Drawbacks of current identity-management\/authentication systems:<\/p>\n
– Providers can go out of business\/identity bound to service provider
\n– Servers can fail by technical failures or Denial-of-Service attacks
\n– Different service providers mean different identities\/no globally unique identities
\n– Service providers can (be forced to) forge identities<\/p>\n
The Namecoin project has extended the Bitcoin blockchain-concept to self-register globally unique human-readable names and publish a data set for each globaly unique name (https:\/\/wiki.namecoin.info\/index.php?title=Identity<\/a>, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Namecoin<\/a>). As storage and signing of a blockchain are done decentralized the registrations and the content of the data set cannot be forged. So I suggest to implement an authentication blockchain into browsers to register globally unique usernames and authenticate with services.<\/p>\n The Blockchain would just publish the tupel (<self-registered globally unique human-readable username>;<asymmetric public key>). When a user logs in at a service with his username the service queries the blockchain for the corresponding asymmetric public key and does a Challenge-response-authentication.<\/p>\n Benefits: – Any user\/company\/group\/service\/application can use ONE global authentication system with globally unique usernames<\/p>\n The NameID-Project (https:\/\/nameid.org\/<\/a>) uses the Namecoin blockchain as database-backend for the OpenID protocol. That way all Namecoin user-IDs are available via OpenID. Instead browsers should be able to access the blockchain directly.<\/p>\n If RTCweb is used as blockchain transport protocol browsers can participate as blockchain nodes without additional bridges\/connectors\/servers.<\/p>\n What do you think?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Drawbacks of current identity-management\/authentication systems: – Providers can go out of business\/identity bound to service provider – Servers can fail by technical failures or Denial-of-Service attacks – Different service providers mean different identities\/no globally unique identities – Service providers can … Continue reading
\n– No providers -> no manipulation\/discontinue of service
\n– No servers -> no outtages\/DoS-vulnerability
\n– Globally unique identity per user
\n– Unlimited number of pseudonyms per user by additonal identities
\n– Secure login with asymmetric keys -> no password reuse\/social engineering<\/p>\n