>It is up for attestors to compete in providing a valuable signal to sites. right because users will chose attestor - oh wait they will not. This system is de

>It is up for attestors to compete in providing a valuable signal to sites. right because users will chose attestor - oh wait they will not. This system is designed (at least in Chrome) with PLATFORMS in mind not independent attestors - so you clearly didn't get the memo. >valuable signal rather highly intrusive signal. >It's not anticompetitive because you can come up with your own standard of a secure device and get sites to trust your attestor. Again it is anticompetitive when you produce a standard that benefits you (or biggest players) on market and makes nearly impossible for another competitor to emerge - it is even more anticompetitive when you create standard that "is impossible to implement" for architectural and 'branding' (ideological) reason by another competitor. Such situation can be understood as public attempt: to form cartel at best, monopoly at worst. Both are anticompetitive by nature - and would result in dissolution of company if it is registered in any country with working and not totally corrupt government. >secure device about "security": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36985317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36985317