Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

blog.xot.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#31

Post by KirinDave »

DennisP wrote: post #29
KirinDave wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As with any transaction on a proof of work chain, Only active proof of work chains. Discontinued chains have no active, competitive consensus and may be arbitrarily rewritten by attackers since there is no competition at any historical point in the chain for a quick mining operation and there is no consensus about the head of the chain. If there are additional credentials and signatures embedded in the chain (there…

You can still measure the total amount of hashpower applied. Someone could add arbitrarily many blocks but you can calculate how much it cost for them to do it.

So? Without competition for time it's pretty easy to make quite long blockchains.

It's the competition for time that makes the mining reliable right now.

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#32

Post by psyc »

KirinDave wrote: post #31
DennisP wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still measure the total amount of hashpower applied. Someone could add arbitrarily many blocks but you can calculate how much it cost for them to do it.

So? Without competition for time it's pretty easy to make quite long blockchains. It's the competition for time that makes the mining reliable right now.

I'm struggling to pinpoint where you two are talking past each other. "Length" in the context of a blockchain refers quite specifically to the amount of actual work. So "easy" to make "long" chain, seems like a straightforward contradiction.

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#33

Post by dane-pgp »

yyyyip wrote: post #28
jjawssd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scan a fingerprint (to establish identity) > annually update information about themselves onto the blockchain (how?) What could possibly go wrong? Fingerprints alone should not be used as a key.

I don't mean using the fingerprint as a key. I mean that if you can produce a fingerprint image corresponding to a blockchain hash and it matches your fingerprint 20 years later, and this is linked to 20 years worth of blockchain recorded credential information, I would find that very compelling evidence that you are who you say you are.

This idea of having 20 years of linked entries in an append-only distributed log is very powerful, and is the basis for the "idchains" system discussed here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZC98s4paYY

It controversially opts to use faces rather than fingerprints, but faces are easier for humans to verify, especially without special hardware.

I don't think the video describes a complete system, but the idea has merit and I wish it had been developed more.

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#34

Post by ringaroundthetx »

Buttes wrote: post #9

>what would happen to all credentials once issued to some blockchain, if that blockchain ceases to operate? The raw blockchain data is of course still available and maintains its blockchain structure. Yet the integrity-preserving features of the blockchain disappear as soon as it is no longer actively used. I'm not sure this is true. Info about the blockchain wouldn't evaporate instantly, it'd be easy to get the legi…

yes that is interesting, it is the same as one copy of the database. you would have to find someone mirroring another copy and compare them.

if we live in a world where one-copy is fine most of the time, then this is a marginal improvement adding just a little redundancy between unknown parties.

some kid with the blockchain copy in their temp folder from years before will save the key pairs for humanity.

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#35

Post by KirinDave »

psyc wrote: post #32
KirinDave wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Without competition for time it's pretty easy to make quite long blockchains. It's the competition for time that makes the mining reliable right now.

I'm struggling to pinpoint where you two are talking past each other. "Length" in the context of a blockchain refers quite specifically to the amount of actual work. So "easy" to make "long" chain, seems like a straightforward contradiction.

The amount of calculation necessary to add a block to the chain is not undoable by someone with modest resources.

What's difficult is doing it as quickly as Bitcoin miners with specialized hardware and big energy footprints.

You can make a new blockchain add got Bitcoin today on EC2 without overwhelming expense. Even 30 of them. No problem! It'd take too long to be practical for mining, but that's not the senario we are discussing

Would you beat other miners in? Absolutely not. But the scenario being discussed here is the historical value of blockchains once there is no mining pool racing on them.

And the answer both the article and I propose is: "It is almost none" compared to the other cryptographic tokens. Especially if the chain isn't receiving constant, small commits.

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#36

Post by noddy1 »

xdeqx366 wrote: post #24
noddy1 wrote: post #18

Im a "blockchain-for-x" skeptic, but I disagree with this article. A timestamped, immutable blockchain would be useful for reviewing credentials from 3rd world countries where qualifications/experience/government certification are all able to be bought. It wouldn't solve fraud, but it would make it a lot harder to suddenly decide to fake a whole lot of credentials, and would make it more obvious that a particular org…

You're basically specifiying PKI, not anything to do with Blockchain. If you truly want the timestamps to "lock in" the time of a transaction without trusting either party, a hash-commitment could be used, akin to https://opentimestamps.org/ .

A blockchain could improve on this because it leaves some trail linking actions of individuals as well as authorities together.

For instance, you can make a timestamped scan of a university degree to prove it existed on some date. However, a blockchain would allow the university itself to sign the fact that it gave the person the degree at that time. It would also show how many degrees of that sort the university are giving out, so that if they start giving them to everyone that would be noticed. It would also show that the given person only got that 1 degree at that time, and it would be hard for them to then make up a bunch of other stuff. None of these are possible with simple timestamping.

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#37

Post by noddy1 »

chitta wrote: post #30
noddy1 wrote: post #18

Im a "blockchain-for-x" skeptic, but I disagree with this article. A timestamped, immutable blockchain would be useful for reviewing credentials from 3rd world countries where qualifications/experience/government certification are all able to be bought. It wouldn't solve fraud, but it would make it a lot harder to suddenly decide to fake a whole lot of credentials, and would make it more obvious that a particular org…

Is there a preference for the term ‘third-world’ to ‘developing nation’

:shrug: don't care

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#38

Post by somenewacc »

yyyyip wrote: post #28
jjawssd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scan a fingerprint (to establish identity) > annually update information about themselves onto the blockchain (how?) What could possibly go wrong? Fingerprints alone should not be used as a key.

I don't mean using the fingerprint as a key. I mean that if you can produce a fingerprint image corresponding to a blockchain hash and it matches your fingerprint 20 years later, and this is linked to 20 years worth of blockchain recorded credential information, I would find that very compelling evidence that you are who you say you are.

Fingerprints change (sometimes radically). Relying on them may make you unable to prove you're yourself.

Re: Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

#39

Post by alphaalpha101 »

noddy1 wrote: post #18

Im a "blockchain-for-x" skeptic, but I disagree with this article. A timestamped, immutable blockchain would be useful for reviewing credentials from 3rd world countries where qualifications/experience/government certification are all able to be bought. It wouldn't solve fraud, but it would make it a lot harder to suddenly decide to fake a whole lot of credentials, and would make it more obvious that a particular org…

Sorry but that's absolutely horrific. Publishing that level of personal information, then realistically forcing people to do so to have any chance of emigrating to the first world?

Why do you care who they were 10 years ago, who their family is? Why do you think it's a good idea to make immutable, publicly available lists of targets?

Post reply on HN