still good:
https://medium.com/@johnblocke...
@TrustlessState这只涵盖了部分问题，但仍然很好：
https://medium.com/@约翰·布洛克。。。
One way to read @robinhanson is that wants more accountability everywhere:
Voting -> prediction markets
Regulation -> mandatory liability insurance
The general principle: if you sign off on something that turns out bad, you pay up. Ideally run the entire gov on that principle.
阅读《罗宾汉》（robinhanson）的一种方式是，希望在任何地方都有更多的责任感：
投票->；预测市场
法规->；强制性责任保险
总的原则是：如果你在结果不好的事情上签字，你就要付出代价。理想情况下，按照这一原则运行整个政府。
I would say that in general the biggest evil is not accountability or unaccountability, but *imbalanced accountability* - being accountable for some types of consequences but not others.
This creates a clear imbalance, where people target only the thing that is being measured.
我想说，总的来说，最大的罪恶不是问责或不负责任，而是“不平衡的问责”——对某些类型的后果负责，而不是对其他类型的后果负责。
这造成了明显的不平衡，人们只针对被测量的对象。
"Accountability" is viewed by most people as a virtue, but it's interesting to look at cases where *lack of accountability* is an explicit goal of some system.
Examples:
* Voting (secret ballot)
* Juries
* Tenure
* Anonymous complaints
* Privacy norms/rules/laws
“问责”被大多数人视为一种美德，但看看“缺乏问责”是某个系统明确目标的案例就很有趣了。
示例：
*投票（无记名投票）
*陪审团
*任期
*匿名投诉
*隐私规范/规则/法律
Anon culture is about having less accountability, with the goal of allowing people to authentically speak their minds.
As an anon, you don't get negative personal consequences for saying things others dislike, but you also miss out on lots of positive personal consequences.
Anon文化的目的是减少责任感，让人们真正说出自己的想法。
作为一个无名小卒，你不会因为说别人不喜欢的话而产生负面的个人后果，但你也会错过很多积极的个人后果。
@AFDudley0 Lots of technical reasons too. Fundamental mismatch with key goals (eg. economic finality)
@还有很多技术原因。与关键目标的根本不匹配（如经济最终性）
@glenweyl @ArthurB I think he means companies announcing blockchain integrations to virtue-signal innovativeness or to pump up their stock price.
@glenweyl@ArthurB我想他的意思是，公司宣布区块链整合，以显示创新性或推高股价。
@Noahpinion There's a certain Asian country not on the above list that's not quite western but has even lower fertility, and I hear a certain rabbit guy knows a lot about it...
ok fine I searched myself. Even lower than France! I was expecting to break your hypothesis but now I'm confused https://t.co/UyaqHmtrXv
@没什么好担心的。有一个亚洲国家不在上面的名单上，它不是很西方，但生育率更低，我听说一个养兔子的家伙知道很多。。。
好吧，我搜了自己。甚至低于法国！我本想打破你的假设，但现在我很困惑https://t.co/UyaqHmtrXv
@Noahpinion Rich westerners: optimism about the future is insensitive to the Global South.
The Global South: https://t.co/l4SwH9auXX
@富有的西方人：对未来的乐观态度对全球南方并不敏感。
全球南方：https://t.co/l4SwH9auXX
@evacide I've had this problem too!
It's still significantly less bad than not having written the lengthy explainer, at least in my experience.
@我也有这个问题！
至少以我的经验来看，这比没有写长篇大论的解说词要糟糕得多。
@0xfbifemboy You missed at least $6m (I forget how much exactly) to https://impetusgrants.org/
Always happy to take recommendations! My chats with longevity people in the last year have already opened up other options that I'm planning on giving my future support to.
@0xfbifemboy你错过了至少600万美元https://impetusgrants.org/
总是乐于接受建议！去年，我与长寿人士的交谈已经为我提供了其他选择，我正计划为我的未来提供支持。
@mironov_fm You can reply with a link and a one-sentence explanation of the argument.
The link makes the one-sentence claim feel authoritative :)
Also, people too lazy to read the link often feel too ashamed to keep arguing with you. At least I've noticed both of these effects.
@mironov\u fm你可以用链接和一句话的论点解释来回答。
该链接使一句话的声明具有权威性：）
此外，懒得阅读链接的人往往会感到羞愧，不愿继续与你争论。至少我注意到了这两种影响。
Pro-tip: if you're "tired of having to explain the same thing 100 times" on the internet, write an article that explains your view clearly in long-form! Then in the future you, and others who see the issue the same way, can just keep linking to it.
专业提示：如果你在互联网上“厌倦了对同一件事解释100次”，请写一篇文章，以长篇大论的形式清楚地解释你的观点！然后在将来，你和其他以同样方式看待这个问题的人，可以继续链接到它。