← Back to context

Comment by betwixthewires

4 years ago

It's not about using a ledger to hold public keys. The keys exist regardless of the ledger. The idea is to use the ledger to indisputably prove ownership or control over resources. Could be money, could be access to certain services, could be files, anything.

Also, the ledger doesn't have to be public.

If the ledger is not public, why would I trust it? If someone else claims they are you, how would I differentiate the conflicting claims?

  • Keys are identities. Someone claiming to be you doesn't matter. Always defer to keys.

    A non public ledger would be something agreed upon by participants only. So you and I and 5 other people for example could run some type of organization using some private way to keep track of state. You choose to trust it, if you don't, then don't use it.

  • Messages are signed by cryptographic signatures so nobody can claim to be you.

    This is how JWTs and many other protocols ensure message authenticity.

    • > nobody can claim to be you.

      Nobody can claim to have your private key, but they can sure as hell claim to be you.

      We won't know who the real numtel ever is without some real-world proof and verification. This is where a lot of this crypto-based stuff starts to crumble: sure the mathematics of the cryptography works well on chain, but there is a very limited set of things that exist 100% purely on the blockchain - as soon as you need to go off of the blockchain for anything (e.g. proving human identity, proving ownership of a physical asset like a house etc) then you're back to the same old problems we've always had of having to prove identity/ownership/whatever, and you cant use a cryptographic hash to prove that I own the apple I am eating right now ... perhaps you can prove that I own an apple, but can you prove I own this apple?

    • Nobody can claim they own the key you claim you owned, but, unless you have a person-to-key map somewhere, my claim I'm you is as good as yours.