Showing posts with label ETN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ETN. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

What World Leaders Think About Crypto, and How They Want Decentralization to Bolster Centralized Power

Given the apparent sensitivity of cryptocurrency markets to regulatory and political developments, it stands to reason that the world's leaders —  and what they think about crypto — will be vitally important in determining the direction the cryptocurrency market will travel in the future. Many leaders have been willing to sit back over the past few months and let crypto develop — more or less — organically, yet it's becoming apparent that the time for official action is drawing increasingly near, at which point Bitcoin, et al. will either bear the brunt of government 'crackdowns' or will benefit from favorable support.
However, teasing out a single, consistent stance on crypto among world leaders is difficult, with many saying conflicting things about Bitcoin, Ethereum and other platforms, and many not openly saying anything at all. But one thing that does emerge, amid all the noise, is that many are enthusiastic about blockchain technology in the abstract, without being enthusiastic about any cryptocurrency that actually exists right now.
This could potentially have unfortunate implications for crypto, if such a position ever translates into concerted action against decentralized platforms to the benefit of more centralised, government-endorsed alternatives. But then again, if the decentralization of community-led cryptocurrencies is as powerful as its exponents claim it is, what world leaders think about crypto might actually be inconsequential in the long term after all.

Donald Trump: ‘keeping an eye’ on Bitcoin

If there's one leader the world that enjoys being talking about more than any other right now, it's Donald Trump. However, it would seem that Donald Trump isn't all that keen on talking about crypto, though it's possible to deduce his general stance on Bitcoin by looking at what the people around him have said about cryptocurrencies recently. And while their words have been cautious or qualified — for the most part — it would seem that Trump might possibly be the most crypto-sympathetic leader in the Western world right now.
One of the most recent pronouncements from a person close to the 45th President came from Gary Cohn, the 11th Director of the National Economic Council — from January 2017 to April 2018) — and the ex-president of Goldman Sachs. He affirmed his belief that there will one day be a "global cryptocurrency." Unfortunately for Bitcoin maximalists, Cohn doesn't think that such a global token will be Bitcoin, since he believes that whatever coin emerges to dominate the future will not be "based on mining costs or cost of electricity or things like that."
Cohn is, in other words, a member of the 'blockchain not Bitcoin' club, and even though he no longer works as Trump's chief economic adviser, it would seem that other figures within Trump's circle — as well as Trump himself — are also fellow travellers. In September, Margie Graves, the chief information officer at the US Office of Management and Budget, revealed that the government was looking into use cases for distributed ledger technology, just as other White House officials were urging the adoption of the data standards necessary for blockchain adoption to take hold.
If such enthusiasm for blockchain invited hope for a similar attitude towards cryptocurrencies, such hope was largely stunted during a November 30 press conference. When quizzed on whether "the President [has] been following this at all – Bitcoin specifically," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders answered:
“I know it's something that [Trump’s] keeping an eye on.”
Revealingly, such vigilance was being maintained mostly by Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert, implying that Bitcoin was more a subject of concern for the Trump government than of excitement.
While remarks from Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October would also suggest that the White House regards the cryptocurrencies which exist now as more of a problem than as a solution, recent statements from another one of Trump's former brains — Steve Bannon — could suggest that the President's personal view of Bitcoin is more sympathetic. In March, Bannon championedcryptocurrencies as a means of enabling businesses and governments "to get away from the central banks that debase your currency and make slave wages," and of enabling individuals to reclaim power over their personal data from tech companies — which haven't exactly been supporters of Trump.
He followed up these comments in June by describing cryptocurrencies as "revolutionary." While it's too much of a jump to suggest that Trump completely agrees with the chief strategist — who he fired in August — on this, it's not too much of a jump to suppose that a president who's introduced tax cuts and is in favour of smaller government might also be fond of a technology that "takes control back from central authorities." Still, even if Trump is privately enthused by Bitcoin, it's difficult to see it translating into new government policy in the short term, at least if the growing tendency of the SEC and CFTC to ease off cryptocurrencies is any kind of indication.

