At first I assumed selective disclosure meant the user stayed in control. You hold the credential. You decide what gets shown. You choose what stays hidden.
On Dusk the design is more precise than that. There is disclosure for users, proving an attribute without handing over the underlying data. And there is disclosure for authorized parties, giving regulators or issuers access that the user cannot simply refuse. Both get called selective disclosure. Only one of them puts the selection in the user’s hands.
What held my attention is how easily the second version borrows the language of the first. Regulatory access described as empowerment. Auditor visibility described as privacy. The words stay the same. The direction of control reverses.
I still cannot tell from the documentation exactly where the user’s ability to refuse ends and the system’s ability to access begins. That boundary exists. It is just rarely stated in plain terms.
Who is selective disclosure actually for the person holding the credential, or the system deciding who gets to read it?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk
On Dusk the design is more precise than that. There is disclosure for users, proving an attribute without handing over the underlying data. And there is disclosure for authorized parties, giving regulators or issuers access that the user cannot simply refuse. Both get called selective disclosure. Only one of them puts the selection in the user’s hands.
What held my attention is how easily the second version borrows the language of the first. Regulatory access described as empowerment. Auditor visibility described as privacy. The words stay the same. The direction of control reverses.
I still cannot tell from the documentation exactly where the user’s ability to refuse ends and the system’s ability to access begins. That boundary exists. It is just rarely stated in plain terms.
Who is selective disclosure actually for the person holding the credential, or the system deciding who gets to read it?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk