[toomim]

> Our goal is to help create an entirely new environment where individuals are the custodians of their official records and can easily share those records with others.

It doesn't look like they actually need a blockchain for this. They just need an archive of signed documents. They could use a website, or IPFS.

Blockchains are hot right now, but they solve a very specific problem: finding consensus on a history of transactions. If you need to prove that a document was signed at a certain point in history, then a blockchain can help. But you don't need one for any of the examples given in this proposal, such as hosting student transcripts.

[modeless]

> If you need to prove that a document was signed at a certain point in history

This could actually be useful though. Even with the key you can't insert new signatures into the blockchain's past. If your key is stolen, instead of invalidating the key and thus retroactively revoking every signature you've ever made, you can instead revoke only the ones made since the key was stolen.

[jbpetersen]

Without a history all it takes is one leaked key to invalidate all credentials from a given source.

There are no guarantees against credentials being tampered with whenever a new version of that source is established.

[grey-area]

They could sign with multiple keys, some offline.

Bitcoin also offers no strong identity verification.

[tzm]

> finding consensus on a history of transactions.

Precisely. It becomes a federated accreditation system that's verified from consensus and identity, rather than a centralized body. It's also immutable and irrefutable evidence of achievement.

edit: Could venture to say that this model is what the future of education could look like, where transcripts are determined by your participation on the blockchain.

[plttn]

But how do I know that you've actually gotten the grades to earn the B+ in Calc 2 or whatever?

I feel like the blockchain only works when there is a binary yes/no of factuality, and grades can't be defined on a binary factuality.

[tzm]

Great point. This is relate to credential specification adopted by the issuer and the associated evidence of achievement, which could be a reference to another cypher hash. A subsequent parsing routine (from the issuer) could determine evidence meta for evaluation.

[cortesoft]

Yeah, I don't quite follow what the blockchain is adding to the equation. In their examples, it is still some central authority vouching for someone (saying, yes, they earned that certificate). That is exactly what PK signatures are for, you don't need a blockchain for that.

[r2dnb]

Totally agree, the blockchain is a great thing but it is largely becoming overused.

[Aelinsaar]

If you needed cryptographic verifiability, a PGP signature could have done that, no?

[natrius]

Even when it's true, "this doesn't need a blockchain" is such a content-free criticism. It's new technology. People will discover when it's useful to use a blockchain even when it's not the cheapest approach, just like we've done with garbage collectors and virtual machines.

Use blockchains for whatever you want.