The EU: Blockchain over Bitcoin, despite fanboys

Moving from the U.S. to the EU, it's perhaps unsurprising to note that a similar favoring of blockchain over Bitcoin is also prevalent. The British, French, German, Dutch and Italiangovernments have all outlined intentions to introduce cryptocurrency regulation, and a common theme in their suspicion of crypto trading concerns its security and money-laundering implications.
In December, the U.K. government revealed that it wanted to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for cryptocurrency exchanges to permit users to trade anonymously and without confirming their identities. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Barclay said:
"We are working to address concerns about the use of cryptocurrencies by negotiating to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and some wallet providers within anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regulation."
Similarly, French finance minister Bruno Le Maire announced in January that France and Germany would launch a joint push at the G20 summit in March to introduce cryptocurrency regulation, with such coordinated action on their respective parts indicating approval for crypto-control at the very highest level (i.e. at the level of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron). That said, as cautious of cryptocurrencies as EU and G20 leaders were — and still are — no specific action was agreed upon at the March summit in Argentina. Despite the 20 finance ministers in attendance sharing fears that crypto could be used for laundering, avoiding taxes or even financing terrorism, too few of them believed that cryptocurrencies were big enough to pose a threat to financial stability. Hence, they resolved to delay formulating any specific recommendations until the next G20 meeting in July.
It's unlikely that these recommendations will be especially favourable, but it's worth pointing out that the European environment wasn't always so hostile toward Bitcoin and the like. Back in July 2015, then-Prime Minister David Cameron chose the London-based digital asset company Blockchain to join the U.K. trade delegation to Southeast Asia, indicating the British government's positive stance towards cryptocurrencies --  in particular — rather than just distributed ledgers — in general. His number two in command at the time, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, had also announced in March of the same year there would be £10 million of funding for research into the opportunities provided by digital currencies.




Innovate Finance
✔@InnFin
Chancellor Osborne makes a withdrawal from a #bitcoin ATM Twitter Ads info and privacy
Interestingly, ex-chancellor Osborne was such a Bitcoin fanboy that he was photographed withdrawing the currency in August 2014, and it would seem that certain people still in key positions of power are also personal advocates of cryptocurrencies. Emmanuel Macron was photographed holding a Ledger Blue wallet in March 2016, while he was the finance minister under François Hollande. He also proposed legislation that same month that would have used blockchain tech to turn bonds on the French bond market into a kind of crypto-asset.




Ledger
✔@LedgerHQ
French Minister of Economy @EmmanuelMacron hodling the Ledger Blue, next generation blockchain security device
However, these indications of support for Bitcoin all emerged before last year's big speculative boom in cryptocurrencies, which ultimately resulted in finance ministers from Spain to the Netherlands warning of the risks of trading in crypto. Since then, the likes of current British prime minister Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron have talked about cryptocurrencies only in the context of regulating or 'watching' them. At the World Economic Forum in January, Macron said in a speech:
"I'm in favour of the IMF [International Monetary Fund] having the mandate to police the entire global financial system, of which whole areas escape regulation. Such as Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies or shadow-banking."
There are, however, a few notable exceptions to the EU's hardening stance. In February 2017, Malta’s prime minister Joseph Muscat declared in a speech in Brussels that Europe should become "the Bitcoin continent":
“The rise of cryptocurrencies can be slowed but cannot be stopped. Some financial institutions are painstakingly accepting the fact that the system at the back of such transactions is much more efficient and transparent than the classical ones.”
Since then, even though the EU has, in general, grown warier of crypto, Malta has only become more welcoming, with Binance and OKEx both establishing presences in the country in June and April of this year, respectively. And Malta isn't the only small, crypto-friendly EU nation at the moment, since Lithuania has taken concerted steps this year to create positive frameworks and guidelines for the cryptocurrency industry. So too has fellow-Baltic nation Estonia, although its plans to establish its own national cryptocurrency were frozen after criticism from the European Central Bank.

