Item — HN Reader

Sure, but that’s replaced with user’s being in control of their identity (permanently).

Lose your keys, you’re out of luck and locked out of who knows how many applications permanently.

It might be fine for us, but just think of the less technically inclined folks in your life. Are they going to remember a 32 word phrase or use a password manager for a key?

And what happens if they’re hacked? If google detects your account is hacked, you may be able to salvage it.

If someone nabs your wallet, they get access to however many apps you have set up along with whatever funds you have in there.

2 comments

I think the idea of fully decentralising all the things as per web3 or the move to crypto is really interesting.

But if the last couple years has told us anything it’s that it’s being immediately met with a wave of recentralisation where some ungodly percentage of crypto wallets are all sitting with centralised providers and services, which still require email/password entry.

I fail to see how a non-tecnhical user is going to migrate from where we are now to keeping all their keys by themselves (Sorry I recognise you’re agreeing with these points as well basically but started replying here so might as well finish)

Then they can still use a middleman. The idea is that any data ownership can be transferred. No middleman monopoly or lock-in.

If people need a middleman, there will be a few winners and the monopoly or duopoly will continue.