| ▲ | drdaeman 3 hours ago | |
Only as a last resort. If possible, governments, just like any other organizations, should have absolutely no say about anyone’s identity. They (like any other entity) can attest, but such attestation should hold as few of any special value as possible. | ||
| ▲ | davidgay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
> Only as a last resort. If possible, governments, just like any other organizations, should have absolutely no say about anyone’s identity. An unusual position, as historically governments have provided birth and death registries [0], passports, identity cards, etc, etc [0]: or, earlier, in the West at least, the church | ||
| ▲ | Seattle3503 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
We've seen ~20 years of people trying to solve identity without the government. We've seen plenty of solutions that can provide stable identities over time, but we haven't really seen anything that provides meaningful sybil resistance. As computer systems become more and more "autonomous", sybil resistance is increasingly the most important feature of any identity system. Any identity system that doesn't solve that problem pushes to the application layer, where it usually has UX impacts that have serious tradeoffs with adoption. | ||