East Asia: Crackdowns amid a crypto revolution

Moving away from the Western world, an even more restrictive stance towards cryptocurrencies and crypto trading is noticeable in China. Back in September 2017, the Chinese government banned not only ICOs, but also crypto exchanges from operating in the Asian nation — a prohibition that was strengthened in February with the banning of foreign exchanges. All of this persists despite the March re-election of President Xi Jinping, who is reportedly "one of the largest advocates of free trade China has seen in quite some time."
While Xi, seemingly, isn't enough of a free-trade advocate to permit decentralised currencies from being circulated in China, he is yet another big fan of blockchain technology. In May, he hailedblockchain as part of a "technological revolution" reshaping the world.
"The new generation of information technology represented by artificial intelligence, quantum information, mobile communication, [the] internet of things, and blockchain is accelerating breakthroughs in its range of applications."
His support — along with the Chinese government's — for blockchain technology would explain why China led the rest of the globe in the number of registered blockchain patents last year, and it has a very good chance of reclaiming this title in 2018, given April's announcement of some $1.6 billion in extra government funding for blockchain projects. It will, however, be followed not-too-distantly by South Korea, where the government has a similar preference for blockchain over Bitcoin. In February, its finance minister Kim Dong-yeon spoke of the revolutionary potential of distributed ledgers. During a meeting at the People's Bank of China, he said:
"Blockchain technology is an important technological breakthrough to fuel the fourth industrial revolution and, as such, the ministry will take a cautious approach in regulating the cryptocurrency market. For negative use cases of cryptocurrencies, the ministry will impose strict regulations."
South Korea has indeed taken a hardline when it comes to "negative use cases of cryptocurrencies," despite the widespread fervor for crypto trading among the general South Korean population. In November, Prime Minister Lee Nak-yeon went so far as saying:
"There are cases in which young Koreans including students are jumping in to make quick money and virtual currencies are used in illegal activities like drug dealing or multi-level marketing for frauds […] This can lead to serious distortion or social pathological phenomena, if left unaddressed."
Such strong rhetoric went hand-in-hand with the regulatory steps the South Korean government took — and threatened to take — in the preceding and succeeding months, which included a September ICO ban and a January ban on anonymous crypto trading. However, it has stopped short of banning trading altogether, with President Moon Jae-in also announcing in January that, at least in the short term, there wouldn't be a complete ban.
This confirmation of a ‘no ban’ is indicative of the kind of u-turns governments have made — and continue to make — regarding cryptocurrencies. This is most evident with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe who, in March 2014 — one month after Mt. Gox's infamous collapse — released a document announcing the government's position that Bitcoin was not a currency. He said, as part of a decision that prohibited Japanese banks from offering Bitcoin accounts and also banned the brokerage of Bitcoin:
"Bitcoin are neither Japanese nor foreign currencies and its trading is different from deals stated by Japan’s bank act as well as financial instruments and exchange act."
However, as the nascent crypto industry recovered from Mt. Gox, and as Japan became the second-largest crypto market in the world, Abe's — and the Japanese government's — position gradually softened. In May 2016, it finally recognised cryptocurrencies as money, a move which enabled local banks to handle them and allowed crypto exchanges to operate within a regulated framework. Since then, the nation's trailblazing approach to officially recognize cryptocurrencies has converged to a degree with the regulatory focus of most Western nations, although in Japan's case the regulation leans more towards the supportive, nurturing end of the spectrum.

Putin: Will he or won't he?

