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

Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

login.land

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

#101

Post by weatherman2 »

The market you want to target is people who aren't software engineers but want to run a simple website. The gulf for someone who just wants to serve a static html site but wants to have some content that requires secure access is huge right now.

Consider the use case for a person buying woodworking plans from a website. Payment required to access pdf plans, but the owner of the website wants to set it up once and not worry about it, and not to have to learn anything more about coding than they have to.

Re: Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

#102

Post by whatl3y »

IgorPartola wrote: post #99
dsteinman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Login management should be built into the browsers instead. I would go even further than this, and say that a cryptocurrency might be among the best ways to build a universal login system. Imagine an Ethereum-like coin where the wallet is the username, and you spend the coins while authenticating, gaining privileges, and the blockchain stores your public info like a username and avatar that you can bring to any web…

I don’t want every login to become a part of the public ledger. Do you? Also, crypto currencies are a good solution for one thing only: electronic currencies. Outside of that they are a poorer solution compared to what’s available now. Every time.

> crypto currencies are a good solution for one thing only: electronic currencies.

What is a better solution than building a tamper proof workflow in the blockchain? Examples include:

1. I sign a contract and the notary signs and uploads a copy to the blockchain to validate the contract contents, that it was signed and by whom, and when.

2. An auditor validates a piece of evidence a client provides that proves its in compliance with a particular control in some regulatory framework. The auditor uploads a SHA256 hash of the evidence in a transaction memo to the blockchain to validate against later in peer review, a lawsuit, etc.

Edit: My examples here refer to a valid use case of a blockchain and not cryptocurrencies which is what you mention, but based on context of this discussion it looks like we all actually mean blockchain and not necessarily cryptocurrency.

Re: Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

#103

Post by zzo38computer »

varbhat wrote: post #82

No. Google signin is used because of Chrome/Android(Or browsers in general because of Google account which many people have it atleast because of Gmail). Apple ID( their login ) is useful because of Apple ecosystem which constitutes IOS,MacOS,etc. So,there is no appealing reason to use your product. What if it is down in future? Also,it's closed source and not federated. I am interested in federated login system(Prob…

Actually what I would want is a system like OpenID but using SASL instead of the web browser.

Re: Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

#105

Post by onexey »

I'll comment in an end user standpoint. I'm not trying to debunk your idea. I know, having an idea and acting on it is a hard thing and kudos for that. I would love easier login process on every site.

I don't know your likely use case or target market. So I'm using an imaginary one based on my usage.

Disclaimer: I'm not your average user. I use password managers heavily. But on the other hand every browser have some kind of integrated password manager.

My imaginary scenario has these assumptions: - This website relatively simple and offers unimportant service because otherwise it's not a good practice to use this service. So my security need relatively low. - I'm using this site relatively often. Maybe a few times a week. Otherwise these points are not that important.

My imaginary scenario has two cases: - I'm using my regular PC & Browser On a website using this service, I always have to open my email address and click a link to approve login. And if there is a "Remember Me" option only the first time. So my cumulative additional cost between somewhere 1 - infinity extra steps. On a regular site, I'm already in here. I'll just hit a key combination for password manager and I'm done. And if I'm using browser's password manager I'll probably just need to click login. - I'm using a new PC and/or a brand new Browser/Profile My email address has 2FA active with a really complex password. This just caused me unnecessarily 3 step instead of 1 to login.

Re: Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

#106

Post by andretti1977 »

benzguo wrote: post #36
andretti1977 wrote: post #5

It seems interesting but does the user have to check email any time he/she decides to log in to my service? If so i don't consider it interesting. I would consider very interesting something similar to firebase authentication without having to include all the google privacy killer stuffs and for free. (Edit: i didn't read the text where you explain how you make money)

Thanks for the feedback! Currently passwordless email confirmation is the only supported login flow, but I’m thinking about building alternatives like Twitter OAuth, or a password based flow. Does the pricing model make this less appealing to you? Open to adjusting it!

Well since i'm interested only on the auth part, it would be ok for me and if i had to charge i would implement Stripe my self in the project so i'm not sure you will be able to raise a lot of money

Re: Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

#107

Post by IgorPartola »

whatl3y wrote: post #102
IgorPartola wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want every login to become a part of the public ledger. Do you? Also, crypto currencies are a good solution for one thing only: electronic currencies. Outside of that they are a poorer solution compared to what’s available now. Every time.

> crypto currencies are a good solution for one thing only: electronic currencies. What is a better solution than building a tamper proof workflow in the blockchain? Examples include: 1. I sign a contract and the notary signs and uploads a copy to the blockchain to validate the contract contents, that it was signed and by whom, and when. 2. An auditor validates a piece of evidence a client provides that proves its in…

Those are useful examples of a blockchain. But when I log into GMail I (a) do not want this fact to be a part of a public ledger and (b) I don’t need this to be trustless. The latter is an important point: I already trust GMail with a ton of my data including the ability to reset my credentials. There is little value gained and a lot of simplicity lost in adding a blockchain to the mix.

Blockchains have several uses but to date they are narrow. Everywhere outside of their core use cases (essentially contracts or keeping track of tokens of value) they are a hindrance. Blockchains are also hugely inefficient by design (if they were they’d be easy to crack or to perform a 51% attack on), so when you are communicating with a single third party which you trust to provide a service to you, you absolutely do not need a blockchain. We have seen time and time again people trying to throw this solution at all the problems from DNS to buying groceries and yet the only solutions still worth talking about remain cryptocurrencies. Turns out well defined client/server APIs and databases actually do work about as well as anything else.

In the spirit of discussion, what could you do if you involve a blockchain in logging into GMail that you absolutely cannot do without it? If the answer is nothing, then there is zero reason to go down that path.

Re: Show HN: I built a free, simple login service. Would you use this?

#108

Post by whatl3y »

IgorPartola wrote: post #107
whatl3y wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> crypto currencies are a good solution for one thing only: electronic currencies. What is a better solution than building a tamper proof workflow in the blockchain? Examples include: 1. I sign a contract and the notary signs and uploads a copy to the blockchain to validate the contract contents, that it was signed and by whom, and when. 2. An auditor validates a piece of evidence a client provides that proves its in…

Those are useful examples of a blockchain. But when I log into GMail I (a) do not want this fact to be a part of a public ledger and (b) I don’t need this to be trustless. The latter is an important point: I already trust GMail with a ton of my data including the ability to reset my credentials . There is little value gained and a lot of simplicity lost in adding a blockchain to the mix. Blockchains have several uses…

I agree with your points and overall sentiment, I'm simply rebutting the initial statement in your parent comment,

> crypto currencies are a good solution for one thing only: electronic currencies.

You contradict yourself by stating above you believe there's only one valid use case for blockchain, but in your most recent comment you obviously admit there are several valid use cases (though admittedly a limited number). Maybe your initial comment was meant for emphasis and not literally that you believe there is only one use case, but be careful using quantifiable verbiage or hard numbers to portray emphasis without explicitly stating that's what you're doing, your credibility gets called into question when doing so.

Post reply on HN