The Metaverse Needs a Unique User Identifier (Comment of the Week)

Pictured: Jeff "AM Radio" Berg's famed Second Life art recreated by his son in Fortnite

Good conversation responding to Tim Sweeney's belief that there should be many competing metaverses rather than just one world that's The Metaverse. My response to that was calling for shared standards for 3D content that enable virtual goods and other creations to freely move from one metaverse to another.

Reader "irihapeti" argues otherwise, calling for a unique identifier across metaverses as the more important first step:

I think the Metaverse is about a unique identifier (UUID) for the user across all the providers.

A UUID and name issued by a central authority which when combined makes this unique to each user. I.E. 1000-Hamlet Au, is not the same person as 1001-Hamlet Au.

A central authority which also acts as (issues licenses for) a micro-currency clearing house settling metaverse transactions. User-to-user, user-to-provider, provider-to-provider.

A authority which also facilitates (issues licenses for) the conversion of metaverse micro-currencies into RL fiat currencies and vice versa

A authority which issues licenses to providers to connect their game/world/experience to the Metaverse.

Without such an authority then there is no Metaverse. There is what we have now - the Indyverse. Lots of individuals doing their own thing.

I think asset compatibility across providers is secondary, even a little immaterial, to identity compatibility.

Appealing in theory, the notion of having a "central authority" sure makes me nervous -- unless it stems from some kind of consortium where end users have as much democratic say as companies and definitely as much as governments. The Khronos Group has been doing something like this for 3D standards, and includes both Unity and Unreal as members, so that may be the central authority to start creating UUID standards -- assuming it encouraged some buy-in from and participation by end users.

Comments

[irihapeti]

central authority might be a bit scary words

central authority for UUIDs in the same way that the domain name registry works. A UUID can never be issued/used more than once

once this has been agreed on, then there is a standards body and a authorising body

from out of this body then micro-transaction interoperability standards, and licenses to fund the body can come

is about starting with "show me the money, and show me that myself (my UUID) and my money and trades will be safe" for both users and providers

without securing this first then is just lots of people individually doing it hard, by having to push their own barrow uphill

[sirhc desantis]

Odd to find my self not in agreement with ser irihapti - must be a first.
'Central authority' is not scary per se but in meatspace I uave (and use) at least three national level identifiers (that is, 3 different countries) all of which point to me and all are me - more or less. That does not include my passport.
As for that - true story. When the US started demanding finger printing for international arrivals (at airports - could still drive in to NY across the border without) I had a fun few hours because it flagged me on a different passport number. Trying to explain that yes indeedy passports get renewed in the real world to no avail (even in simple words - was TSA after all) it took much consultation with various supervisors. As far as I know that data is still clogging up searches some 15 years later.
So, who the hell am I to trust or even bother with? :)
Interoperable stuff standards? We already have a couple that work pretty well - can certainly shift my crap between the various engines already. Scripting the stuff under various is actually part of the fun.
Besides, I quite like the IndyVerse as it is - can chop and change and leave whatever details with whoever I happen to trust. Certainly won't be Epic =^^=

[Nodoka Hanamura]

A Central Authority is untrustworthy as political and social activists on both sides of the spectrum politically and socially can pose threat to the virtual livelyhoods of users across the 'metaverse'. I shouldn't be banned from SL and everywhere else because of the fact I don't agree with certain political or social mentalities, or that I may say something in general that irks my hypothetical benefactors.

I spoke of something relating to AI and using them to suppress inflammatory opinions of the sort with my friend Sarrah recently as a way to calm the virtual waters as it were - and it came to a similar conclusion relating to the authority over that AI - If it's run by humans, you can be guaranteed that someone with that kind of absolute power will be corrupted by it and use it and their virtues to oppress those they disagree with in some capacity. The same goes for having a metaverse "authority" to assign User UUIDs across all worlds. It's better to just stick with decentralized metaverse systems like we already have. If the Lindens slit my avatar's neck in her sleep for breaking the TOS, I'll just go somewhere else. Where is a fucking brilliant question for one, because questions abound relating to that single one alone - but still - I'd rather be able to go somewhere else, or even after a while and things have cooled down, come back and start over and learn from my mistakes. Many people on SL alone I'm certain may have been banned at one point and learned from their mistakes. A central authority over such idenitity may be more harsh than Linden Lab is on pursuing those who want to lay low and not cause trouble.

[Joey1058]

There are pros and cons to this very thorny topic. Let's revisit the Nym Wars issue, shall we? Google and Facebook, almost neck and neck out of the starting gate, were DEMANDING that we all provided real names and faces to our identities or face banning from their platforms. That ended in somewhat of an uneasy truce. We know now that it wasn't for public protection as much as laser accurate advertising.

I think if UUID was as secure as the tech giants say it is, then we wouldn't have blockchain tech today. I used to daydream of the concept of someplace like CERN that managed a master database, where the individual controlled who had access to their info. Sirhc desantis illustrates how this is still needed.

And on the opposite end of that spectrum, Nodoka Hanamura explains WHY it's a losing game. My example? I present to you the Chinese Communist Party. They do know everything there is to know about their citizens. And it annoys them to no end that they do NOT know everything about everybody, globally. Every time they try, they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Now, with the advent of spacial computing, and AI, a master database might just come about by default, managed by a Decentralized Autonomous Organization, or DAO. Then all the pegs we've been accumulating will fall into place. But I don't anticipate that happening for several years into the near future. More than likely not until the legendary AI Singularity occurs.

So, in the interim, everyone play nice with the walled gardens. Because they run the show.

[irihapeti]

i would suggest that a Metaverse UUID is as realworld identifiable as [email protected]

and yet there is an authority that allows Microsoft to be hotmail.com and allows Microsoft as the authorised entity/owner of hotmail.com to assign hamlet2716 to some publicly unidentifiable person, should that person choose not to publicly identify themselves as being [email protected]

and yet [email protected] is a unique identifier of which there can only be one

my point is that a Metaverse UUID from a personal privacy pov is no more or less scary than [email protected]