@inkan
Relays (6)
- wss://relay.inkan.cc/ – read & write
- wss://nostr.wine/ – read & write
- wss://nostr.land/ – read & write
- wss://relay.primal.net/ – read & write
- wss://relay.damus.io/ – read & write
- wss://nos.lol/ – read & write
Recent Notes
明日と明後日、東京のWebX2026に参加する予定です。
参加される方、ブースを出される方がいれば、ぜひ声をかけてください。
参加される方、ブースを出される方がいれば、ぜひ声をかけてください。
Yeah. How does that work? Is it a master key kinda thing?
Yes, pretty much.
You get a "master" key that stays offline in cold storage and never does any day-to-day signing. That's your real identity, and that's what your followers attach to. You also get a separate signing key that you actually post with.
When the master key is first created, it signs a statement delegating signing authority to the signing key. That statement is recorded on a blockchain. After that, any notes signed by the signing key get attributed to the master key by the Inkan client.
If the signing key ever leaks or gets lost, the master key can sign another statement (also recorded on-chain) that revokes the old signing key and re-delegates to a new one. Your identity, i.e. the master key, and the followers attached to it never change. The only thing that changes is the signing key underneath.
It's actually even a bit more powerful than that, since you can create *chains* of delegations from the master key down to the signing key. That means you don't even need the master key for revocations, an intermediary key in the chain can handle them. So after creating it and signing the initial delegation on an airgapped system, you can basically keep the master key in a safe deposit box or buried in your cellar and most likely never touch it again.
For a more detailed explanation, see below.
You get a "master" key that stays offline in cold storage and never does any day-to-day signing. That's your real identity, and that's what your followers attach to. You also get a separate signing key that you actually post with.
When the master key is first created, it signs a statement delegating signing authority to the signing key. That statement is recorded on a blockchain. After that, any notes signed by the signing key get attributed to the master key by the Inkan client.
If the signing key ever leaks or gets lost, the master key can sign another statement (also recorded on-chain) that revokes the old signing key and re-delegates to a new one. Your identity, i.e. the master key, and the followers attached to it never change. The only thing that changes is the signing key underneath.
It's actually even a bit more powerful than that, since you can create *chains* of delegations from the master key down to the signing key. That means you don't even need the master key for revocations, an intermediary key in the chain can handle them. So after creating it and signing the initial delegation on an airgapped system, you can basically keep the master key in a safe deposit box or buried in your cellar and most likely never touch it again.
For a more detailed explanation, see below.
you can run the english/japanese translator aready https://git.smesh.lol/transdb it uses the cayley tree/bethe latrice as the coordinate system and the translator is about 80% accurate by sample testi...
Hmm, looks like I have to look up Cayley trees and Bethe lattices. See if I can figure out what is going on.
The impact on junior developers (like myself) is not exactly great considering how the barrier to entry is much higher now. The type of work you would let a junior developer do, can now be done much f...
I suspect it's the same with senior developers. I'd recommend competing at the senior level.
when i get the time i have a design that uses a small model to navigate a semantic lattice algorithm i devised
That sounds ambitious if it's meant to be a step in the direction of making deepseek 4 run on your laptop. I've sometimes made ambitious claims myself, so I take care to never be entirely dismissive. Proof is in the pudding I guess.
1
yep. but this fantasy depends on inference remaining expensive. all technologies start out expensive. rental model works for the tech because of the internet speed. but what happens when your potato l...
I'd much prefer that, it would be great if it turned out like that.
1
palantir's karp practically literally said it. in short words, not your model, not your labor.
Oh, our darling weirdo / mad prophet. I guess my concern is who will own the physical infrastructure. I gather it's expensive. A high degree of decentralization of control over that would be desirable. As a sort of political / society building project.
1
My main worry about AI is who will own the means of production.
It's not a bad time to revive that good old Marxian phrase.
It's not a bad time to revive that good old Marxian phrase.
8❤️1
Inkan separates your identity from your signing key.
If the signing key is leaked or lost, revoke it. Switch to a new one. Same identity. Same followers. New signing key.
The prototype is here:
https://www.inkan.cc
Let me know any questions.
If the signing key is leaked or lost, revoke it. Switch to a new one. Same identity. Same followers. New signing key.
The prototype is here:
https://www.inkan.cc
Let me know any questions.
2
it is very interesting. yes it can be done wrong. i recommend getting a chatbot to give a summary and some links. the meaning of zero knowledge refers to it not leaking anything beyond proof. "member ...
Not leaking anything "beyond proof" raises the question what's included in the "proof." You're right I should ask a chat bot about this, and that's precisely what I'll do.
🌱1
i decided to put together a full PQ signature and ZKP proof protocol to add to gnarl-hamadryad. they are pretty decent and competitive based on the specs deepsnek put together for me over an extensive...
I need to read up on the fundamentals of zero knowledge proofs. There are lots of online articles that try illustrate with "easy" examples what they are, but the explanations are often barely coherent. There are definitions like "a method by which one party can prove to another party that a statement is true, without revealing any information apart from the fact that this specific statement is true." But then if you look at the examples, it seems like there is tons of additional information being revealed to the other party. It feels like what they mean is "a method by which one party can prove to another party that a statement is true without revealing *certain specified* other kinds of information that one wants to keep secret to the other party." That's of course fine for what it is, but then they probably shouldn't be called "zero knowledge" but instead "limited knowledge" proofs or something like that. But I need to read up on them before I say too many ill-informed things.
1
I find it qurious that you first said it was a shitty concept because it is possible to trace back to the original person. Then I say it isn't possible to trace back, and now you say, Wow, that's a sh...
Well, the original post wasn't meant to be quite as conclusive as you make it out to be. I was just trying to figure out what's going on.
It seemed useless if it's traceable. Then you told me that it's not traceable. So that then made me wonder what use cases there are for an ID that you can present in such a way that it's not possible for anyone to determine the identity of the owner.
You can't cryptographically confirm that you are providing the service to the actual owner of the ID, but maybe you can confirm that you are providing the service to a device where the ID is installed? I.e. maybe you can confirm something like
"I'm providing this service to a device that has an ID installed for someone for which the EU attests that they are over 18."
And it's assumed that the owner of the ID is in possession of that device, and that assumption then justifies the idea that you are providing the service to the owner.
If that's the picture, the EU will have to ensure that the ID for a person can only be installed on devices that the EU has confirmed are controlled by that person. It's a device-bound ID, and it can piggy-back on the mechanisms we currently have for binding devices to their owners.
It seemed useless if it's traceable. Then you told me that it's not traceable. So that then made me wonder what use cases there are for an ID that you can present in such a way that it's not possible for anyone to determine the identity of the owner.
You can't cryptographically confirm that you are providing the service to the actual owner of the ID, but maybe you can confirm that you are providing the service to a device where the ID is installed? I.e. maybe you can confirm something like
"I'm providing this service to a device that has an ID installed for someone for which the EU attests that they are over 18."
And it's assumed that the owner of the ID is in possession of that device, and that assumption then justifies the idea that you are providing the service to the owner.
If that's the picture, the EU will have to ensure that the ID for a person can only be installed on devices that the EU has confirmed are controlled by that person. It's a device-bound ID, and it can piggy-back on the mechanisms we currently have for binding devices to their owners.
♥️1