To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to propose to cooperate on the development and maintenance of
The proposal is available at:
The alpha version of Validbook is available at: http://futurama1x.validboo
The code is available at: https://github.com/Validbo
okFoundation/Validbook-Services-Backend and https://github.c
Main definition: Validbook – a universal platform for cooperation.
Functional definition: Validbook is a suite of protocols and services used
to enhance cooperation between things, people and virtual entities.
Validbook slogan: Do important stuff with confidence.
Validbook mission: To improve cooperation between things, people and
virtual entities by making it more transparent and reliable and to support
unalienable human rights among which are the right for Self-Sovereign
Identity, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The crux of Validbook idea
- Use graph analysis to prove the unique representation of a human
individuals by digital self-sovereign identities
- Distribute tokens among self-sovereign identities that proved to uniquely
represent human individuals, in a such way that incentivizes participation
of people in Validbook tokens distribution and makes tokens valuable
- Use tokens to fund development and maintenance of Validbook services
- Use tokens to align interest of Validbook maintainers and developers with
interests of Validbook users and Validbook mission
This proposal was originally published at W3C Credentials Community Group
mailing list (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/201
8May/0024.html), where technical standards for Self-Sovereign Identity,
Verifiable Credentials are being created.
As Validbook's governance and policies are inspired by Wikipidea/Wikimedia
example, I hope it is suitable to discuss the idea of Validbook and
"Proposal to cooperate on the development and maintenance of Validbook"
here. To discuss technical details of Validbook Statements and Identity
please use W3C CCG mailing list.
See full proposal at:
Adding a few clarifications in anticipation of the most likely reservations
*- Q.* Is it an ICO scam?
*- Q*. The Validbook name sounds a lot like Facebook. Is it an open source
clone of Facebook with a coin attached to it?
A. No, it is not a Facebook clone. Social networking service is only one
part of Validbook that may or may not used by Validbook users. Validbook
Social Service is a social networking service that combines UX features
from Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook. By using Validbook books, Validbook
channels and other Validbook-specific UX features, Validbook Social Service
provides a new, functionally unique, universal, low engaging UX solution
for posting (information dissemintation/signalling) and following
*- Q.* Who stands behind Validbook? Why did they do it? How did they do it?
What are their incentives?
A. Who? - Validbook was created (designed and speced out) by Bohdan
Andriyiv. Why? - Long story short, about 5-6 years ago I was bored and
wanted to work on something complex from technical and social point of
view. Validbook is a result of continuous evolution of UX design changes
and me trying to understand how people, technology (especially trustworthy
computing) and economics work. At the beginning I was doing it part time
and for the last 10 months full time. How? - It was developed with the help
of small team of freelance and for the last 10 months full time developers.
Incentives? - besides doing something interesting, and having satisfaction
from seeing something cool and useful like Validbook built; Kudos -
afterall, they are forever.
*- Q.* Is Validbook doable? It looks like this idea is too gigantic, not
A. Yes, it is doable. Taking into considerations developments in the area
of trustworthy computing (DLT), self-sovereign identity, verifiable
credentials, graph analysis capabilities, and the general state of the
Internet, I do not see reasons why Validbook cannot be done.
*- Q.* Will arbiters, graph analysis work against Sybil attacks?
A. In short – it remains to be seen. Long answer - as of now, there are
no definitive proofs that arbiters and graph analysis will work against
Sybil attacks. It can only be checked in practice. I think, initially,
about 95-98% of identities with SURLHI claim will be real (which is good
enough to deem kudos distribution fair and for kudos to be valued). With
time as practices and tools to do graph analysis and check SURLHI claim
become better, close to 100% of identities with SURLHI claim will be real.
I do not have hard mathematical way to prove it. It is an intuitive
understanding, based on the fact that we can show to an arbiter paths
between identity with SURLHI claim and Giant Component (graph component
that includes known valid and trustworthy identities). It will be the most
important way to eliminate fake identities and communities of fake
identities as they will not have many connections to the Giant Component.
On Facebook real people generally do not add unknown/fake identities to
their friends, this will be even more so when endorsing SURLHI as it is
*much more official*. Also, arbiters will be able to see and evaluate
shortest paths between identity in question and known high trustworthy
identities (for example, path between identity that claims to be a student
of some university and the president of that university). Graph analysis is
a natural, "evolutionary fun" activity for people, so arbiters will have
easy time to uncover false SURLHI claims. Also, the fact that we have quite
precise estimates of human population in different localities and in the
world allows to put an upper limit on possible number of fake identities.
After all, maybe not perfect analogy, but the fact that Wikipedia works,
gives me hope that arbiters and Validbook in general will work also.
*- Q.* Validbook idea looks interesting, but so far it is a private work,
basically a one man job. It needs to be a community work.
A. Definitely, yes. It needs to be developed with community's input and
supervision, and also more directly via open Kudos tenders and bounties.
Development and maintenance of Validbook should be done in open and
transparent way, similar to how Wikipedia is developed.