We should open to the mute and other speech disorders

Faces are unique and recognizable, voices aren’t. Although they are unique like faces, we haven’t evolved to recognize them perfectly. Machines can, but current vouching is done by humans. I propose we replace voice text only for a selection of options, adding options for those who can’t comply with one:

-Unique voice read-out (actual situation)
-Unique gestures (define a set of face gestures)
-Unique corporal movements (define a set of movements, ie.: walking is unique for each person: Why you are identifiable after just a few steps | New Scientist)


Yes, those options look valid. Also they could make hand gestures of their wallet address for example (a very very hard thing to do today).

1 Like

I think we should try to accommodate for those particular cases but should also be careful not to open a breach in POH.
The problem of allowing different ways to register is that attacks could try to register multiple times using the multiple ways. Maybe asking a doctor note (including a way to contact the doctor that people could use to try to catch “fake doctor notes”) and limiting the proportion of mute applications to double the proportion of mute individuals would lead to a nice balance between security and accessibility.

Agree, but please detail how multiple entries with multiple ways is different to multiple entries with the same way. It’s the same character in both, so wouldn’t that be a duplicate entry still? I Don’t see the advantage for attacks.

Like if one person make a submission with voice and without voice, people running voice-recognition algos would not be able to match those submissions as being duplicates. Normally it could be matched via other methods but that’s one less way to detect which is gone.

Easily solvable with other types of algos, like DeepLabCut — The Mathis Lab of Adaptive Motor Control

1 Like

I had a wonderful, unique life experience several years ago when I interacted with and made friends with some members of the deaf community, some of whom attend Gallaudet university, located in Washington DC, the only liberal arts college for the ASL community in the world. I actually have a couple deaf and hard-of-hearing friends who could be interested in POH. So there is some demand and interest. The hard-of-hearing friends and deaf people who weren’t born deaf can usually vocalize, and could probably attempt the phrase “I certify that I am a …” but the born deaf are usually mute.

The deaf community is very tight-knit. There isn’t a lot of overlap between the hearing and deaf communities. It’s pretty clear that a network of deaf people who vouch for the deafness/muteness of other deaf/mute people would have high connectivity. Perhaps to ensure robustness, proof of muteness would require many vouches (5+? 10+?)?

Then only those registered in the POD / POM (proof of deaf / proof of mute) registry could register for POH without the voice requirement.

A genisis set of deaf/mute people who vouch for other peoples deaf/muteness? Is there even enough critical mass interests amongst deaf/mute people to start such a network? Is this pulling the cart before the horse? Or is this a chicken and egg problem where deaf/mute people are routinely excluded from hearing communities including the blockchain and ethereum communities. If deaf/mute people are always excluded (in many aspects of society), then they will never find out about the greatest innovation (blockchain) in society since the internet and printing press.

Maybe POH needs a more comprehensive solution to all humans who cannot participate in POH for one reason or another (partial face paralysis due to stroke, homeless and cannot manage private keys, children, other handicaps). Perhaps POH could be inclusive in $ubi issuance, but more selective in the $vote distribution as commented on the cases of children (danger of perverse incentives) and homeless with guardians/care takers/ ‘do gooder’ organizations

1 Like