4 ms·

Please explain what this is a bad use case. I'd love to learn why that is.

• shafyy 4y ago
  Not the person you're responding to, but my view on this is: Having one online identity that is publicly viewable by everbody is a privacy nightmare. Yes, I know that it's pseudonymous, but it's possible for a sufficiently motivated entity to find out who is behind a pseudonym.
  • somebodythere 4y ago
    Zero-knowledge cryptography allows you to post opaque data to the blockchain and selectively reveal properties of it to chosen people and applications. For example, a zero-knowledge DID can generate a proof to an age-restricted application that you are over 18, without necessarily revealing your birthdate or any other information about yourself.
    • captn3m0 4y ago
      And this is already covered by the DID/VC W3C specs that don’t need a blockchain. An age restriction in particular will _always require the blessing of a central party_.
• theshrike79 4y ago
  Because you can't remove stuff from a blockchain. Change your name? Old name still there. Change your phone number? Still there. All old email addresses? Still there.
  • gnarula 4y ago
    I reckon that's now how SSI solutions use a blockchain (or at least the ones I know of). AFAIK, a blockchain is only used to resolve a DID (an identifier mapping a random ID to a bunch of public keys you control, along with a URL to communicate with your device). Your personal information, as in your name, phone number, email stay in your device and are only exchanged with the party you want to authenticate against. I'm curious to know if there's something I misunderstood in this space