#dusk @Dusk
Yesterday, I used to think that a blockchain identity system mainly needed to prove that someone was eligible to access something. I mostly looked at identity through that lens, so I was fairly easily convinced by the idea of putting credentials on-chain.
But when I dug deeper into Citadel 2, I started to see that the problem lies in what gets exposed when you prove that credential. Citadel 2 is being built not only to verify that someone holds a valid license, but also around keeping the license and its underlying attributes private. That detail made me realize that proving something and revealing the information behind that proof are actually two very different things.
What’s worth thinking about is that Citadel 2 wants this process to happen through zero-knowledge proofs along with LP-signed licenses and on-chain session verification. I once thought that if a blockchain can verify an identity claim publicly then that should be enough. But for real services, putting personal attributes or even the exact credential used on-chain sometimes is not the most practical choice. A service may need to know that a user is valid while the user may not want to reveal everything about themselves.
From there, I started to see Citadel 2 less like a typical “on-chain identity” system. The real ambition seems to be proving that a user has a valid credential without exposing the credential itself while still leaving the final access decision to the service provider.
I still do not know whether this privacy model will be simple enough for real services to adopt at scale. Maybe that’s the next thing worth watching.
$DUSK
$BTC
$TRUMP
What matters most for on-chain identity?
Yesterday, I used to think that a blockchain identity system mainly needed to prove that someone was eligible to access something. I mostly looked at identity through that lens, so I was fairly easily convinced by the idea of putting credentials on-chain.
But when I dug deeper into Citadel 2, I started to see that the problem lies in what gets exposed when you prove that credential. Citadel 2 is being built not only to verify that someone holds a valid license, but also around keeping the license and its underlying attributes private. That detail made me realize that proving something and revealing the information behind that proof are actually two very different things.
What’s worth thinking about is that Citadel 2 wants this process to happen through zero-knowledge proofs along with LP-signed licenses and on-chain session verification. I once thought that if a blockchain can verify an identity claim publicly then that should be enough. But for real services, putting personal attributes or even the exact credential used on-chain sometimes is not the most practical choice. A service may need to know that a user is valid while the user may not want to reveal everything about themselves.
From there, I started to see Citadel 2 less like a typical “on-chain identity” system. The real ambition seems to be proving that a user has a valid credential without exposing the credential itself while still leaving the final access decision to the service provider.
I still do not know whether this privacy model will be simple enough for real services to adopt at scale. Maybe that’s the next thing worth watching.
$DUSK
$BTC
$TRUMP
What matters most for on-chain identity?
Private proof
21%
Transparency
29%
User control
14%
Both
36%
14 الأصوات • تمّ إغلاق التصويت