►
Description
Visit the https://archive.devcon.org/ to gain access to the entire library of Devcon talks with the ease of filtering, playlists, personalized suggestions, decentralized access on Swarm, IPFS and more.
https://archive.devcon.org/archive/watch/6/how-to-ethically-build-public-good-infrastructure/
We at Status have been working to enable an interface to Web3 since our inception. We bought into the principles of this ecosystem, and have spent extraordinary effort to not compromise on those ethics while we continue to create applications that are easily accessible while also maintaining our user's rights.
This talk is an overview of this journey, lessons learned, the fruits of this labor, why we're doubling down on this process, and why you should to.
Speaker(s): Corey Petty
Skill level: Intermediate
Track: Layer 1 Protocol
Keywords: infrastructure,community,ethical
Follow us: https://twitter.com/efdevcon, https://twitter.com/ethereum
Learn more about devcon: https://www.devcon.org/
Learn more about ethereum: https://ethereum.org/
Devcon is the Ethereum conference for developers, researchers, thinkers, and makers.
Devcon 6 was held in Bogotá, Colombia on Oct 11 - 14, 2022.
Devcon is organized and presented by the Ethereum Foundation, with the support of our sponsors. To find out more, please visit https://ethereum.foundation/
A
A
Build
public
good
infrastructure,
specifically
focusing
on
the
ethics.
It's
not
going
to
be
as
many
details.
If
you'd
like
more
details
on
kind
of
our
history
and
the
current
work,
we
do
at
status
and
sister
organizations,
you
can
I'd
recommend
watching
Oscar
Thorne's
talk
he
did
earlier
today.
So
if
you
missed
that
check
it
on
the
stream,
but
for
those
of
you
who
are
leaving,
you
see
what
a
tldr
exist,
web3's
main
primitive
is
to
minimize
their
influence
on
everyone
else.
That's
the
whole
goal.
A
I
think
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
Building,
decentralized
Technology
is
mitigating
those
with
power
and
their
influence
on
those
without
it
and
the
ethics
of
building
this
stuff.
This
infrastructure
has
a
massive
impact
on
our
success
in
doing
this,
so
the
process
of
how
we
think
about
building
these
things
and
how
we
make
decisions
in
the
process
of
building
these
things
tremendously
impacts
our
ability
to
mitigate
so
a
little
bit
about
me.
A
My
name
is
Corey
Petty
I
said
at
the
beginning:
I
started
out
doing
podcasting
in
early
2015
and
researched
a
couple
years
before
that
joint
status
four
to
five
years
ago.
It's
a
blur
at
this
point
doing
security,
research
and
security
stuff
across
the
organization
and
since
this
year,
I've
moved
into
doing
kind
of
coordinating
all
of
the
infrastructure
projects
which
we've
recently
expanded
into
you'll,
see
kind
of
a
start
to
that
work.
A
In
the
later
half
of
my
of
my
talk,
you
can
reach
me
in
all
these
different
things:
corepetty.eath
on
status,
just
search
for
petty
and
core
Petty
on
Twitter,
so
status
is
an
organization.
That's
founded
on
a
series
of
principles
we
wholly
bought
into
what
we
believe
to
be
like
the
ideal,
ethereum
principles
for
building
public
good
infrastructure,
I'm
not
going
to
list
them
all.
You
can
see
them
and
in
some
cases
these
things
are
a
little
in
conflict
with
each
other.
But
as
an
organization,
that's
founded
on
these
things.
A
Consumption
of
that
good-
and
this
is
Paul
sentence,
so
we're
trying
to
optimize
infrastructure
where
it's
not
a
zero-sum
game
and
someone
can't
take
advantage
of
others
or
in
the
process
of
someone
being
successful.
That
is
a
detriment,
the
use
or
experience
of
someone
else.
That
has
nothing
to
do
with
that
work.
A
What
a
community
is
is
as
generic
as
you
could
think
it'd
be
it's
either
a
blockchain
ecosystem,
a
government,
your
local
Meetup,
your
friends,
Group,
whatever
we
all
know
kind
of
who
this
person
is
and
I.
