nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyq52r7fycawgsg8ursrsv5mvrp0rueurptd6sc35gel35qgd84hx5cjmfuv (nprofile…mfuv) Signing is a gesture and the signature is just an artifact created by that gestureNo? that's not what it is? If the artifact carries no meaning, then it should not be created. You can just say "Yeah I agree to these terms" verbally to another party, and that's legally binding in theory. Even moreso with additional witnesses (a "notary"?)
The point of a signature is obviously to prove that I agree. It is to prove my identity. After the fact. And a scribble on paper that can be trivially reproduced by a malicious actor, but is difficult for me to create accurately every time, is the polar opposite of a good mechanism to do this.I'd much rather rely on paper signatures and live with the resulting potential for fraud than be required by law to run a certain app on my phone. My phone is mine and I'd like it to stay that way.I agree! I don't think the law should require that you install an app on your phone in order to be able to enter into any contract whatsoever, or otherwise attest your identity.
We have solutions for this already: ID cards. In my example of the postal courier, it'd make sense if I was promoted for e-ID,, OR had the option to show my physical ID card to the mailperson, in order to prove that I was the rightful recipient. That's already how it works at post offices here, but for some reason not when receiving parcels to my door.
"Oh, but I don't think everyone should need to show their government ID to everyone" That's not the point!!! Government ID and government e-ID are only necessary to prove your identity to the government, but every single use of a signature elsewhere can be replaced with something similar. The point is to use any mechanism with security features!!! Library cards, for instance, are not government ID but are still used to verify your identity to the library.
Imagine if we had bank transfers where the only security mechanism was "Yeah the sender wrote their name so 100% legit trust". Oh wait, that's a thing actually, and it's horrifying! Checks bounce all the time!!! But banks already issue secure hardware authenticators to every customer, called a bank card ({debit, credit} card), and it's ludicrous that those are not always required to perform operations in some cases!
sodiboo 🔜 Internyet-03
npub1zy…r0g7d
2025-12-24 19:34:28 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…g4e5
Author Public Key
npub1zyadzsk8ljuz2fv83elfxymccpyrrwhd6exc7cn34c4tt2nupa4sar0g7dSeen on
wss://relay.ditto.pubPublished at
2025-12-24 19:34:28 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "f4ddd07df3ba486aa9824921f94ab950a1e2c24a07174d06df3edd5f137cf68f",
"pubkey": "113ad142c7fcb82525878e7e931378c04831baedd64d8f6271ae2ab5aa7c0f6b",
"created_at": 1766604868,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"28a1f924c75c8820fc1c0706536c185e3e67830adba86234467f1a010d3d6e6a",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"e97cafa82a7dd144bb2ec1089abea1190be419346e906bf69f0bc243f01586fc",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"e",
"820f41710c674b33b5805b6bf1099d54de8f102e333e78de8b0483b0b69d897d",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://gaysex.cloud/notes/agnz8lzgnmk300kn",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyq52r7fycawgsg8ursrsv5mvrp0rueurptd6sc35gel35qgd84hx5cjmfuv Signing is a gesture and the signature is just an artifact created by that gestureNo? that's not what it is? If the artifact carries no meaning, then it should not be created. You can just say \"Yeah I agree to these terms\" verbally to another party, and that's legally binding in theory. Even moreso with additional witnesses (a \"notary\"?)\n\nThe point of a signature is obviously to prove that I agree. It is to prove my identity. After the fact. And a scribble on paper that can be trivially reproduced by a malicious actor, but is difficult for me to create accurately every time, is the polar opposite of a good mechanism to do this.I'd much rather rely on paper signatures and live with the resulting potential for fraud than be required by law to run a certain app on my phone. My phone is mine and I'd like it to stay that way.I agree! I don't think the law should require that you install an app on your phone in order to be able to enter into any contract whatsoever, or otherwise attest your identity. \n\nWe have solutions for this already: ID cards. In my example of the postal courier, it'd make sense if I was promoted for e-ID,, OR had the option to show my physical ID card to the mailperson, in order to prove that I was the rightful recipient. That's already how it works at post offices here, but for some reason not when receiving parcels to my door.\n\n\"Oh, but I don't think everyone should need to show their government ID to everyone\" That's not the point!!! Government ID and government e-ID are only necessary to prove your identity to the government, but every single use of a signature elsewhere can be replaced with something similar. The point is to use any mechanism with security features!!! Library cards, for instance, are not government ID but are still used to verify your identity to the library.\n\nImagine if we had bank transfers where the only security mechanism was \"Yeah the sender wrote their name so 100% legit trust\". Oh wait, that's a thing actually, and it's horrifying! Checks bounce all the time!!! But banks already issue secure hardware authenticators to every customer, called a bank card ({debit, credit} card), and it's ludicrous that those are not always required to perform operations in some cases!",
"sig": "9a80fe88b26e4145e62bc66133092ee1da95d153c508a80c9ae2538a14482c3e59e55e3ce5a84ed6d410cc3ad539a4678dececbcb1394ecb5257a9f0bfc6806f"
}