Anonymous ID: 00516b Oct. 30, 2020, 7:07 a.m. No.11358753   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>8759 >>8770

>>11358701

 

It IS a good idea.

 

It's also totally gameable, and that's the prob. Because it's such a good idea, and peeps want to trust solutions, they will and wiill be moar fooled, with possibly greater consequences.

 

That's the problem w/trying to outsource intuition and discernment.

 

Godspeed!

Anonymous ID: 00516b Oct. 30, 2020, 7:16 a.m. No.11358842   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>8998

>>11358759

 

if a user id in a loaf were, say, a hash of the user's id in the previous loaf, then every successive id would contain all previous id's.

 

it might even be so alread, anon hasn't played around with them to check.

 

anon is sorry for even suggesting this trick; it strikes him as both a solution and a problem.

Anonymous ID: 00516b Oct. 30, 2020, 7:20 a.m. No.11358876   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>11358857

 

tried taking a bird to a local shelter back when anon was Floriduh Man. It was like being interrogated by muh clowns or violating the security perimeter at Area 51 or (insert your

favorite Orwellian nightmare experience).

Anonymous ID: 00516b Oct. 30, 2020, 7:33 a.m. No.11359025   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>11358998

 

any attempt to establish a "secure" identity threatens true anonymity.

 

it's the age-old tradeoff.

 

honestly, the battle is probably better fought every bread than "solved" by increasingly clever tech schemes.