Discussion of informal trust network of "passport issuers"

[patcon]

I'd like to toss this idea out there to percolate. In #20, I referred to writing up a proper RFC for defining the expected agenda and process for a passport issuance event.

I can imagine a day when a loose network of trusted "passport issuers" post intentions to host meetings on decentralized event board with a mandatory X days notice. (I can imagine a simple ethereum contract to provide this service.) Users can sign up to attend, so provide a rough expectation of numbers. I imagine these issuers also doubling as covert auditors who would help ensure that all issuers stay honest and stick with the accepted protocol.

The X days notice of events would ensure that any interested auditors could make plans to attend. Auditors can also be independant parties familiar with the protocol, and don't necessarily need to be issuers themselves. Only passports issued at validly posted events should be respected.

Anyhow, I see the trust-network of passport issuers being an important part of making a truly decentralized identity system -- what we're calling a passport system here.

[AKRFranko]

I am incredibly excited right now! I'm not as technical as you guys, but I have been working on a similar concept in my mind over the last few days and suddenly I find this! I see what you're saying @patcon and I'd like to chime in. I agree as you say that this is a decentralized identity system but I especially like how you very subtly snub the passport terminology. I wont be subtle: If you're piggy-backing on a real-world concept, then you're doomed to either copy the errors of that world or introduce worse ones as you try to work around them (try making a human for example). As a general theme, If you're trying to change the world, change the rules also.

In my rummaging thoughts, I also came to the conclusion that the passport issuer is just as trustworthy as the passport owner. So I don't see how letting issuers be auditors in exclusive parties would be any better that politics (unless I misunderstand what you're saying). Why not let everyone be part auditor and part Issuer? Or provide to anyone who has to validate the passport, a means to decide which issuers they trust by using their own heuristics and also provide means for passport owners to decide which auditors can audit them and which issuers they trust.

In other words, totally agree that the trust-network is important, but I think IT should be decentralized also. Let people be the judges of authorities and let validity of those authorities be the evolving, organic reflection of that judgement (And I'm still not quite sure I'm happy with that yet).

[patcon]

Hi @AKRFranko! Glad this is interesting to you! :)

I must admit that I disagree with the "If you're trying to change the world, change the rules also" bit. It's common to piggyback the new and unknown on known concepts, especially if the goal is appealing to laypersons. I'm unsure what wisdom or precedent makes you so confident that piggybacking is a bad omen. Modal computing was modelled off of physical windows. Decentralized ledgers and the solution to the byzantine general problem piggybacked on the idea of money in the Bitcoin project. Using known reference material and models is common strategy in design of all sorts. People understand passports, and their value and the need to protect them, so I'd personally prefer to leverage that understanding. Though I know others in this issue queue have expressed disagreement for some valid reasons.

---

I don't think there's any reason why any passport holders couldn't also be auditors. I simply suggested passport issuers would make the best auditors because they have more at stake and have more experience in what's being audited. As in, presumably this might be a livelihood for them down the road (perhaps they charge a small fee), and so they have a direct stake in the system, and their accrued trust is wrapped up in it more than any passport holder's would be. But yeah, I don't see there being anything keeping passport holders from being auditors, except that their giving an "OK" might mean less to others. But I guess that would sort itself out in the wash :) I think we probably agree on this part

Anyhow, I've been a little silent here lately, but still very interested, and I've been circulating the ideas at various meetup groups whenever "identity" comes up!

[AKRFranko]

Yeah. I completely agree with what you're saying and my first idea came out wrong. I meant that bit more as a mental state I put myself in before tackling world-changing ideas in that if you succeed you will have changed the rules therefore, what are rules of the future? I've read a lot more of the parent thread since then, enough to understand these sorts of misunderstandings are quite common and rather boil down to objectives being different.

My personal objectives being different and my understanding of this project's undertaking now being more thorough, I will keep this in mind as I keep watch so as to not confuse the overall mission and the threads.

My needs for a trust network based on cryptographic passports are quite different; I do not need to manage real-world validity in my system ( I delegate that to humans ) so I allow multiple identities. For financial and technical reasons, I can't do blockchains. I'm thinking of stamping the passports and have some expiry mechanisms ( like a visa ).

Btw thx for a reply! This has been very educating! And you really have a good mind on all of this! Keep spreading the word, this stuff is the future!

[MrChrisJ]

Where's the Like button on this thing?

[AKRFranko]

That was much better than a like ;)