The gpg web of trust might be a better example, but it's a moot point either way.
The claim I'm refuting is that digital identity was impossible before the blockchain (Edit: or more difficult, either way, point stands).
Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing. That doesn't mean it needs a blockchain.
People have been proving digital ownership and identities for longer than the blockchain, and the blockchain brings nothing new or interesting to the table in terms of identity.
> Are there any concrete uses of a blockchain that have clear advantages than to using a standard database other than cryptocurrencies?
Seems you're refuting something no one said, as far as I can tell.
Edit:
> Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing
How is it distributed? I assumed it was some company's servers -- maybe in multiple data centres around the world. But nothing like 24k nodes (& possibly more in the future).
---
Edit (reply to your edit):
I think the claim is that the identity system will be more resilient, not that it will be easier to implement. Censorship resistance.
I'd imagine it'll be harder to implement & cost more. A trade-off.
Which is along the lines of what I originally asked,
> Is Keybase resilient against the country's government in which it resides?
You said that gpg was. But didn't mention the computers. I asked about the servers & the ppl. (We didn't talk about the team).
The need wasn't specified. I'm presuming it's censorship resistance. Governments can't meddle with identities. Wipe someone off the face of the earth.