Circling back towards Europe, president of Russia Vladimir Putin has a stance on crypto that's more or less as ambiguous as Donald Trump's. Yet, in Putin's case, this ambiguity comes not from an unwillingness to talk about cryptocurrencies and blockchain, but from its opposite. Back in July 2017, at a G20 summit, he made what could be considered his first comment on crypto technology:
"The global economy’s transition to a new industrial order is underpinned by the development of digital technology. We believe that the G20 could take on a leading role in shaping international regulations in this area."
While such a statement could indicate a desire to regulate cryptocurrencies in a way that enhances their potential for creating "a new industrial order," other statements from Putin and the Russian government have only muddied the waters. In August 2017, deputy prime minister Igor Shuvalov elaborated on plans to introduce a state-controlled cryptocurrency, the 'CryptoRuble,' which would be the only digital currency legally tradable in the country. "I am a supporter of a CryptoRuble coming into being,” he told a Russian news network. “We can’t keep cryptocurrencies under lock and key any longer - the phenomenon will keep advancing […] It should, however, advance in a way that does not harm our national economy, but rather strengthens it.”
Next, there were reports that Russia would introduce a regulatory framework that would legalise Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In September, Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov told the Moscow Financial Forum, "the state understands indeed that cryptocurrencies are real. There is no sense in banning them, there is a need to regulate them." As encouraging as this may have been, Putin himself contradicted this statement in October by calling for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to be outlawed. Their prohibition was necessary, according to the president, because they present dangerous "opportunities to launder funds acquired through criminal activities, tax evasion, even terrorism financing, as well as the spread of fraud schemes.”
His words were reinforced later that month when he officially confirmed plans for the much ballyhooed CryptoRuble, but were then weakened — yet again — when a December meeting saw the government disagree on whether these plans should ever be realized, with Alexey Moiseev (Deputy Minister of Finance) and Olga Skorobogatova (Deputy Governor of Russia's Central Bank) both claiming that a state-controlled cryptocurrency was unnecessary. Then. apparently, it was on again, only to be off again when Putin announced in March that cryptocurrency regulation — officially making crypto trading legal — would become law by July 1 of this year.
So Putin's attitude towards cryptocurrencies and their (legal) status in Russia is now finally clear, right? Wrong: in June, he answered a number of questions on crypto, and even though he appeared to rule out the possibility of there ever being a state-backed CryptoRuble, he didn't offer much else that would suggest the government is about to start creating a nurturing environment for cryptocurrencies. He said during a live Q&A session:
"The relationship of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to cryptocurrency [is that] it considers cryptocurrency neither a means of payment nor a store of value. Cryptocurrency is not backed by anything. One should treat it cautiously, carefully."
Even though Putin has spoken approvingly of blockchain technology, it therefore remains to be seen just what kind of support he and his government will be offering cryptocurrencies in the future.

Latin America: Restriction and state-backed cryptocurrencies

A similarly mixed picture also emerges from Latin America, where the use of cryptocurrencies has been relatively widespread, but where governments haven't always been willing to provide a legal framework that would encourage further adoption. This was particularly evident in Venezuela: an inflation crisis affecting its national currency  (the bolivar) saw people turn to Bitcoin en masse in 2017 as an alternative means of payment, despite the fact that the government was imprisoningminers of the cryptocurrency.
However, this quickly changed in December, when the government of Nicolas Maduro announcedthat it would issue its own oil-backed state cryptocurrency, the Petro. According to Maduro, the Petro would enable Venezuela to "[a]dvance in issues of monetary sovereignty, to make financial transactions and overcome the financial blockade." And it was with this decision that his government's stance on cryptocurrencies more generally softened, with crypto mining being made legal in January. While Maduro didn't offer comment on this u-turn himself, his 'cryptocurrency superintendent' Carlos Vargas had the following to say:
"It is an activity that is now perfectly legal […] We have had meetings with the Supreme Court so that people who have been victims of seizures and arrests in previous years will have charges dismissed."
Unfortunately, this change of heart hasn't really translated into purposeful action to promote the use of all cryptocurrencies, since aside from the launch of a free course focused on the trading and mining of said currencies, Maduro's government has been focused almost exclusively on promoting the Petro. In January, he urged the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) to join the country in using the national cryptocurrency:
"I put it on the table, brother governments of the ALBA, the proposal of the cryptocurrency of the Petro, so that we can take it on as one of the projects of integration of the 21st century in a bold way."
As for other countries in Central and South America, it's interesting to note that the more neoliberal among them take a stance towards crypto that's comparable to those taken in the U.S. and the EU. In Brazil, numerous blockchain pilots have been launched by banks, businesses and the government since at least 2016. Yet the nation's influential figures have, in general, spoken dismissively of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In October, the president of Brazil's central bank, Ilan Goldfajn, likened Bitcoin to a pyramid scheme:
"The Bitcoin is a financial asset with no ballast that people buy because they believe it will appreciate. That is a typical bubble or pyramid [scheme]."
While Rodrigo Maia, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, has spoken about the potential for cryptocurrencies to reduce tax evasion, neither he nor President Michel Temer have built upon such support by proposing favorable policies. And in the vacuum created by their silence, other Brazilian politicians — such as Expedito Netto — have sought to ban Bitcoin outright.
In Mexico, regulation has been passed that will effectively restrict the trade of cryptocurrencies and introduce government oversight over their use. In Argentina, however, the approach to digital currencies is — and has been — more generous, possibly because President Mauricio Macri appears to be privately interested in Bitcoin, at least judging by his organizational role in the First Bitcoin Forum in 2015 — and by at least one past Facebook post referring to ‘interesting’ discussions on bitcoin with entrepreneur Richard Branson. And while he's spoken little about cryptocurrencies since then, the willingness of Argentinian banks, for example, to use Bitcoin for cross-border payments would indicate that the environment he's fostering is a friendly one.

