Re: [Din] WSJ article on Identity and Blockchains

[David Mazieres <[e-mail]>]

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