Difference between revisions of "Access"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
[[Permissionless]] systems are purely consent based. An interesting case was when the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO DAO was "hacked"] on [[Ethereum]] the community forked [[Ethereum]] and reverted back to erase the hackers damage. That action was possible because [[consent]] was broken, even if permissions were granted. The individual who did the damage was seen as a hacker, painted in a negative way, because he broke consent. The hacker tried to justify his actions saying that code is law and he used the code to exploit all its capabilities, therefore nothing wrong was done. In his argument he didn't make the distinction between consent and permission. | [[Permissionless]] systems are purely consent based. An interesting case was when the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO DAO was "hacked"] on [[Ethereum]] the community forked [[Ethereum]] and reverted back to erase the hackers damage. That action was possible because [[consent]] was broken, even if permissions were granted. The individual who did the damage was seen as a hacker, painted in a negative way, because he broke consent. The hacker tried to justify his actions saying that code is law and he used the code to exploit all its capabilities, therefore nothing wrong was done. In his argument he didn't make the distinction between consent and permission. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | See also [[openness]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:04, 26 September 2024
Access is understood in terms of permission and consent.
Consent is at the human level, it is related to a purpose. Permission is related to the mechanics of access, credentials.
An agent-centric system puts consent before, the purpose is supposed to drive access and even revoke permissions.
Permissionless systems are purely consent based. An interesting case was when the DAO was "hacked" on Ethereum the community forked Ethereum and reverted back to erase the hackers damage. That action was possible because consent was broken, even if permissions were granted. The individual who did the damage was seen as a hacker, painted in a negative way, because he broke consent. The hacker tried to justify his actions saying that code is law and he used the code to exploit all its capabilities, therefore nothing wrong was done. In his argument he didn't make the distinction between consent and permission.
See also openness.