6 ms·

I think that is remarkably ignorant. Yes, it works the same way the Chain of Trust does in your browser, but it also means that, at least for <insert time perio

I think that is remarkably ignorant. Yes, it works the same way the Chain of Trust does in your browser, but it also means that, at least for <insert time period>, there is a single point of failure. Hardware keys being on military bases doesn’t really fix that, the weak link is still a crappy government server. You also skipped over all the hurdles of recognizing a “person” that we will issue to anyway. Sure, we could ignore that... but then Montana doesn’t recognize signatures from Oregon.

dwild 7y ago
I think you completely lost the context of the conversation, we are talking about improving signatures. Everything you said against using private keys, apply to physical signatures. Sure hacks will surely happens, but they already do happens with signature. At least now you'll get much more traceability and be able to invalidate what needs to be. > You also skipped over all the hurdles of recognizing a “person” that we will issue to anyway. Sure, we could ignore that... but then Montana doesn’t recognize signatures from Oregon. Recognizing what? You are the only one here talking about this being a proof of citizenship. Does your physical signature prove that you are a US citizen? Does it need to? I certainly hope not. For each subsequent argument, please just ask yourself whether this issue apply to physical signature too in a way first.