Imagine,
there's
probably
a
lot
of
in
this
building
as
well.
So
like
we
all
kind
of
get
the
idea,
here's
some.
This
is
an
example
of
what
the
influence
of
power
dynamics
can
have
on
a
system
in
which
tries
to
mitigate
it,
but
doesn't
quite
successfully.
A
C
A
Differently,
but
we're
really
trying
to
flatten
its
effects,
we're
seeking
to
remove
the
ability,
some
of
someone
with
asymmetric
power
to
impact
those
without
it,
and
this
could
be
summarized
by
this
kind
of
change
of
phrasing.
We've
all
heard
in
the
beginning
of
Google,
their
their
phrase
of
don't
be
evil
and
we
loved
it.
A
Don't
be
evil
to
can't
be
evil,
because
we've
seen
what
happens
when
the
motto
is:
don't
be
evil.
You
have
the
option
to
do
so.
It's
it
and
you
continue
to
have
that
option
you
get
to
selectively
choose
when
it's
economically
feasible
for
you
to
not
be
evil
or
maybe
there's
a
change
of
guard
and
everything.
A
That's
set
up
that
had
that
ethos
changes
when
that
new
change
of
guard
doesn't
really
quite
care
the
way
the
original
one
did
so
we're
seeking
to
do
this,
don't
changing,
don't
be
evil
if
it
can't
be
evil,
don't
give
people
those
options,
and
this
is
an
example
of
when
that
fails.
This
is
a
mbvwatch
dot
info
I,
believe
yeah,
I.
A
A
The
code
was
removed
and
put
back
on
subsequently,
but
we're
seeing
OPEC
sanctions
having
a
an
impact
on
what
we
thought
was
Central,
like
censorship,
resistant
technology,
where
this
is
the
list
of
all
of
the
blocks
currently
done
since
the
merge
and
those
of
the.
If
you
look
at
the
the
gray
here,
the
gray
is
all
the
ones
that
are
not
using
a
service
on
the
validators
called
Mev
boost
and
those
that
are
are
the
ones
that
are
the
portion
of
those
blocks
that
are
of
fat,
compliant.
They're.
A
Think
if
you
look
at
that,
it
ends
up
being
quite
a
bit
so
32
of
all
transactions
put
across
the
the
blockchain
network
or
are
ofac
compliant,
and
if
you
look
at
just
the
ones
going
through
interview,
Mev
boost
the
massive
majority
of
those
are
so
we're
seeing
censorship
at
the
base
layer,
and
this
can
only
be
done
because
we
can
see
what
those
transactions
are
and
you're
able
to
make
a
distinction
and
do
transaction
ordering,
because
you're
able
to
see
those
details.
Now
that
means
you're.
A
Given
the
ability
to
look
back
here
here,
maybe
you
have
the
ability
to
make
a
decision
that
you're
choosing
don't
be
evil
and
that
can't
be
evil.
So
it
makes
it
it's
showing
that
we
need
more
privacy
and
censorship
resistance.
Well,
I'll.
Get
to
that
in
a
moment.
Don't
know
why
that
moved,
yeah
so
we're
seeing
that
we
need
more
privacy
and
censorship
resistance
at
lower
and
lower
layers.
A
A
But
this
wonderful
picture
by
Monica
and
the
crowd
here
is,
is
kind
of
like
this
example
of
what
it
looks
like
when
you
you
don't
take
this
into
account
and
you
funnel
everything
all
human
relationships
into
a
single
medium
in
which
kind
of
takes
out
all
your
optionality
and
how
you
can
build
things.
So
this
is
kind
of
like
all
of
the
complexity
of
Human,
Relationships
and
different
things
coming
through.
What
I
would
see
a
meat
grinder
where
everything
comes
out
uniform
in
the
same
currently?
