> Basically, you're using the blockchain as a decentralized passwd file. But again, I don't see why this is desirable in light of existing and much more powerf

> Basically, you're using the blockchain as a decentralized passwd file. But again, I don't see why this is desirable in light of existing and much more powerful alternatives to passwd files (U2F for example)? Not quite. To use a UNIX analogy, we're using the blockchain to bootstrap a global, decentralized LDAP. We're making it so applications can resolve a username to its owner's information without users needing to trust us, without applications needing to trust us, and without users needing to trust applications. Now, my "LDAP entry" (i.e. my passcard) can contain whatever information I want to put there. Anyone can verify the authenticity of subsequent updates to my passcard data by verifying that each update was signed by the same private key whose public counterpart got bound to my username when the passcard was created. I could put information in my passcard that further identifies who I am, and I could put information that authenticates me to certain applications. These are some of the key use-cases of my passcard. However, what this information is exactly depends on the application. The only thing Onename concerns itself with is ensuring that the application can discover this information when given the username, and be assured that the information was generated by the same principal that owns the username without having to trust Onename or the user.