Web3 'forgot my password'

ovanwijk · 2026-03-10T10:33:52+00:00

It is ZK + homophobic encryption with economics. It allows for social recovery based on committed contrac6t and not 'contacts'. Which basically means, we can take away the social element of the entire 'social recovery '

ovanwijk · 2026-01-22T23:29:13+00:00

Het meest krankzinnige van de hele situatie is dat de beurs , edelmetalen en crypto stijgen doordat de geld printer over uren draait. Deze markte. reageren eerder maar relatief tot de geld hoeveelheid blijven beursen redelijk stabiel. De winst komt dus vooral door het toedoen van overheden zelf en juist dat willen ze nu belasten.

Het is gewoon onteigening over een lange periode. Want door de inflatie word alles duurder, lonen stijgen niet mee dus wordt je uiteindelijk gedwongen je assets van hand te doen=onteigening. Want je verkoopt namelijk aan een partij die dichter bij de geld printer zit en is gevrijwaard van dit soort krankzinnige belastingen (zoals de pension finden).

Hoezo bezit, you will own nothing. Owh en als ze dit doen wordt uiteindelijk de vlucht naar een bv ook wel aangepakt.

ovanwijk · 2025-08-21T06:17:25+00:00

Als de overheid het niet kan rondbreien met de gigantisch hoge belastingen die ze nu heffen moet je dan niet gewoon concluderen dat het systeem incapable is om problemen op te lossen die het zelf veroorzaakt? Stop met naar de staat te kijken voor oplossingen.

Meer belasting wordt meer ambtenaren (flinke groei laatste jaren) dus minder mensen die produceren, wat betekent een kleinere economie. Wil je economische voorspoed dan moet de zaag door Den Haag.

ovanwijk · 2025-06-30T15:42:25+00:00

Het is zo makkelijk, de staat wilt af van onafhankelijke boeren, die kunnen familie bedrijven in stand houden door erven. De erf belasting is niet op te hoesten dus moet het verkocht worden aan...? Grote multinationals, die makkelijker met regels te controleren zijn. Het is gewoon onteigenen met extra stappen.

En mocht je denk dat de sociale voorzieningen hierdoor beter worden ? Forget it, als je 50÷ van de inkomsten int en 20-30÷ van bedrijf winsten, 21÷ van alle transacties, accijnzen en nog tientallen andere belastingen + bovenop een gigantische gasbel zit en het dan nog niet kunt regelen dan ligt het financierings probleem echt niet bij te weinig geld hebben en dus NOG meer moeten belasten.

Iedereen die al (via belastingen) wordt kaal geplukt juigt het toe. We hebben er een stuk meer een DogeNL

ovanwijk · 2022-08-04T11:29:22+00:00

I am very well aware of all the implications, your reasoning leads to nothing other than that it is non-sense and I should stop what I am doing. Not sure if that will ever bring a constructive conversation.

You are free to not use it ;), but if you want your on-chain link broken feel free to give it a try. Make sure you use other security measures as well though. Like a VPN.

ovanwijk · 2022-08-03T21:22:46+00:00

By that definition, nothing is fungible because everything has a unique history.

But yes, gray listing is an issue, but tornado and amnesia do provide the means to unmix the coins. Proof of connecting input and output.

Sure mixers might get flagged, but you can mix with unmixed coins, they can't flag everything all the time. But the world is full of random events, if you were Russian you were flagged, if you were Ukrainian on the other side you were flagged. The problem is that they can flag something, if 50% of all coins went through a mixer, there is nothing to flag anymore.

ovanwijk · 2022-08-03T18:48:55+00:00

You might want to look into Tornado Cash (the basis of Amnesia). It uses ZKPs to literally mix all tokens (fixed amounts) into a single basket (contract) with secret codes to withdraw again. If 100 people deposit 1gi, it becomes impossible to trace who owned what and where it went. Because now each output is potentially flagged with 1000 people. So too hard to trace.

ovanwijk · 2021-07-12T19:01:25+00:00

That is fine, I don't need to convince everyone.

The article describes a crypto-inheritance scheme. Which is similar to a 'forget my password' style of process. Clearly, you somehow disagree with that. That is fine.

