What is the user experience for web3 identity going to be like?

Initially, very much like the web2 experience is for users who are wise enough to use a password manager.

Provided the web3 sites get their own ux designs in order.

More on that in this expisode.

Okay, so Web3 uses asymmetric key cryptography as the basis for identity and authentication. 

Why do we need the rest of blockchain then? 

Answered in this episode. Well, it's an answer. Of course, given blockchain, it's not _the_ answer.

The three authentication mechanisms are:

1️⃣ Something you know

2️⃣ Something you have

3️⃣ Something you are

But what about a fourth one: something only you can do?

In this video, I look at the fundamental different between identifying yourself to a Web3 website using a blockchain wallet, and Web2 using a username and password.

It has to do with asymmetric key cryptography.

In part 2, I will talk more about why blockchain is an important piece of the puzzle for a number of different reasons (because what I talk about in this video could be used in Web2, but generally speaking isn't.)

In this video I talk about how I airdropped 100 DETS tokens to every single one of the 1.5 quindecillion Ethereum addresses.

In the process I examine different layers of meaning in blockchain systems, from the raw ones and zeroes on hard disks around the network, through data structures, smart contracts, and right up to the presentation layer in the form of web3 that actually shows users what they own.

The key word in the previous sentence is "meaning". Because ones and zeros don't have meaning in and of themselves. We construct that meaning as a society and as individuals, and sometimes that can lead to some very odd results.

I regularly read news reports in which it is plain that the reporter writing the report hasn't really understood what is going on the blockchain, DeFi or crypto world.

And it's not their fault - they're trained writers, not blockchain experts.

The problem is exacerbated by the number of analogies that have taken hold in the space.

In this video I talk about this, using some of the bad analogies as examples of the problem.

The solution? Presumably, better analogies.

And journalists who will listen.

The masters of the current financial institutions would have us think so, and have been mounting a campaign with increasing frenzy over the last year to push forward this opinion.

By looking further into the structure of the $SOS token contract, I am fairly convinced that it doesn't allow the deployers to drain your wallet of funds.

However, there are always more concerns surrounding smart contracts than just the code that is there on the blockchain.

I mentioned in the previous video on this topic that I was not entirely sure about the digital signing function for claiming $SOS, based on your activity on OpenSea.

And indeed, some people have determined that the OpenDAO project devs can arbitrarily sign fund allocation transactions, meaning that they can airdrop as many tokens to whatever address they choose, up to the maximum supply of the token.

Furthermore, half the tokens are under the control of three wallets, which means that those whales can dump their holdings whenever they like - and if you don't know what the risks associated  with that are, well, imagine what would happen to the price of Tesla stock if Elon Musk suddenly and without warning sold every single share he owns.

And so we are stuck with a problem - how much do we trust the anonymous parties behind the OpenDAO and $SOS token project?

Airdrops are giveaways, where a project hands out tokens for free in order to drum up interest in the project, hopefully increasing the user base and/or the price of the token given away.

There are risks associated with airdrops though - they offer a great opportunity to scam artists. For example, you may think you're getting a token, but be tricked into signing a transaction that allows a smart contract to siphen off your NFTs and crypto.

Here follows the obligatory disclaimer - what follows is not financial advice, so do your own research.

In this episode, I look at the recently popular OpenDAO project and it's $SOS token give-away.

I spent an hour or so looking through the $SOS contract, and can't see any obvious flaws or malicious code in the contract, but of course the problem with audits or reviews is that they either:

a) find a problem which means the contract is not to be trusted, or

b) do not find a problem, which means the contract might be fine, or it might contain subtle bugs or scam-enabling code

I also talk about the red flags to look for in airdrops, and the risks involved in caving to FOMO.

Personally, I'm waiting a couple  of months before (or even if) I claim my "free tokens". The deadline is June next year, so what's the hurry?

I might as well let other people conduct a more thorough audit.

I was asked over the weekend if I could think of any way to bring down Bitcoin. Of course, "impossible is nothing", so there may well be a way. But I can't see what it would be.

Technically, it seems very unlikely to me that one wealthy actor could destroy Bitcoin, and I cover 51% attacks, quantum crypto cracking, and ordinary key/hash function cracking in the video and explain why they won't work.

Legally - well, the evidence from Russia and India is that it's ineffective. It's like trying to ban particular thoughts. In any case, it only applies to one country.

Socially - this would seem to be the most effective approach to me, except that the evidence is that rubbishing Bitcoin in the media just makes the spokesperson look stupid or ill-informed.

Economically? How about cornering the Bitcoin market? Just look at what happened to the Bunker brothers when they tried this with the silver market in 1980. And the "market cap" of Bitcoin and silver are about the same.

It may be possible, but I can't see how Bitcoin can be brought down intentionally. It would be easier to herd a million cats.

Here's the link to the video of Andreas Antonopolous that I mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPyMUfNyVM

Why do Ethereum addresses work on Polygon and Binance Smart Chain? 

If you create an Ethereum address in your wallet (for example MetaMask), the same address can be used on other EVM compatible layer 2 chains, such as Polygon Matic and Binance Smart Chain. 

The reason is because these sidechains use the same digital signing algorithm and blockchain address derivation function.  It's like creating a bank account number at one bank, and finding that the same account number now exists and can be used in other banks in other countries. 

Perhaps the catchphrase "be your own bank" should be changed to "be your own banks"...