Re: [Din] WSJ article on Identity and Blockchains

[Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,


>>>   2. We need some notion of a "symbolic link", so that I can name not
>>>        just someone else's key, but someone else's name, as that's very
>>>        powerful.

Yes the symbolic link is needed, but more importantly (and more difficult) is the binding to the owners person.  How do I know that the person Alice for pubkey X is the same Alice who owns pub key Y.


>>> These points of course were ones that many of us were making in the
>>> 1990s.  See, for instance SPKI/SDSI.

Agree, that was Car Ellison's proposal.


>>> The blockchain is useful, but sort of orthogonal to the namespace
>>> itself.  

Agree.


>>> What it provides, that we couldn't do before, is the ability to
>>> voluntarily restrict what you do with your own namespace.  E.g., maybe
>>> you want to delegate a name and then restrict yourself from revoking it
>>> without seven days notice.

Could we use DNSSEC for this? 


-- thomas -- 


________________________________________
From: David Mazieres [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:04 PM
To: Thomas Hardjono; Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Din] WSJ article on Identity and Blockchains

Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]> writes:

> Just like there is "autonomous systems" (AS) concept in routing and
> connected via backbone routing, in the area of identity there needs to
> be the equivalent of an AS.

Yes, but obviously AS numbers are centrally allocated and a flat
namespace.  If we are going to have various identity providers, I would
argue we need two things unlike AS numbers:

  1. The identifiers should be self-authenticating (public keys, not
     integers), so allocation is "self-server," and

  2. We need some notion of a "symbolic link", so that I can name not
     just someone else's key, but someone else's name, as that's very
     powerful.

These points of course were ones that many of us were making in the
1990s.  See, for instance SPKI/SDSI.

> So anytime I hear about a global blockchain to rule them all, I cringe
> :-)

The blockchain is useful, but sort of orthogonal to the namespace
itself.  What it provides, that we couldn't do before, is the ability to
voluntarily restrict what you do with your own namespace.  E.g., maybe
you want to delegate a name and then restrict yourself from revoking it
without seven days notice.

David