Agreed 100% that this is someone looking for a problem to fit their solution. All you need for decentralized identity is a (collection of) public key(s) that ca

Agreed 100% that this is someone looking for a problem to fit their solution. All you need for decentralized identity is a (collection of) public key(s) that can be referenced and cryptographic enforcement of authenticity+integrity. Although I might be a bit biased, because I'm working on a project that does this.[1] Such an identity system is simple enough that you can layer any naming mechanism on top of it without appreciable extra cost compared to a unified approach, at the advantage of not restricting yourself to a specific naming architecture. By all accounts, a blockchain is a tremendously inappropriate amount of bloat for the purpose of identity authentication. I wouldn't say that naming requires consensus though. Naming requires a degree of trust in the entity declaring the name. Consensus is only one way to arrive at that trust. And different organizations will have different requirements for trust: for example your bank is going to have very different requirements to "name" your account than, say, Facebook. Informally I've called this the difference between identity authentication vs identity verification, but I know that's not ideal terminology -- does anyone have a better suggestion? [1] https://github.com/Muterra/doc-muse https://github.com/Muterra/doc-muse