2 ms·
> The person being replied to literally suggested it as a single source of truth. For everything from HN to your bank account. So you’re tilting at the wrong wi
by numair 5y ago
> The person being replied to literally suggested it as a single source of truth. For everything from HN to your bank account. So you’re tilting at the wrong windmill!
The parent I replied to is competent enough to know that there is an easy way to have that “recoverable account” he is obsessed with: custodial wallets. You know, like the custodial accounts that are the defining feature of Web 2.0.
People who don’t understand the innovation of being able to choose between custodial and non-custodial, and how that’s a big deal that many appreciate beyond the opsec requirements, sort of expose their own weaknesses.
- 8organicbits 5y agoI can see that login via private key is cool for some people, and being able to login via a private key some other party maintains for you would work for "normal" users. But I could also implement that without bringing in a block chain, right? Wouldn't we expect that Google and the current authN providers just implement that if it ever became popular?
- UncleMeat 5y ago> But I could also implement that without bringing in a block chain, right? Not only that, but they have! Signature-based authentication existed 20 years ago. Register with a public key. Sign a message with your private key to authenticate. Modulo some small details to prevent things like replay, you are done. The only thing that the blockchain brings is that now lots of people have asymmetric key pairs where their public keys are published somewhere widely accessible.
- meheleventyone 5y agoSo the answer is web2!