A
This
is
what
I
would
consider
centralized
infrastructure
in
which
we
try
and
take
everything
that
we
humans
do
to
communicate
and
make
digital
relationships
and
lives
and
what
it
turns
out
to
be
when
we
try
and
like
mimic
that
stuff
in
a
digital
environment
so
to
dive
into
that
a
little
bit
deeper.
There
are
three
parts,
three
layers
of
any
message:
I
want
to
try
and
explain
what
these
are
and
then
point
out
kind
of
where
the
subtlety
in
the
evil
comes.
In.
A
First,
we
have
the
frame
message,
which
is
the
concept
of
giving
information
that
there
is
a
message.
It
says:
hey,
I'm,
a
message
to
code
me:
if
you
can
it's
the
ability
to
identify
that
a
message
even
exists
for
you
to
think
about,
and
it's
this
is
this:
it's
it
implicitly
conveys
in
the
structure
of
this
message.
This
is
a
book,
so
you
know
what
a
book
contains
a
message:
that's
a
good
decent
example
and
to
understand
the
frame
message
is
to
recognize
the
need
for
some
type
of
decoding
mechanism.
A
I've
identified
that
there
is
a
message
and
now
I
need
to
find
a
way
to
decode
it
to
understand
what
that
message
actually
is.
Next,
one
is
the
outer
message,
which
is
the
medium
used
to
convey
that
message.
This
is
how
the
message
was
sent
out
in
the
world
to
understand
this.
The
outer
message
is
to
build
or
know
how
to
build
the
correct
decoding
mechanism
for
the
inner
message,
so
this
is
I've
identified
that
there's
a
message
that
I'd
like
to
see
and
now
I
need
to
understand
that.
A
Now
this
is
a
overly
simplistic
model
of
what
a
new
message
is,
but
what
gives
you
a
framework
to
kind
of
give
you
an
idea
of
like
where
things
can
be
introduced
and
how
to
start
trying
to
understand
how
you
can
mitigate
these
things?
So
if
we
think
about
blockchain
networks
as
coordination
mechanisms,
this
is
we're
using
them
as
social
layers
to
then,
as
I
said
earlier,
mitigate
as
best
we
can
and
trust
a
system
as
opposed
to
humans,
to
convey
those
interactions
and
the
interesting
thing
about
them.
A
That's
different
from
the
Internet
is
that
they
have
real
world
value
which
attracts
a
lot
of
people
to
do
things
that
are
very
greedy.
So
we
have
these
beautiful,
cross-border
cross,
jurors.
Dictional
attempts
to
be
attempting
to
be
Central
censorship,
resistant
coordination
mechanisms
that
allow
us
all
these
things.
We
couldn't
do
beforehand
in
a
digital
environment,
with
digital
relationships
with
approval
value,
and
if
we
think
about
that
earlier
framework
of
thinking
about
a
message,
it's
really
hard,
because
it's
layered
in
a
bunch
of
different
ways.
A
If
we
look
at
the
kind
of
Stack,
the
very,
very
overly
simplistic
stack
of
what
a
blockchain
network
is,
we
have
networking
at
the
bottom.
This
is
how
messages
get
passed
around
so
then
everyone
who's
contributing
to
these
things.
Can
it
comes
to
agreement
and
has
all
the
right
data
to
figure
out
what's
going
on?
They
then
go
through
the
process
of
validating
all
these
messages.
That
say,
if
they're
well,
formed
or
someone's
doing
a
double
spend
or
that
gets
dropped
or
whatever
and
then
construct
them
into
blocks.
A
A
That's
a
lot
of
messages
and
a
lot
of
different
mechanisms
which
have
what
would
be
considered
an
outer
message
that
needs
to
be
interpreted
appropriately
and
based
on
anyone
in
this
process's
ability
to
understand
that
outer
message
and
the
powers
they
have
in
various
places
across
the
stack
give
them
the
ability
to
change
that
message
or
censor
it
and
most
of
the
time
when
we're
thinking
about
adding
security
or
privacy.
We're
looking
at
the
top
two
validation
and
consensus,
we're
basically
just
making
sure
it's
correct.
