Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

yarmo.eu

151–160 of 202 posts

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#151

Your identity is going to come down knowledge of the private key from some sort of public key system. Why not just standardize that? An excellent example of something perversely non-standardized for identities can be found in messaging. Signal, Matrix, Whatsapp and OMEMO are even supposedly based on the same protocol. In terms of identity they are all complete silos. All the things you establish about an identity on…

What happens when the private key is lost? We can either have certificate authorities issue you a new one, or you would need to approach your peers and have e.g. three of them confirm that you've changed keys.

Yeah, that is a huge problem. Most people just don't do well at managing keys and credentials. As much as I hate Signal's phone number requirement, I appreciate the reason for it.

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#152
post #53

Maybe I’m missing something but the author mentioned using email instead of Facebook/Google login. Why come up with a complex crypto protocol instead of using email as the identity key?

Because email alone is vulnerable, without two-factor authentication. And keys are a great second factor, except for the risk of losing them. Phone numbers are commonly used, but that's more PII to share, and it can be bypassed. Also, with something like Keybase or Keyoxide, you can still use multiple email addresses.

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#153
post #54
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that requires an economic model. UX is often well over 90% of the work for a product and usually includes a ton of work that is not much fun and people have to be paid to do. Centralized has subscriptions, advertising, and "surveillance capitalism." Decentralized has nothing. I had some hope that cryptocurrency would provide some kind of mechanism, but cryptocurrency was taken over and destroyed by scammers…

The lack of an economic model is IMHO why decentralized solutions have not succeeded, not technical challenges. You’re right. This lack needs to be addressed for us to progress. How about this model? Would like feedback: https://qbix.com/token

The model intentionally guards against data harvesting. I think that is great but unless users are willing to pay for that the existing "free but we collect data to manipulate you" will receive more capital.

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#154

Earlier 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." 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…

I want to express a frustration with this type of response I have. 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 und…

My main point was that there's been plenty of oppression in the US despite it being to some degree a democracy.

It doesn't sound like you're actually disputing my main point at all, but wanting to shift the discussion on to whether the American system of government needs to be replaced and why, which is really off-topic.

Still, in response to your tangential point, I want to make clear that I'm not advocating discarding the entire American system of government, and my dissatisfaction with parts of it as they stand now does not stem from who the founders were.

I do think the system has proven itself to fail at meeting the high ideals that some of the founders professed to have. The system has proven itself to be highly corruptable, the checks and balances built in to the system have failed, and much of the Constitution is widely ignored or reinterpreted to mean whatever the people in power want it to mean.

These failures are not due to the founders owning slaves, but due to them being unable to foresee or adequately prepare the nation for things such as mass media, the internet, modern advertising and propaganda, and a slew of consequences of modern warfare, mutually assured destruction, the military-industrial complex, corporate dominance of the economy, enormous amounts of money being thrown at elections, the shutting out of third party alternatives, the poor civic education, widespread apathy and easy manipulability of the electorate, and on and on.

Despite the founders' short-sightedness and all the fialures and weaknesses in the American system of government, I am not an advocate of eliminating it wholesale. I believe reform is possible, and that it could be made more democratic, more accountable, more fair and just, and we don't have to scrap it all to do it.

However, I very much doubt the political will or consensus is there to make significant positive changes. If anything, I expect it to get much worse before it gets better.. if it ever will.

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to express a frustration with this type of response I have. 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 und…

My main point was that there's been plenty of oppression in the US despite it being to some degree a democracy. It doesn't sound like you're actually disputing my main point at all, but wanting to shift the discussion on to whether the American system of government needs to be replaced and why, which is really off-topic. Still, in response to your tangential point, I want to make clear that I'm not advocating discard…

> I do think the system has proven itself to fail at meeting the high ideals that some of the founders professed to have. The system has proven itself to be highly corruptable, the checks and balances built in to the system have failed, and much of the Constitution is widely ignored or reinterpreted to mean whatever the people in power want it to mean.

It arguably failed so long ago that virtually nobody notices. For the first ~century, corporations were allowed only in the public interest. To some extent, that reflected outrage at the excesses of corporations chartered by the English Crown. But there were also concerns about the concentration of money and power.

But that began to fail in the mid 1800s, with the rise of the railroad corporations, and their growing political power. And it ended with the 14th amendment and some Supreme Court opinions, which granted many citizenship rights and legal protections to corporations.

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Identity can’t be “imposed,” come on. Personhood is continuous across time and space. All a system can influence is your ability to lie about this. Ability to deceive the state can protect your freedom but inability to trust others also has a cost, there has to be a balance.

(Knowing nothing about the author of this reply at all, upon reading the comment as a reference) - as spoken by someone who has yet to have been down the rabbit hole of what "personhood" might mean.

Identity is a philosophical problem and a relationship, and so far we've managed to kick the can down the road of what an identity might mean outside the nation state, but the internet may prove to be a bit of a forcing function in deciding some of these questions we had the luck to avoid. I've been doubtful of digital identity startups because most of them are just substituting an opaque problem in crytography for the capital-H hard problem in political philosophy, which originates in prehistorical problems in collecting a census.

Maybe OAuth with some OIDC extensions and attributes solves everything, and FIDO has solved it, but if there were a way to bet against that, personally I'd go all in.

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#158

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…

Identity federation seemed to promise solutions to some of these problems, but never quite took off. The part I liked most was the ability to verify someone as being over 18 without divulging their age or any other meta data. That was 10 years ago though, and I have no idea what the citizen/consumer identity space looks like now. Did the industry ever get around the sub-par SAML protocol which had no support for the…

OIDC is just starting to get some traction in instutions, but it's really about federated authentication with trust of the IDP implied. Digital identity itself is still in the context of the given IDP you've federated to, and there isn't much better than whatever their enrolment process is.

There are a couple of companies that are using hyper ledger to federate identity providers like banks, governments, and other institutions, but the scope of that identity is still local to the federation participants who are a walled garden of their own.

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#159
post #128

A 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?

Huh. Do they do more than establish standards?

The standards [1] have several open source implementations [2] and are currently used by several companies [2].

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/, https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/

[1] https://github.com/decentralized-identity, https://github.com/mattrglobal/

[2] https://spaceman.id/, https://www.transmute.industries/, https://www.evernym.com/, https://sovrin.org/, https://mattr.global/

Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized

#160

The future is Decentralized - you have very large actors working to deploy systems based on the Verifiable Credentials (VC) Data Model (W3C Standard) and the Decentralized Identifiers (soon to be W3C Standard) extensive work is being done on how the data is exchanged (Credential Handler API, OpenID Connect Self Issued Identity Provider (OIDC_SOIP) <- so any installed openID can accept VCs and DID Communications (spec…

I support this view.

The DID and VC specs are the most advanced tools we have now to implement decentralized identity, plus there are many startups applying these in real world, solving problems and generating open source implementations.

Btw, I joined the Internet Identity Workshop last spring and it was an incredible experience. (https://internetidentityworkshop.com/)

Post reply on HN