For children that are too young to speak and for people with disabilities that prevent them from speaking there needs to be an option that allows parents and carers to speak the words on their behalf.
“I certify that this is a real human and that they are not already registered in this registry”
is acceptable when spoken by a parent or carer in a case when a voice of their own is not possible.
Whilst this could lead to some issues with people wrongly claiming on other people’s behalf it will be far outweighed in getting financial resources to those that need it most.
I think it may be a bit dangerous to allow that for small (below the speaking age) children as those tends to grow fast so when we’ll get a longer renewal time (currently 1 year, but could go to 5-10 years) they could registered multiple times and we’d have a hard time matching the submissions. It’s also unlike that a child which cannot speak really has an address (we could argue they have an address managed by their parents though).
For the the people with disabilities, we could allow showing some sort of paperwork proving it. That would make it harder to match thanks to the voice but would probably lead to greater scrutiny in their profiles.
For me, there has to be an underlying principle of the project. Either this is a project for all human beings or it isn’t? We can leave no human behind. Yes, some of it may be technically difficult to accomplish but fundamentally we have to hold trust in the creative capacity of the network to find answers to these challenges.
A newborn baby is human. They have a right to $ubi just like everyone else.
For me, this principle needs to be put to the vote whether or not there is a technical solution in sight.
Ultimately I feel we cannot discriminate against those humans that are technically difficult to prove they are human.
On this one I agree.
But on this one I disagree, if we allow some loophole to get into the registry, the registry will stop serving its purpose.
You may want to write an HIP explaining how we could have babies while keeping the registry secured.
To address the “growing fast” problem we probably could have a shorter renewal time for new humans registered, and increase that renewal time with the number of renewals.
For example: Every 6 months for two years - Every year for 3 years - Every 2 years for 10 years - Every 5 years then
Of course this will have impact on babies and on adults, but I also think it will be useful to keep people enganged with the project in the first two years, and churn humans faster if they do not renew in the first two years.
What do you think?
There is no reference to age or date of birth at the moment so that would require some different principles. Certainly, my local passport office manages to be OK with newborns. They renew after 5 years here. It looks ridiculous at customs when they are 4/5 and they are a newborn. People use their common sense in those circumstances. That is what humans are good at.
One of the ways to look at this challenge without the use of age and date and birth is through vouching. Now vouching is costless then it is possible to use multiple vouchers. At the moment there is only a requirement for a single vouch which does expose the system to significant risks. The more vouches a person has the less likely it is that the system can be gamed. For a newborn (or complex case) then potentially they would need a minimum of maybe a 5 vouch threshold to be reached to counter the need for a perfect submission. I think the principle of the weight of humans being able to override the linearity of the system could be a good one. Much of the long term security of the system is going to come from the invisible web of human relationships (the mycelium of the community) rather than video and voice. The number of connections is the easiest way for a human to detect a fake account on platforms like Facebook.
New born babies don’t happen every day, once a year is a good max per person (yes twins, triplets exist, but for simplicity sake). Maybe each person has a birth certification vouch once per year. Perhaps a lifetime maximum of birth certification vouches (3? 10?)
Moreover, children should not be coerced into participating in the registry and perhaps a perverse economic incentive exists by a malicious parent. Perhaps the child has a trusted guardian or adult in their life (teacher at school, church member, community leader, etc) who can vouch for the child.
the $ubi drip for children could be considered a type of child support, however the $vote token should be thought out more thoroughly
Further, perhaps, in order to receive $vote tokens, the child must obtain the vouches from a large number of people (10? 20?) which would be larger than anyone’s immediate family. This could be a competency litmus test of sorts. Otherwise there could be perverse incentives of malicious manipulatory parents / guardians taking advantage of children’s $ubi and $vote tokens without their consent.
This is now available to vote on here Snapshot