[jeroenhd]

Signatures exist outside of the blockchain. You can just send your signed data point, that's the point.

The only thing the blockchain protects against in these circumstances would be that the government is denying ever signing your date of birth and you losing your signed token. I don't think that's a problem in practice in most countries where an alternative trust system would even work.

[Spooky23]

Sure; vaccination credentials took this approach by establishing a registry of known signers.

That approach doesn’t scale.

It’s easy to shit on blockchain, but this particular area is one worth understanding.

[jeroenhd]

I don't understand it though. What trust can you derive from the blockchain? If a user visits my site and says "I'm jeroenhd, Spooky23 verified it" then that means absolutely nothing to me. The blockchain may be unalterable (without hard forks, at least) but there's no reason why I'd trust the blockchain more than a piece of paper that says "I'm 18 you can sell me booze".

[bawolff]

> That approach doesn’t scale.

Why not? Traditional PKI has generally met the scalability test, so this is a pretty bold claim.

> It’s easy to shit on blockchain, but this particular area is one worth understanding.

Sometimes i wonder if blockchain is really an edgy teenager in trenchcoat. Criticism is always met with "~ThEY jUSt donT UnderStAnD Meeee!!!~~~"