3 ms·
This is a pretty shallow dismissal. The ideas argued against here haven't been popular in the crypto world since ~2018. Nobody thinks you need a blockchain to
by mgraczyk 5y ago
This is a pretty shallow dismissal.
The ideas argued against here haven't been popular in the crypto world since ~2018.
Nobody thinks you need a blockchain to sign into a website. When people talk about web3 based decentralized identity, they are usually talking about an identity that is coupled to an on-chain asset (NFT, position in a pool, etc). That does "require" blockchains for the reasons explained in the first few paragraphs of this article.
I put "require" in quotes because you could definitely build this stuff without a blockchain. But nothing like that will ever become widely adopted. It's not about "requiring" a blockchain in the sense of a necessary condition. It's about blockchains enabling things in a way that they are otherwise unlikely to be enabled.
- cuteboy19 5y ago> enabling things in a way that they are otherwise unlikely to be enabled Why were these things unlikely to be enabled in the first place? Maybe it wasn't worth the hassle (even though it is free)? Maybe people couldn't agree on one solution (even though there are a 1000 blockchains with their mutually incompatible systems)? Or more cynically, maybe no one needed "worse SSO" in the first place and this is just attempt #245 to find a problem for our favourite solution.