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?
[deleted]
The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
191–200 of 202 posts
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad example. In Australia, everyone was using credit cards.. but they have PIN code + chip. If a centralized system is not inept, it can do all the same things decentralized things do and better.
PIN codes and chips are used in the US as well, but I doubt a PIN and better encryption would help you[1]. 1: https://xkcd.com/538/
As I used to work in a high-crime area, I placed fairly low daily and weekly limits on how much I can spend. I have to warn the bank at least 1 day before if I want to spend more. So chip+pin allows for mitigations where cash doesn't
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
It's not that simple. My meatspace identity is entirely transparent. But online, I'm mostly Mirimir and other pseudonyms. Even so, I've been Mirimir for long enough, and have written enough about freedom, privacy and anonymity that I have a substantial reputation. That is, one can have a range of identities, from entirely transparent to stably pseudonymous to fleetingly anonymous.
This is the key point -- identity is plural, not singular. It means different things in different context, so requirements change as do the types of identity, data and disclosures used.
The important nuance though is that the 'range of identities' can be tied together on the user's side if done properly. I can have all my auth methods, accounts, personas, data, etc. tied together with a properly designed decentralized identity system, and choose which to use when depending on the context. This is the real promise of decentralized identity -- a connective tissue around the users rather than platforms.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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 f…
This is a really fascinating conversational pattern. It's like I said "when I let go of a ball it falls down to the ground" and you said "the meaning of 'falling' is a question as old as Genesis, and 'down' depends on your frame of reference." There's a sense in which both of those things are true, just like everything you've said here. And yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood
I recommend starting there on personhood, as like the role of gravity in your analogy, it's a complex enough topic that it would be worth reading up on, since it's more plausible that the details of it matter than the implication that I am some kind of wizard engaged in mesmerism.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
Yeah, that's one of my top worries. It's already that way in much of the world. And the "liberal democracy" sector is teetering on the edge. Once we get seriously into the chaos of global climate change, pandemics, mass migrations, war and so on (aka Gibson's "Jackpot"), who knows?
Who is Gibson, what is the jackpot (because looking like our world falling part).
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's one of my top worries. It's already that way in much of the world. And the "liberal democracy" sector is teetering on the edge. Once we get seriously into the chaos of global climate change, pandemics, mass migrations, war and so on (aka Gibson's "Jackpot"), who knows?
Who is Gibson, what is the jackpot (because looking like our world falling part).
It's from The Peripheral (and Agency) by William Gibson. I gather that "jackpot" alludes to the fact that some will/did profit from global culture collapse.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
> If your identity is not transparent to me, I won't enter a relationship with you that requries me to know who you are, which in practice is almost every one. There are two things about this that don't require centralized identity. The first is that it's very commonly not true at all. If you want to sign up for an account for an online service (e.g. email, YouTube, gaming), they don't need the name on your driver's…
I wish getting bank credit was that easy (made bad choices in my twenties, paid well into my thirties for that)...
I could easily just buy up some account that has good credit since it's all anonymous, no way to know if the original 'good credit' actor is the same person now applying for the loan.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Facebook accounts are available for $1-$10, payable in cryptocurrencies.
More like $25-50. But even then, it likely doesn’t have the attributes attached to it that you want if you have a particular target.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#199It is tragic that Mozilla killed Persona just when it was starting to take off. Sadly I didn’t save the link to a retrospective written by the project lead, in which it was explained that they gave up because it was taking too long. But internet standards aren’t like a Megabar that you can foist on everyone within 6 months, they take years.
Re: The Future of Online Identity Is Decentralized
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If your identity is not transparent to me, I won't enter a relationship with you that requries me to know who you are, which in practice is almost every one. There are two things about this that don't require centralized identity. The first is that it's very commonly not true at all. If you want to sign up for an account for an online service (e.g. email, YouTube, gaming), they don't need the name on your driver's…
I wish getting bank credit was that easy (made bad choices in my twenties, paid well into my thirties for that)... I could easily just buy up some account that has good credit since it's all anonymous, no way to know if the original 'good credit' actor is the same person now applying for the loan.
Having "good credit" would imply doing something like having paid off six figures in student loans or the mortgage on a house, which requires paying many thousands of dollars in interest, so that credit history would have a high market value and defaulting on a loan taken against it would destroy that value. So that system would work fine -- it might cost the bank money to go through the inconvenience of foreclosing on a house, but it would cost you just as much for the good credit you destroyed in doing it, so it's symmetric and people would have an adequate disincentive to do that.