Interest insofar as crypto can reinforce power

Crypto is at a crossroads. After enjoying an almost fantastical Christmas period that saw Bitcoin shoot up by as much as 154% in a single month (in the four weeks leading to Dec. 17), cryptocurrencies have been struggling to find a secure plateau ever since. Regulatory setbacks, damaging hacks, and fraud investigations have been knocking one currency or another since the beginning of the year, with the total market cap of all coins standing at roughly 35% of what it was at its Jan. 7 peak — which equalled almost $830 billion).
This turbulence is why the world’s leaders are so important for crypto right now, since their views and the regulatory policies they impose will have a strong influence on how digital currencies perform in the coming months and years. And amid the marked variation in opinions on crypto among world leaders, one basic principle emerges: national governments want to ensure that decentralized cryptocurrencies don't undermine their sovereignty over the nations they govern, while — at the same time — they want to harness whatever's convenient about crypto in order to increase economic efficiency and strengthen their respective positions.
This is visible in the eagerness of such EU leaders as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May to curb the anonymous trading of cryptocurrencies, so as to maintain their jurisdiction over the flow of money. It's visible in the desire of leaders such as Nicolas Maduro — and possibly Vladimir Putin — to launch state-controlled cryptocurrencies, so as to evade international sanctions and to shore up struggling economies. And it's visible in the excitement that most leaders have for blockchain technology, which would take what's most congenial about cryptocurrencies — their 'trustless immutability' — and apply them in an efficiency-enhancing way to various fields economic and institutional areas.

However, while most world leaders seem interested only in exploiting the features of blockchain tech that would reinforce their power, there's little doubt that many of them are privately fascinated by crypto, which may end up benefiting from favourable legislation as a result. From Emmanuel Macron holding his own Ledger Blue wallet to Mauricio Macri organization of Bitcoin conferences in Buenos Aires, there's little doubt that cryptocurrencies and their promise of decentralized financial systems have certainly captured the imagination of many a president or prime minister. It would just seem that — for the moment, at least — the world's leaders are busier trying to adapt crypto to their own needs, rather than the other way around.

Link: https://cointelegraph.com

Has the Blockchain Revolution Failed to Take Off 10 Years On?

Everyone, even the biggest skeptics of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have all had their positives to say about the underpinning Blockchain technology which has the potential to change the world. However, it has been 10 years since Blockchain technology came into the open, and yet we still don’t really have a major use for it.
Some will argue that as it is the technology which Bitcoin is built upon, Blockchain’s primary use is as a payment system or, as it has evolved, a store of value. But the Bitcoin revolution has hardly been global.
The other uses for Blockchain, for example as a decentralized trading platform, as a new currency, smart contracts, distributed storage, authenticity verification and as an immutable ledger have all been tasted, but not savoured.

The banking revolution

When Bitcoin hit the streets and made promises of being a costless, instant way to exchange value without the need for a middleman, people proclaimed that a banking revolution was on the cards and the centralised money controllers should quake in their boots.
It has not gone according to plan though as the initial goal of freedom gave way to greed. Bitcoin left the path of being a functional currency and, with the help of its democratically empowered community, took on the mantle of digital gold.
The banking revolution died down a bit as fees rose, and transactions took longer, even as adoption grew worldwide. Even the banks themselves eased off on their own fears of being outdone by this digital currency.
So, if the Blockchain won’t be used to change the face of money - albeit that other coins are still marching towards this ideal with their own Blockchain, forked or otherwise - what else is it aiming to revolutionise?

