7 ms·

Using blockchain for identity management is mostly ridiculous

90 points by detstrat 9y ago

TylerE 9y ago
Using blockchain for $x is (mostly) ridiculous
- Kinnard 9y ago
  Today. But tomorrow? And who will be well-positioned then?
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    > And who will be well-positioned then? Whoever discovers a worthy use for a blockchain.
  - taw55 9y ago
    Point taken, but in the meantime there’s a lot of effort being wasted in awkward pairings.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    ... Why? Why would a bad choice of algorithms and specious "security" guarantees be a better choice tomorrow?
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  The best litmus test I have seen is "Are double spends a problem in your architecture?" If not you probably don't need a blockchain.
  - dozzie 9y ago
    The best litmus test is "is telling which document was earlier helping in anything?", because this is precisely what blockchain is solving.
    - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
      Fair enough
  - s17n 9y ago
    The use-case here is a decentralized mechanism for providing (at least approximately) validated timestamps, which it seems to me a blockchain can do.
mistermumble 9y ago
Worthwhile article. But please correct the typo in the HN headline. (Even though it is in the original, it grates).
thinkloop 9y ago
I don't understand what the "privacy nightmare" is that the author describes: > The credential itself is signed by the issuer, which makes it authentic and binds it its owner. In itself this does not appear to create a big privacy problem, compared to standard PKI certificates. However, one of the keynotes suggested that also uses, i.e. verifications, of credentials could be logged on the blockchain. That information could subsequently be used to make e.g. policy decisions on employability: which academic credentials lead to the best employment opportunities? This is a privacy nightmare. And is the author suggesting simply checking credentials against a centralized authority: > All you need is that each issuer keeps a list of all issued credentials in a local immutable record (using a simple hash-chain, for example) against which a verifier can check the status of a credential. My comprehension of this article is low.
- DennisP 9y ago
  > verifications, of credentials could be logged on the blockchain And how would that work anyway? He just finished saying that everything on the chain is public. You don't have to issue a transaction to read it, you can just read the public information off your local node.
kusmi 9y ago
Doesn't e-estonia use block chain for identity?
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  no. They simply use digital signatures. Blockchain is as needed here as a bicycle is needed by a fish.
Buttes 9y ago
>what would happen to all credentials once issued to some blockchain, if that blockchain ceases to operate? The raw blockchain data is of course still available and maintains its blockchain structure. Yet the integrity-preserving features of the blockchain disappear as soon as it is no longer actively used. I'm not sure this is true. Info about the blockchain wouldn't evaporate instantly, it'd be easy to get the legit genesis block header and chain height, wouldn't it require a lot of "work" to produce a convincing counterfeit chain?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  No. It'd require only slightly more work than the cost of generating a block at that time, to generate a new plausible block altered arbitrarily. The power of the "head" of the blockchain is the human consensus around it. It is otherwise unprivileged.
  - DennisP 9y ago
    As with any transaction on a proof of work chain, the more work there is layered on top of the item in question, the more confidence you can have. Even if you don't know that someone's presenting you with a truncated chain, you can still see that their credential is at the end of it, and know that they could have cheaply faked it. Proof of stake would require more human consensus but proof of work is measurably expensive to produce.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      > As with any transaction on a proof of work chain, Only active proof of work chains. Discontinued chains have no active, competitive consensus and may be arbitrarily rewritten by attackers since there is no competition at any historical point in the chain for a quick mining operation and there is no consensus about the head of the chain. If there are additional credentials and signatures embedded in the chain (there need not be) then THESE are the trust tokens that have value after the chain is discontinued. Blockchains only offer one thing: human consensus when humans are not necessarily inclined to reach it. That is what a PoW or PoS blockchain algorithm for cryptocurrency is trying to guarantee.
tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
Using it today for identity management is ridiculous. It's a brand new technology and will take time to fully develop.
- imustbeevil 9y ago
  Using brand new kind of liberally here. The idea of a blockchain is more than 20 years old, with the first popular implementation, Bitcoin, being 9 years old. That's the same year the iPhone 3G came out. So if you want to argue "brand new" that's where you've got to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3G
noddy1 9y ago
Im a "blockchain-for-x" skeptic, but I disagree with this article. A timestamped, immutable blockchain would be useful for reviewing credentials from 3rd world countries where qualifications/experience/government certification are all able to be bought. It wouldn't solve fraud, but it would make it a lot harder to suddenly decide to fake a whole lot of credentials, and would make it more obvious that a particular organization is corrupt and therefore would incentivize not being corrupt. The central question for whether blockchains are indicated for a particular use case continues to be "does this require immutability, regulation resistance, or cooperation across various regimes that don't trust each other". An example of useful blockchain identity would be in refugee verification/processing: - people in 3rd world countries scan a fingerprint and hash an encrypted version on the blockchain when young - annually update information about themselves onto the blockchain including info about families - 10 years down the line they have an excellent record of who they are, who their family is, what their situation is, and they become far more credible when it comes to identity verification that relying on documentation from a long-toppled government
- jjawssd 9y ago
  > scan a fingerprint (to establish identity) > annually update information about themselves onto the blockchain (how?) What could possibly go wrong? Fingerprints alone should not be used as a key.
  - yyyyip 9y ago
    I don't mean using the fingerprint as a key. I mean that if you can produce a fingerprint image corresponding to a blockchain hash and it matches your fingerprint 20 years later, and this is linked to 20 years worth of blockchain recorded credential information, I would find that very compelling evidence that you are who you say you are.
    - dane-pgp 9y ago
      This idea of having 20 years of linked entries in an append-only distributed log is very powerful, and is the basis for the "idchains" system discussed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZC98s4paYY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZC98s4paYY It controversially opts to use faces rather than fingerprints, but faces are easier for humans to verify, especially without special hardware. I don't think the video describes a complete system, but the idea has merit and I wish it had been developed more.
theyblinked 9y ago
The architect of the Blockcerts system replies to this article here: http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blockcerts-critiques-from-privacy-researcher/308 http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blo... “It’s interesting that he focuses on blockchain for identity management, which Blockcerts doesn’t even do. However, DIDs, which can improve the ability of individuals to own/control their identity, will feature blockchain-based method specs.”
kimhd 9y ago
The original article was based on fundamental misunderstandings of Blockcerts, but the follow-up Blockcerts community discussion (including the article's author) was productive: http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blockcerts-critiques-from-privacy-researcher/308 http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blo...
- detstrat 9y ago
  Including the response of JHH in the comments again.
stupidcomments 9y ago
One step closer to that "permanent record" our middle school teachers warned us about. Who is going to be the wanker who gets rich doing this to all the middle schoolers of the next generation I wonder. I am glad it's not me.
arisAlexis 9y ago
Actually I didn't read any concrete arguments against. Blockchain ceasing to operate? That it's an overkill? Hm.

