Self-sovereign identity, with granular information sharing, and good encryption/signing support. I want to:
be able to create ad-hoc identities
own my identities independent of any third-party provider
be able to slice identity information and selectively share subsets of possibly signed data
cryptographically attest other peoples shared data
have all of this on blockchain, rather than depending on service providers
There’s a fair amount of almost solutions, and except for blockchain, nostr has most of the necessary structure. What’s missing is a NIP for an identity/profile data format standard, and a spec for data handling. But mainly, apps that make it easy to use, to publish, to verify and validate, and to authorize.
I’m sick of having hundreds of distinct identites scattered around the internet. Having the option to be anonymous or a distinct persona is important, but it shouldn’t be necessary every time, and I should always be the owner of that identity.
As usual the blockchain really adds nothing to your proposal. Just allow people to host it on a random web server, there is no reason to have a centralized component at all for this.
Publishing. Forcing people to use web servers comlicates it for non-techies, or centralizes control.
Lookup. Having data scattered aroud the web makes lookup hard, or (again) centralizes control.
Cryptographically verifiable auditability.
Do you understand how blockchains work? I ask to gauge whether you have technical solutions for the problems blockchains solve, or are repeating criticisms of cryptocurrency you’ve read online.
Yes, I understand how blockchains work and that is exactly why I know that they never add anything. They literally solve no problem.
Blockchains only really “work” if they are part of a community so huge that nobody external can easily add 50%+1 nodes to the network or so useless that nobody would want to spend the money on that. But if you have huge blockchains they are totally impractical to store on every single device which wants to interact with them. Add to that the extremely long delay before anything is added to the blockchain and you can be sure that the longest surviving chain actually includes that block and the (with proof of work) huge waste of energy or (with proof of stake) bias towards people who already have a stake in the chain and you will quickly figure out that blockchain is never the best and in many cases not even any solution. Not to mention how many blockchain proponents think data written to the blockchain magically solves the problem that you need to verify that the data you write to the blockchain is actually accurate (e.g. with all those proposals to use it for proof of origins of products and similar things).
There is a reason all the major blockchains actually in use soon add a layer of services that interact with the blockchain for you and then actually doesn’t interact for every transaction. They are all working around the inherent flaws in the technology.
What you’re describing is a public ledger, and specifically how Bitcoin and Bitcoin-like, works; you aren’t describing limitations of blockchain. Check out AWS’s qldb for a non-cryptocoin blockchain db. Now, describe an implementation (in non-technical terms, if desired) that provides the features but that isn’t a blockchain.
Self-sovereign identity, with granular information sharing, and good encryption/signing support. I want to:
There’s a fair amount of almost solutions, and except for blockchain, nostr has most of the necessary structure. What’s missing is a NIP for an identity/profile data format standard, and a spec for data handling. But mainly, apps that make it easy to use, to publish, to verify and validate, and to authorize.
I’m sick of having hundreds of distinct identites scattered around the internet. Having the option to be anonymous or a distinct persona is important, but it shouldn’t be necessary every time, and I should always be the owner of that identity.
As usual the blockchain really adds nothing to your proposal. Just allow people to host it on a random web server, there is no reason to have a centralized component at all for this.
Do you understand how blockchains work? I ask to gauge whether you have technical solutions for the problems blockchains solve, or are repeating criticisms of cryptocurrency you’ve read online.
Yes, I understand how blockchains work and that is exactly why I know that they never add anything. They literally solve no problem.
Blockchains only really “work” if they are part of a community so huge that nobody external can easily add 50%+1 nodes to the network or so useless that nobody would want to spend the money on that. But if you have huge blockchains they are totally impractical to store on every single device which wants to interact with them. Add to that the extremely long delay before anything is added to the blockchain and you can be sure that the longest surviving chain actually includes that block and the (with proof of work) huge waste of energy or (with proof of stake) bias towards people who already have a stake in the chain and you will quickly figure out that blockchain is never the best and in many cases not even any solution. Not to mention how many blockchain proponents think data written to the blockchain magically solves the problem that you need to verify that the data you write to the blockchain is actually accurate (e.g. with all those proposals to use it for proof of origins of products and similar things).
There is a reason all the major blockchains actually in use soon add a layer of services that interact with the blockchain for you and then actually doesn’t interact for every transaction. They are all working around the inherent flaws in the technology.
What you’re describing is a public ledger, and specifically how Bitcoin and Bitcoin-like, works; you aren’t describing limitations of blockchain. Check out AWS’s qldb for a non-cryptocoin blockchain db. Now, describe an implementation (in non-technical terms, if desired) that provides the features but that isn’t a blockchain.