But
what
we're
seeing
now
like.
A
We
spent
all
our
time
on
privacy
in
the
retrieval
and
kind
of
well
there's
a
middle
layer
with
smart
contractors,
so
on
and
so
forth.
We're
seeing
all
of
our
time
spinning
up
here
when,
when
things
happen
and
those
that
the
powers
that
be
want
to
change
stuff
that
go
to
a
layer
above
because
we
didn't
necessarily
think
about
it
back
then
right.
A
A
Please
show
up
for
that,
but
this
is
a
what
the
original
theorem
announced
to
the
world.
This
is
what
the
decentralized
stack
looked
like,
where
you
had
smart
contracts
on
ethereum,
we
all
kind
of
know
what
that
is,
and
then
swarm
and
Whisper,
which
were
the
other
two
pillars
of
what
a
decentralized
application
was
supposed
to
be
swarmed
for
file,
storage
and
Whisper
for
dynamic,
Communications
or
femoral
Communications,
and
with
a
special
emphasis
in
obfuscating
the
route
of
how
who
sent
a
message
and
who's
receiving
it.
A
We
holy
bought
into
this
status
and
we
wanted
to
build
an
application.
We
wanted
to
be
this
thing
that
consumed
these
things,
so
that
people
had
access
to
it
in
resource
constrained
or
like
areas
in
which
only
had
access
to
small
little
number
of
resources
like
the
mobile
phone
right.
We
wanted
to
increase
the
inclusion
as
much
as
possible
while
maintaining
this
high
level
of
decentralization,
and
we
had
this
concept
of
socioeconomic
networks
really
really
really
early
you're.
A
We
used
what
was
put
out
by
ethereum
ecosystem
and
we
did
it
naively
I'd
say
we
used
proof
of
work
because
that's
part
of
it
in
terms
of
the
the
anti-spam
mechanism
for
messages
being
passed
on
the
network
and
we
killed
batteries
and
had
super
hot
funds,
use
glossop,
gossip
and
Bloom
filters
for
sending
it
for
Center
midi,
and
we
destroyed
data
plans
for
people
right.
We
tried
to
use
this
technology
as
best
we
could
and
read
it.
A
It
was
a
new
technology
and
we
tried
to
apply
it
in
a
very
extreme
place
and
then
the
first
discovery
finding
peers
and
we
had
a
based
on
the
high
churn
of
people's
mobile
devices
popping
in
and
out
of
places
or
turning
them
off
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
It's
really
hard
to
get
good
message,
reliability,
and
so
what
did
we
do?
We
took
ownership
of
it
because
was
for
wasn't
whisper,
wasn't
being
developed
in
applying
resources.
A
They
reasonably
speaking,
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
to
be
applied
to
just
fixing
and
making
a
blockchain
scale
itself
and
solving
those
problems
with
what
resources
were
available
at
that
time.
So
Oscar
wrote
A
Blog
here
along
then
we
we
decided
as
an
organization
to
take
ownership
of
this
and
introduce
waku,
which
was
the
fork
of
whisper,
and
we
tried
to
make
it
a
little
more
scalable,
a
little
more
usable
so
that
status
applications
the
users
of
the
status
application
could
have
somewhat
of
a
reasonable
user
experience.
A
So
we
tend
to
the
patch
whisper
for
our
environment,
took
responsibility
and
applied
attention
to
our
required
infrastructure,
and
we
did
this
in
an
open
way.
We
created
vac,
which
is
a
separate
organization
to
focus
and
research
and
study
on
trying
to
grow
these
things
and
the
manner
that's
appropriate
with
the
principles
I
talked
about
in
the
beginning,
and
for
all
of
these
things
you
can
see
out
in
the
open.
A
We
try
to
make
open
specifications
that
anyone
can
use,
whisper
or
waku
is
for
everyone,
we're
taking
opinionated
versions
of
it
and
applying
it
in
contexts.
We
think
is
appropriate,
but
it's
for
everyone.