No government supervision

Blockchain, as the middleman cutting technology it was proclaimed to be, is also aimed at the “pesky governments who are only there to scam and take its citizens money” or so the crypto community commonly believes.
The issue is, even with corrupt governments and their inane rules on taxation and other forms of drains on the economy, they at least come to the table with a level of security. Blockchain itself may be safe and secure, but it is still a dangerous place to be if you do not understand it.
So in order for Blockchain technology to revolutionise the government's control over one’s money, it needs to be safe and secure for all, not just the tech savvy ones.
Government-backed banking systems provides forms of security such as FDIC guarantees, reversibility of ACH, identity verification, audit standards, and an investigation system when things go wrong. Bitcoin on the other hand, leaves you to fend for yourselves.
Hacks, such as Mt Gox, Bitfinex, and even recently with Coincheck, show that there are still plenty of dangers in trading outside of the government’s eye. If this is  part of the Blockchain revolution, it would become a scary world for the elderly and the vulnerable, who leave themselves open to higher risk of getting hacked and spammed.

Smart contracts

Smart contracts are an interesting phenomenon in terms of a revolution. Their invention, off the back of Russian wunderkind Vitalik Buterin, were intended to create a world wide computing network that could totally eliminate the need for centralised third-parties. This certainly sounds great in today’s modern world.
However, smart contracts still have a long way to go, as the idea stumbled at its first major hurdle. The DAO fiasco proved that smart contracts can still be fooled, or should we say, smart contracts are sometimes ‘too smart for their own good’ and perhaps need a guiding human hand.
Yet, there is promise in this aspect of the Blockchain as ICOs continue to pop up, using smart contracts as the base of their operations, in a frontier-esque manner. ICOs continue to push the boundaries of where Blockchain technology can help, and it remains to be seen if it can make a significant difference in these sectors.

And the list goes on

There is no doubt that Blockchain can be theorised to fit in to almost any sector of modern life ( including those mentioned above), and this is without forgetting its original intended use as an immutable ledger, authenticity verification, a sealed and immutable data base and so on and so forth.
However, as we stand here today, almost 10 years on since Blockchain technology was truly birthed, there is no one sector where this ledger has taken over and rendered its competitors obsolete. The ideas are great, but the execution of this game changing technology is still too slow.

Link: https://cointelegraph.com

Online ID Control: Blockchain Platforms vs. Governments and Facebook

We're living at a time of unprecedented concern over identity. Fears abound that our personal data is being abused by distant third-parties, while this data has become more valuable to us at a time when our identities and the identity politics we base around them have become more central to our lives. It's in this context that blockchain technology has appeared, and while its application beyond cryptocurrencies is still limited, protecting our online identities and data more securely looks set to be one of its most central applications.
In its most basic outline, the use of blockchains in the area of securing personal data is simple: Our data is stored in encrypted form on a decentralized network, and we can grant other parties access to (some of) this data by the use of our private keys, in much the same way that using our keys allows us to send cryptocurrency to someone else. By virtue of this basic framework, blockchain tech promises to place control over our data back in our hands, at a time when Facebook and other technology giants have been abusing and misusing it. And seeing as how crypto-giants such as Coinbase have recently moved into the area of decentralized ID, it would seem that it already has strong backing and support within the cryptocurrency industry.
However, as sound as this all is in principle, there are a variety of challenges — some technical, some commercial — that have to be overcome before blockchains can be used at scale to secure personal data. The companies working in this area are all approaching these problems from different angles, yet it would appear that in solving them, a (partial) departure from the ideals of ‘complete’ decentralization is necessary.
And even when the technical challenges are all surmounted, there will still be the issue of weaning people off platforms such as Facebook, which — thanks to the profits of centralization — can afford to offer the public an enticingly 'free' and polished service.

