[Gargyle]

Attaching this to cryptoassets increases your operational (more mental overhead, doesnt work with simple keybearer devices, you assume people to be lazy and bad at key management) and technical (irrevocable ethereum-bugs that can only be mitigated by chain splits) complexity.

Albeit for long-term public signatures I see the benefit in spreading the sig and revocation information from the classical tools in to as many hard to modify places as possible. Popular global databases like Ethereum and similar are good condidates for that.

And of course have the verification scheme expose inconsistencies between different key-sources and tag them with their respective power structure categories. (Lime Government, Cryptocurrency-Devs, HugeCodeHostingPlatform, CompanyBehindHugeCodeHostingPlatform, etc...)

[dnamlin]

An Ethereum address is just a public key (which, as the owner, you also have the private key to). You can make one, and sign messages with it, without touching the blockchain or sending any assets to it. So added complexity is -necessary- only to the extent you wish to involve those additional ways you can interact with the blockchain (that you can't using GPG or SSH keys). I'm saying this in principle of course, granting the current lack of convenient utilities/CLIs for operating this way.

I would speculate that there are probably already more people who practice decent opsec for their Ethereum keys than for GPG & SSH keys. Soon it won't be close!