A
public
good
is
not
to
be
owned
by
a
given
organization
and
used
at
our
discretion.
So
we
publish
all
these
things
at
rfc.vac.dev.
Join
opine
contribute,
but
we
had
issues.
We
had
spam
for
those
of
you,
who've
used
status
in
the
past
couple
years
and
you
go
to
maybe
this
status,
Channel
you're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
this.
Why?
A
A
We
could
have
offered
up
a
lot
of
centralized
solutions
by
looking
at
IPS
and
banning
them
or
running
things
through
our
servers
and
censoring
or
things
appropriately,
but
we
tried
to
stick
to
our
principles
of
what
a
real
decentralized
stack
should
look
like,
and
it
was
painful
but
we're
in
a
scaling
problem
too.
We
had
multiple
problems
simultaneously.
So
what
did
we
do?
A
A
So
what
do
we
do?
We
did
a
complete
retooling
of
a
private
decentralized,
generally
messaging
stack
on
top
of
the
P2P,
it's
modular,
so
that
users
trying
to
use
this
stuff
for
a
specific
context,
can
make
the
decisions
it's
appropriate
for
what
they're
doing
whenever
you
try
and
make
a
completely
generalized
solid
framework
that
isn't
flexible,
you're
going
to
optimize
for
No
One.
A
So
if
you
will
provide
a
suite
of
protocols
that
work
well
together
and
a
way
for
them
to
interact
together,
then
you
can
hopefully
build
multiple
solutions
that
optimize
for
multiple
applications
and
it's
open.
Once
again,
it's
built
for
generalized
messaging,
it's
not
just
for
status.
That's
one
of
the
applications!
We
use
it
for
being
used
for
things
based
on
what
choices
you
make
in
the
suite
of
protocols.
A
A
So,
in
order
for
keeping
with
our
principals,
we
decided
to
build
the
What's
called
the
rln
relay
and
that
is
a
privacy
preserving
spam
protection
that
leverages
zero
knowledge,
proofs
and
severe
secret
sharing
and
some
economic
disincentives.
This
is
built
on
walkover
V2
relay
and
this
is
an
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
the
overview.
A
I
don't
have
much
time,
but
it's
a
really
interesting
way
of
using
novel,
cryptography
and
very
well
known
cryptography
in
a
unique
combination
of
allowing
people
to
contribute
to
a
network
and
be
removed
if
they
do
bad
behavior
without
having
to
really
reveal
a
lot
of
pii
information
about
themselves
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
we
stuck
to
our
principles.
It
was
painful
along
the
way,
but
we
got
to
a
unique
solution
that
I,
don't
think
ever
would
have
gotten
to
or
maybe
much
later
had.
A
We
just
you
know,
compromise
those
things
and
moved
on
to
some
other
way.
All
the
specifications
once
again
are
at
rfc.vac.dev.
You
can
see
the
papers
of
these
things,
I'm
sure
there's
links
on
on
vac.dev,
but
you
can
find
them
here
if
yeah,
it's
easier.
If
you
just
go
to
the
website
and
click
on
it
as
opposed
to
trying
writing
it
down,
now
go
play
with
it.
Tell
us
about
it.
We
have
a
lot
of
different
other
research
along
the
way
once
again
go
see.
Oscar,
you
can
see
a
live.
A
Demo
of
this
type
of
thing
live
a
video
of
a
demo
of
this
type
of
thing.
Tomorrow,
it's
once
again
wrapping
it
up,
so
a
principles
are
priority
right.
In
order
to
do
what
I
would
consider
public
good
infrastructure,
you
need
to
publish
openly,
you
can't
do
things
in
the
dark,
especially
when
it's
a
digital
permissionless
system.
You
can't
have
trust
in
things.
If
you
don't
know
how
it
works,
and
these
things
should
be
Community,
Based,
so
publish
openly
Implement
iterate.
A
The
concept
of
using
old
two
tools
will
lead
to
Old
Solutions.