90 points by detstrat 9y ago

TylerE 9y ago

Using blockchain for $x is (mostly) ridiculous

Kinnard 9y ago
Today. But tomorrow? And who will be well-positioned then?
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > And who will be well-positioned then? Whoever discovers a worthy use for a blockchain.
- taw55 9y ago
  Point taken, but in the meantime there’s a lot of effort being wasted in awkward pairings.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  ... Why? Why would a bad choice of algorithms and specious "security" guarantees be a better choice tomorrow?
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
The best litmus test I have seen is "Are double spends a problem in your architecture?" If not you probably don't need a blockchain.
- dozzie 9y ago
  The best litmus test is "is telling which document was earlier helping in anything?", because this is precisely what blockchain is solving.
  - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
    Fair enough
- s17n 9y ago
  The use-case here is a decentralized mechanism for providing (at least approximately) validated timestamps, which it seems to me a blockchain can do.

mistermumble 9y ago

Worthwhile article. But please correct the typo in the HN headline. (Even though it is in the original, it grates).

thinkloop 9y ago

I don't understand what the "privacy nightmare" is that the author describes: > The credential itself is signed by the issuer, which makes it authentic and binds it its owner. In itself this does not appear to create a big privacy problem, compared to standard PKI certificates. However, one of the keynotes suggested that also uses, i.e. verifications, of credentials could be logged on the blockchain. That information could subsequently be used to make e.g. policy decisions on employability: which academic credentials lead to the best employment opportunities? This is a privacy nightmare. And is the author suggesting simply checking credentials against a centralized authority: > All you need is that each issuer keeps a list of all issued credentials in a local immutable record (using a simple hash-chain, for example) against which a verifier can check the status of a credential. My comprehension of this article is low.

DennisP 9y ago
> verifications, of credentials could be logged on the blockchain And how would that work anyway? He just finished saying that everything on the chain is public. You don't have to issue a transaction to read it, you can just read the public information off your local node.

kusmi 9y ago

Doesn't e-estonia use block chain for identity?

dmitrygr 9y ago
no. They simply use digital signatures. Blockchain is as needed here as a bicycle is needed by a fish.

