Mathematical exercises in Identity chapter

[pluralitybook]

The Identity chapter contains some back-of-the-envelope mathematical illustrations that could be both substantively improved and illustrated/explained more effectively.

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Friday, 01-Mar-24 00:00:22 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice yoj7g2

Started managing this issue as Gov4Git concern 88 with initial priority score of 0.000000.

This project is managed by Gov4Git, a decentralized governance system for collaborative git projects. To participate in governance, install the Gov4Git desktop app.

Notice buusfr

This issue's priority score is now 0.000000. The cost of priority is 0.000000. The projected bounty is now 0.000000.

Notice mclikd

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Friday, 01-Mar-24 21:15:54 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice dku5wx

This issue's priority score is now 300.000000. The cost of priority is 90000.000000. The projected bounty is now 600.000000.

Notice zssjru

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.

[nishio]

This section? I could not understand the explanation.

The polycentric approach tries to manage this problem by limiting the number of players. While this obviously limits pluralism some, it is not a major problem as long as participants maintain a reasonable diversity of affiliations. Suppose, for example, that we have a population of 10 billion, each person maintains 100 relationships with potentially verifying institutions (e.g. governments, churches, employers etc.). Suppose that to have a reasonable chance for verification to work, any two people meeting must share at least 5 overlapping memberships. If memberships are randomly distributed, 300 verifiers could co-exist and still allow the chance that verification fails for any random pair of individuals to be one in several million. Of course, individuals who meet are rarely random nor do they form their affiliations randomly, nor are 5 overlapping memberships likely to be absolute necessary for most interactions especially among people meeting randomly. All of these suggest many more verifiers could thrive in such an environment of plural memberships.

Yet this number would clearly be far smaller than the population size, perhaps around 100,000, the number with the property that it goes into 10 billion 100,000 times. This would be vastly more pluralistic than our current identity landscape, allowing a far better trade-off between autonomy/control and funcitonality/security. But is even more possible?

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Wednesday, 27-Mar-24 15:30:05 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice k74uil

This issue's priority score is now 310.000000. The cost of priority is 90100.000000. The projected bounty is now 620.000000.

Notice h7t64g

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Wednesday, 27-Mar-24 15:41:01 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice n26yse

This issue's priority score is now 310.000000. The cost of priority is 90100.000000. The projected bounty is now 620.000000.

Notice n3l4v4

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Thursday, 09-May-24 16:41:32 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice 7t6sqq

This issue's priority score is now 308.000000. The cost of priority is 90064.000000. The projected bounty is now 616.000000.

Notice aec3e4

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Wednesday, 09-Oct-24 03:32:10 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice 367us7

This issue's priority score is now 312.000000. The cost of priority is 90080.000000. The projected bounty is now 624.000000.

Notice m2facn

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.