[megadal]

This entire article is just wrongly conflating Verifiable Credentials (VCs) with DIDs and then citing those false conflations as weaknesses of DID.

> If decentralized ID is just an extension of the existing government ID system, it provides neither privacy nor financial inclusion.

VC is a spec built on top of DID, in no way shape or form is VC required for DID.

This statement alone shows the author doesn't understand (or is intentionally misrepresenting) the relationship between DID and VC (which is kind of crucial to write an entire blog post on either topic)

[megadal]

Also, the other points made aren't the reason VC was conceived.

> And just like the existing system, it continues to exclude millions of people who can’t get government ID

VC is a technology for convenience, not solving social problems. It's basically just to enable technologies like Tap to Pay but for your Gov IDs.

E.g. rather than having to carry your drivers license you just carry your phone. It's almost as if the article misses the entire purpose for which VC is designed (but then again, what can one expect when they're criticizing DIDs yet -actually- talking about VC throughout the entire post)

[krunck]

I reject any system that will require me to carry a phone. Phones are expensive, brittle, and annoying. Biometric is far better.

[megadal]

I would much rather buy a new phone than stand in the DMV if I lost my driver's license. I thought I lost mine days ago and was ready to hop on TaskRabbit to employ a line stander.

Also, biometrics to verify ID? Hard pass. Would rather not have to be fingerprinted or swabbed at the gas station for cancer sticks.

[adastra22]

You can't change your biometric password.

[adastra22]

Thank you, I thought I was going crazy reading it. I've been out of the DID space for a number of years now, but I made contributions to the concept when it was first proposed. I don't remember it having anything to do government credentials at the time. It seems the VC addition is a later thing?