If
we
would
have
compromised
on
our
principles
and
done
things
to
make
status,
scale
and
kind
of
soar
quickly,
we
would
have
just
ended
up
with
the
same
stuff.
The
same
we
have
today,
and
that's
not
why
we
hear
in
the
first
place,
are
everywhere
and
think
about
that
think
about
how
they
can
manipulate
the
intended
messages
that
you're
trying
to
send
out
in
the
world.
A
C
B
Hey
great
talk,
allow
me
to
stand
so.
I
was
curious.
You
know
you
talk
about
your
principles
and
it
seems
like
first
and
foremost,
privacy
is
at
the
top
of
that
stack.
I
think
there
was
like
an
implication
about
the
morality
of
the
ofac
sanctions
like
in
the
validators,
which
seems
to
imply
that
privacy
is
Paramount
above
the
other
principles
that
you
try
to
present
as
like
what
is
ethical
for
status?
B
That's
not
a
judgment.
That's
just
I'm
just
trying
to
say
that
the
question
is:
how
do
you
prioritize
the
principles
against
each
other?
I
mean
you
talk
about
inclusivity
like
with
the
resource,
limited
devices,
and
then
how
do
you,
you
know,
ask
your
community
to
input
their
opinions
about
like
the
priorities
of
those
principles
so
in
designing
you
know
the
future
of
status.
Like
what
sort
of
processes
do
you
use
to
get
feedback
on
those
principles?
Good.
A
Question,
actually
it's
really
really
really
hard.
First
off
I
think
it's
that
an
Oscar
stock.
You
mentioned
something
that
I've
I
like
repeating
and
I
like
saying
a
lot,
because
it
really
tells
kind
of
powder
like
a
general
idea
of
how
to
how
to
frame
these
things
and
like
because
in
the
day,
there's
a
lot
of
principles
to
uphold
right
a
lot
of
ideas.
A
So
how
can
we
make
the
most
generalized
way
that
people
can
make
decisions
for
themselves
and
and
build
appropriately
for
their
context?
So
that
means
privacy
is
very
strong
because
you're
not
revealing
information
until
you
need
to,
but
if
you're,
not
private,
you're
automatically
giving
all
that
information
away
which
allows
people
to
make
decisions
like
which
doesn't
allow
people,
you
can't
add
so
much
harder
to
add
privacy
later
to
the
same
thing,
can't
build
private
Solutions
on
top
of
public
Solutions.
A
There
are,
there's
always
going
to
be
a
way
to
remove
that
privacy
to
layer
below
and
go
after
it
right
and
I.
Think
like
one
of
the
examples
I've
heard
recently
is
from
our
founder
is
like
say
you
wanted
to
build
a
limited
liability.
Doubt
heck.
Can
we
do
that
today?
I,
don't
think
so,
because
you
can
make
a
vote
on
a
specific
proposal
and
someone
doesn't
like
it.
They
can
still
see
who
voted
on
it
and
the
whales
can
go
after
those.
A
They
are
beholden
to
whatever
constraints
that
ethereum
gives
them.
They
don't
have
a
lot
of
power
in
themselves
and
I
really
don't
enjoy.
Although
zero
knowledge
is
wonderful,
it's
currently
being
used
for
compression
reasons
and
there's
no
privacy
there
and
once
again
same
thing,
you
just
even
higher
above
the
stack
since
you're
publishing
all
that
data
to
the
blockchain
in
a
non-privacy.
A
Preserving
way,
it's
not
doing
anything,
it's
just
a
scaling
solution,
so
it's
it's
adding
additional
constraints
that
will
eventually
be
subject
to
the
same
censorship
or
just
like
non-censorship
resistance
that
we're
seeing
today.
But
that
being
said,
it's
awesome
like
there's
a
bunch
of
really
cool
technology
being
deployed
and
very
very
novel
advancements
in
cryptographic,
Primitives
that
will
be
useful
for
scaling
and
adding
privacy
preserving
Solutions
in
in
different
ways
in
the
future.