I'm reading the article as essentially saying "decentralised ID's dosen't solve anything".
If you have them "backed" with governmentally issued ID's, they allow the government ID monopoly to continue (with all its claimed faults). If they are instead completely separate they will not be considered "valid" in most situations where ID's are required.
Then the author warn against the whole idea of having one, single, strong identifier connected to your person at all, and urges for the option of creating multiple identities.
In almost all circumstances where identification is required, the whole point of requiring ID falls apart of you can create a new one whenever you want. We can of course argue that the whole surveillance society is wrong. KYC requirements, no fly lists, credit scores etc, but any proposed system need to have these in consideration or forever only be applicable in niche environments.
Feels like DID is just keybase.com (pre coin-spam and zoom acquisition) or pgp.mit.edu wrapped in a pyramid scheme.
If you have them "backed" with governmentally issued ID's, they allow the government ID monopoly to continue (with all its claimed faults). If they are instead completely separate they will not be considered "valid" in most situations where ID's are required.
Then the author warn against the whole idea of having one, single, strong identifier connected to your person at all, and urges for the option of creating multiple identities.
In almost all circumstances where identification is required, the whole point of requiring ID falls apart of you can create a new one whenever you want. We can of course argue that the whole surveillance society is wrong. KYC requirements, no fly lists, credit scores etc, but any proposed system need to have these in consideration or forever only be applicable in niche environments.
Feels like DID is just keybase.com (pre coin-spam and zoom acquisition) or pgp.mit.edu wrapped in a pyramid scheme.