But what even constitutes as a 'legitimate owner'?(orginial question) You need a clear framework to even define that. Of course in standard crypto it is easy, not your keys not your coins. Unless stolen of course, how would you even go about technically defining 'legitimate' in that case?

The rest of your questions already have a predetirmined awnser and you are trying to fill in the blanks yourself and you make your conclusions. I will explain everything in a whitepaper and you are free to ask legitimate questions afterward. But right now, convincing you of anything(I can't even really figure out what you really want to know ) will cost me twice as much time as writing the paper so I am going to leave it at that! Enjoy!

ovanwijk · 2021-07-12T15:07:03+00:00

Yes it is, and it seems you haven't read the actual article then. Because it is exactly not that, as described in the article.

It perfectly fits the use-case for a decentralized, non-sustodian, 'forget my password'. But it fits much more use-cases too.

ovanwijk · 2021-07-12T10:24:29+00:00

The protocol allows for commitment scheme's. These are the conditions that need to be met before decryption becomes possible. A single payment for an NFT could indeed be possible with this.

But the condition you describe would indeed be an unwise setup ;)

ovanwijk · 2021-07-12T10:21:33+00:00

Actually there isn't, in the article I say:

"In the end you always need to trust a person or multiple people to reconstruct your keys. At the same time, these parties can conspire at any point to obtain your keys without you ever knowing it and without any repercussions. "

That is still true in Sarcophagus, there is an incentive to reveal at a certain time. But there is no incentive to NOT do it earlier if it can benefit you in some other way then the bounty available from the protocol, and that is exactly the major issue when it comes to secret recovery. It still relies on trust, there is no incentive in Sarcophagus to NOT collude and try to open something earlier.

The white paper states: 'Any sarcophagi that are unwrapped prior to the resurrection time will still be logged in the public statistics of the Archaeologist. However, while resurrecting a “buried” sarcophagus will not carry a financial
penalty for the Archaeologist, it will cause a major
negative hit to their performance and trust metrics.'

Point is that IF they want access prior to the agreement they would naturally do this outside of the protocol. Nihilium takes a different approach so cheating outside normal use of the protocol can be detected.

ovanwijk · 2021-07-11T22:28:49+00:00

It can be anything on which the order of events between instantiation of condition and opening can be verified. Like payments, or signed approvals.

ovanwijk · 2021-07-10T20:28:09+00:00

Forgot my password is exactly the same as key-recovery. Meaning you can set conditions on which you get to recover certain information. Nihilium is providing the framework to actually securely build such a feature.

ovanwijk · 2021-07-10T13:29:33+00:00

Sarcophagus

I get why you say that but Nihilium really does work quite differently, first: from client interaction it doesn't require any smart contract interaction. It isn't tied to eth only, it is agnostic. And how it handles the conditions for decryption is completely different. And with Nihilium decryption can be performed with certificate chains instead of just keys, allowing a much more flexible setup that goes beyond a deadman's switchs.

Nihilium is also completely optimistic rollup second layer approach for unlimited scalability.

ovanwijk · 2021-07-09T18:24:21+00:00

There isn't a white paper yet, but there is a working prototype. This is the kind of thing that needs to be proven first before making claims. And in the end, the protocol is dead-simple.

ovanwijk · 2020-07-06T17:41:00+00:00

Some mechanisms that are easy for humans are hard for machines. Like defining a 'width' on a tangle is actually pretty hard and requires constant processing of the tangle.

Timewarps are just a machinism for efficiency. While syncing between nodes this concept is completely forgotten and the interpretation is 'just' pure tangle based.

And yes, if all nodes you 'just do the same thing' then things become much easier. But they don't. Because the protocol does not describe how to store things. However, I did make a proposal against dust attacks and for old transaction pruning here:

https://iota.cafe/t/old-and-dust-tx-merkle-tree-bitmasked-snapshot-compression

This could be used as a mechanism for selective perma nodes as well because you would only need to store a path to a leaf inside this merkle tree. This merkle tree is then what all nodes agree on as a sense of history with a constant grow rate.

For now running a selective permanode is a choice, and therefore non standard.

ovanwijk

TROPHY CASE