[shagie]

The potential for doxing in this is... so here's your identity so that you can be the same individual on multiple sites.

Someone else posts into the blockchain that jondoe.eth public_key "420abc..." is {this real data about the person}.

And now that identity and every login it is associated with has been doxed in a permeant, public, and unalterable way.

If someone doxes my gmail account, I can go through the process of dissociating myself with that identity and hopefully the provider were that doxing is stored could be persuaded to delete that content (yes, the internet has a long memory).

This would seem to be much harder if not impossible with an identity stored on a public blockchain (that also allows for other data to be stored).

[serverholic]

To be clear, signing-in doesn’t trigger a transaction. So people can’t publicly see where you have logged in.

Also it’s up to you how you use the system. You could have a number of online persona’s each with it’s own login.

[shagie]

This isn't about transactions or being able to see where you're logged in from.

This is about having a public, centralized source of identities that cannot be erased.

Yes, you can have multiple identities on it - but if an identity on that chain is doxed, it is forever doxed.

If you are maintaining one identity per application... then what is the advantage of having the identity in a place where it can be accessed by multiple applications?

I have difficulty seeing the advantage of a public, append only, identity provider compared to say... setting up your own auth server on AWS and managing your identities out of there.