Have worked in the identity space for a long time. Authentication isn't a hard problem, but identity is. It will be decentralized because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression. Trusting authentication is not trusting identity, and the origin of identity is the Ur-problem because it comes down to questions of recourse, collateral, risk, authority, and legitimacy - which are all political economy que…
> It will be decentralized because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression. The conclusion ("It will be decentralized") doesn't follow from the argument though ("because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression"). It could very well be "just oppression" and keep being that...
The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
141–150 of 202 posts
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#142Have worked in the identity space for a long time. Authentication isn't a hard problem, but identity is. It will be decentralized because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression. Trusting authentication is not trusting identity, and the origin of identity is the Ur-problem because it comes down to questions of recourse, collateral, risk, authority, and legitimacy - which are all political economy que…
>All the use cases for digital identity are about enforcement and liability, and there are almost none that anyone would volunteer for. Everything from a LinkedIn or Facebook account to your personal artist homepage with your CV on it establishes identity. People obviously disclose identity voluntarily, because identity is the primary means by which strangers establish trust. If your identity is not transparent to me…
That is, one can have a range of identities, from entirely transparent to stably pseudonymous to fleetingly anonymous.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will be decentralized because if it is not fragmented, it is literally just oppression. I've never understood that way of viewing things. For me identity is a right. The government must provide me with the means to prove who I am and my associated data like birth certificates, academic titles, health (vaccination), real estate and indirectly verifying identity for private contracts that use my national id card num…
> I've never understood that way of viewing things. For me identity is a right. Historically "identity" wasn't a right, but something imposed on people, for better tracking and controlling them by authorities... > In an oppressive state identity surely could be oppression, just like everything else, but in a democratic country? Oppression is not about democratic vs totalitarian state. McCarthy and Hoover, to mention…
I used to own a wonderful book about the history of data science. As I recall, starting in maybe the 1600s, experts in France and Germany were tasked with tracking populations, birth and death rates, economic activity, and so on. And the primary goal was to aid in military planning. Unfortunately, I've lost the book and forgotten the title and author. And the search terms are so topical as to be useless.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#144If anything, my bet is the future of identity is more centralized. Decentralized solutions, as I've read about them in their current form, require a significant amount of technical knowledge to understand. That is, to understand both what they are and, more importantly, their benefits ("why does this specific solution matter to me?"). Past that, the user experience is extremely poor in comparison to clicking "log in…
In the US, everyone uses credit cards (centralized identity) to pay for stuff. In Mexico, credit cards are stolen and reamed for all they're worth by criminals. As a result, everyone uses cash (decentralized, anonymous, difficult to use). Everyone could move to decentralized in the face of significant pressure, even if centralized identity is more convenient.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not meant to be purely democratic. The founders were students of history and recognized the inherent instability of pure democracies. There were no human rights recognized anywhere in the world in 1776. The imperial era was still a thing and Kings and queens still had vast influence over European politics, with various other centralized power structures in virtually all parts of the world. I get that it's easy t…
"It's not meant to be purely democratic. The founders were students of history and recognized the inherent instability of pure democracies." Many of the founders were also elitists who didn't want anyone but landowning white men to run the country. They were wary of "mob rule" (ie. direct democracy), and preferred to have the elites rule. The jury's still out on whether they were right or whether direct democracy is…
Inevitably, when this topic of discussion comes up, I almost always see a response of this type, calling into question the entire foundation of the USA on the basis of the founding brothers being white slave owners, and it really bugs me, but I'm having a hard time trying to articulate it well...
I think it mostly centers around a very superficial understanding of the evolution of the enlightenment and the renaissance into the culmination of those that was the US. I would probably respond better if, when these arguments get thrown about, I heard discussion of the philosophical underpinnings the founders, in particular Madison, based their proposals on. Discussion or reference to individual liberty, natural law and natural rights, and such, as learned from study of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes and Spinoza, Montesquieu, etc.
I almost never see these referenced in this responses though, and to me it seems very dangerously close to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", and I fear that the sentiment is growing so rapidly, as shallow as it may be, that the lack of understanding why America truly is a revolutionary country and is exceptional in history will potent some very turbulent times in the future.
Yes, the system was imperfect from the start, and has been even more imperfect in implementation, but to say then that the whole system (not saying you said this, but it seems thinly veiled to that affect often) must be thrown out is foolhardy at best. The shining light of America is that it has, in it's founding documents, a system designed to self-improve over time. I see our main problem as being the lack of memory of why each piece of that system is so important, and have allowed it to become corrupted. The path forward then is in seeking to enforce the core foundational principles the founders thought very hard about (such as Montesquieu's checks and balances system), and not to discard them just because they came from people that were imperfect.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#146If anything, my bet is the future of identity is more centralized. Decentralized solutions, as I've read about them in their current form, require a significant amount of technical knowledge to understand. That is, to understand both what they are and, more importantly, their benefits ("why does this specific solution matter to me?"). Past that, the user experience is extremely poor in comparison to clicking "log in…
So since you have one identifier, companies can track you across all domains. They can find out if you are a user of sex.com or dangerouspoliticalopinions.com They can do this by trying to register an account with your email address, and being told it was already registered. Here is a tool that allows anyone to do it: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-way-to-know-which-all-sites... https://brandyourself.com/blog/priva…
However, I believe that would fail for those using Google or Facebook authentication. But I can't test that, given that I don't have an account with either.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would create a small financial (and convenience) pressure to use one identity. Careful design would be needed to ensure that multiple identities are encouraged and accepted.
There is enormous pressure to converge on one identity. IAM has huge network effects. On-boarding customers is an expense so businesses and governments rely heavily on existing rails like email, SSN+DOB, Facebook, SMS, etc. If you don't want to surrender SSN or your whole Facebook profile your only option is to reject the service entirely.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#148"Built for individuals, I recently launched Keyoxide which uses cryptographic keypairs to accomplish decentralized identity verification." So this is about the introduction of a new identity service. From what I get looking into Keyoxide it basically strives to be what Keybase originally intended to be. From their Keybase migration guide [1]: "Keyoxide as a partial replacement for Keybase It's important to moderate e…
The key difference is that instead of the Keybase server storing verifications, it looks like they tell you to add the link to the proof directly to your key as a notation. This means the proof isn't dependent on a central server, which seems like a significant improvement.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#149I know most people on HN believe this, or want to believe this, or especially want everyone else to believe this, but I still think the statement needs support. Or at least a qualifier like "in my opinion."
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#150A post on decentralized identity without talking about the Decentralized Identity Foundation ( https://identity.foundation/ ), right there on the first page when you type "decentralized" and "identity" in Google?