Buttes 9y ago

>what would happen to all credentials once issued to some blockchain, if that blockchain ceases to operate? The raw blockchain data is of course still available and maintains its blockchain structure. Yet the integrity-preserving features of the blockchain disappear as soon as it is no longer actively used. I'm not sure this is true. Info about the blockchain wouldn't evaporate instantly, it'd be easy to get the legit genesis block header and chain height, wouldn't it require a lot of "work" to produce a convincing counterfeit chain?

KirinDave 9y ago
No. It'd require only slightly more work than the cost of generating a block at that time, to generate a new plausible block altered arbitrarily. The power of the "head" of the blockchain is the human consensus around it. It is otherwise unprivileged.
- DennisP 9y ago
  As with any transaction on a proof of work chain, the more work there is layered on top of the item in question, the more confidence you can have. Even if you don't know that someone's presenting you with a truncated chain, you can still see that their credential is at the end of it, and know that they could have cheaply faked it. Proof of stake would require more human consensus but proof of work is measurably expensive to produce.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > As with any transaction on a proof of work chain, Only active proof of work chains. Discontinued chains have no active, competitive consensus and may be arbitrarily rewritten by attackers since there is no competition at any historical point in the chain for a quick mining operation and there is no consensus about the head of the chain. If there are additional credentials and signatures embedded in the chain (there need not be) then THESE are the trust tokens that have value after the chain is discontinued. Blockchains only offer one thing: human consensus when humans are not necessarily inclined to reach it. That is what a PoW or PoS blockchain algorithm for cryptocurrency is trying to guarantee.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago

Using it today for identity management is ridiculous. It's a brand new technology and will take time to fully develop.

imustbeevil 9y ago
Using brand new kind of liberally here. The idea of a blockchain is more than 20 years old, with the first popular implementation, Bitcoin, being 9 years old. That's the same year the iPhone 3G came out. So if you want to argue "brand new" that's where you've got to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3G

noddy1 9y ago

Im a "blockchain-for-x" skeptic, but I disagree with this article. A timestamped, immutable blockchain would be useful for reviewing credentials from 3rd world countries where qualifications/experience/government certification are all able to be bought. It wouldn't solve fraud, but it would make it a lot harder to suddenly decide to fake a whole lot of credentials, and would make it more obvious that a particular organization is corrupt and therefore would incentivize not being corrupt. The central question for whether blockchains are indicated for a particular use case continues to be "does this require immutability, regulation resistance, or cooperation across various regimes that don't trust each other". An example of useful blockchain identity would be in refugee verification/processing: - people in 3rd world countries scan a fingerprint and hash an encrypted version on the blockchain when young - annually update information about themselves onto the blockchain including info about families - 10 years down the line they have an excellent record of who they are, who their family is, what their situation is, and they become far more credible when it comes to identity verification that relying on documentation from a long-toppled government

jjawssd 9y ago
> scan a fingerprint (to establish identity) > annually update information about themselves onto the blockchain (how?) What could possibly go wrong? Fingerprints alone should not be used as a key.
- yyyyip 9y ago
  I don't mean using the fingerprint as a key. I mean that if you can produce a fingerprint image corresponding to a blockchain hash and it matches your fingerprint 20 years later, and this is linked to 20 years worth of blockchain recorded credential information, I would find that very compelling evidence that you are who you say you are.
  - dane-pgp 9y ago
    This idea of having 20 years of linked entries in an append-only distributed log is very powerful, and is the basis for the "idchains" system discussed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZC98s4paYY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZC98s4paYY It controversially opts to use faces rather than fingerprints, but faces are easier for humans to verify, especially without special hardware. I don't think the video describes a complete system, but the idea has merit and I wish it had been developed more.

theyblinked 9y ago

The architect of the Blockcerts system replies to this article here: http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blockcerts-critiques-from-privacy-researcher/308 http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blo... “It’s interesting that he focuses on blockchain for identity management, which Blockcerts doesn’t even do. However, DIDs, which can improve the ability of individuals to own/control their identity, will feature blockchain-based method specs.”

kimhd 9y ago

The original article was based on fundamental misunderstandings of Blockcerts, but the follow-up Blockcerts community discussion (including the article's author) was productive: http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blockcerts-critiques-from-privacy-researcher/308 http://community.blockcerts.org/t/response-to-blockchain-blo...

detstrat 9y ago
Including the response of JHH in the comments again.

stupidcomments 9y ago

One step closer to that "permanent record" our middle school teachers warned us about. Who is going to be the wanker who gets rich doing this to all the middle schoolers of the next generation I wonder. I am glad it's not me.

arisAlexis 9y ago

Actually I didn't read any concrete arguments against. Blockchain ceasing to operate? That it's an overkill? Hm.