Control and privacy

Alastair Johnson, CEO and founder of e-commerce and ID platform Nuggets, Johnson understands the pitfalls of storing masses of ID data in centralized siloes all too well.
"Today, the reality is that individuals do not control their personal data in any meaningful way. On average, a person has personal data — in the form of payment card details, home addresses, email addresses, passwords and other personal details — spread over roughly 100 online accounts. They can access this data but they do not own it."
By contrast, the use of blockchain tech grants newfound control to the user, who will be empowered to share their ID data only with the parties they approve. This is achieved primarily through the utilization of “decentralized identifiers” (DIDs), as explained by the Sovrin Foundation, which is building a blockchain platform aimed at providing individuals with "self-sovereign identity" (i.e. an ID they can take with them from platform to platform). As it notes in its white paper, "decentralized identifiers" (DIDs) not only encode information that identifies someone as, say, female, Asian, 35, and living in France, but they also circumvent the need for a centralized authority to verify ID claims.
"A DID is stored on a blockchain along with a DID document containing the public key for the DID, any other public credentials the identity owner wishes to disclose, and the network addresses for interaction. The identity owner controls the DID document by controlling the associated private key."
In other words, a protocol for a suitable blockchain is created, users register their ID data on this blockchain, and then use their private keys to decrypt this data for chosen parties. This is the kind of system also employed by Nuggets, although in its case it's referred to as "zero-knowledge storage," since no one else knows what your data says about you. And it’s also the system being worked on by Coinbase, which on August 15 announced its acquisition of ID-focused startup Distributed Systems. Having purchased the San Francisco-based company for an undisclosed fee, it will now develop a decentralized login system for its own crypto-exchange platform that will enable users to retain ownership of their ID credentials.
“A decentralized identity will let you prove that you own an identity, or that you have a relationship with the Social Security Administration, without making a copy of that identity,” it wrote in its press release.
With such a setup, there's little chance of a Cambridge Analytica-style scandal where data gets shared with unwanted groups or individuals, while it also grants unprecedented power to the individual user, who's likely to be treated with much more respect by companies now that his data is in such scarce supply. As explained by Johnson, this provides a vast improvement over the current stage of affairs.
“[Personal data] is stored and controlled in a series of centralized databases controlled by institutions such as retailers, marketing companies, utility companies and data reporting companies. In order to make purchases online, individuals simply authorize these different bodies to connect the different pieces of information they hold in order to authorize a transaction.”
However, while the individual user is currently dependent on hundreds of different companies to store and transmit his/her data in order to gain access to the services, the introduction of blockchain technology completely reverses the balance of power. Johnson shares with Cointelegraph:
"Blockchain-based solutions flip this model on its head, so that individuals can store and control their data associated to a digital identity. It is not stored in the centralized databases of third party organizations, it can be stored on the blockchain in a decentralized network. With the individual controlling their data in this way, they are then in full control to ideally not have to share or store anything by using attestations, tokens or references and share it only if and when they choose to do so."
Yet, this is only the tip of the iceberg, as using blockchain tech to confirm who we are furnishes many additional benefits beyond user control. For one, it heightens privacy, since with many of the platforms being proposed, our ID credentials won't even be revealed to those parties and organizations requiring their verification.
This is enabled via the use of zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), a cryptographic method that can prove a claim without actually sharing the data ('knowledge') through which the claim is proven. ZKPs are being implemented by Sovrin and are also planned for use by such startups as Civic, Verif-y, and Blockpass. By using them, these companies will make the process of ID verification simpler and more efficient, while opening up the possibility of storing biometric ID on the blockchain. They'll spare organizations that verify our IDs the headache of having to securely store personal data after validating it, which in turn eliminates a potential vulnerability, given that these organizations would have normally kept any data they received on a centralized database.
And while not all decentralized identity platforms will employ ZKPs, others will still make use of functionally similar methods. For example, SelfKey harnesses a technique it describes as "data minimization," which "allows the identity owner to provide as little amount of information as possible to satisfy the relying party or verifier." This sidesteps the need to develop advanced technologies such as ZKPs, although it raises questions as to what is meant by 'minimal.' SelfKey writes that "claims can be signed in a way whereby one could choose to disclose only a minimum of information." But without a more formal specification of "minimum" and "choose," it's conceivable that such functional approximations of ZKPs might end up revealing more data than some users would want.

Security

Aside from providing greater user control and privacy, blockchain-based platforms for verifying ID are more secure than their centralized counterparts. This is because, being distributed among multiple nodes, they won't suffer from having a single point of failure like traditional ID systems — e.g. government databases, social networks. As such, one or two nodes of a blockchain can become inactive and users will still be able to use it, while the encryption involved prevents any publicly available data from being gleaned for sensitive info.
By removing the single point of failure, decentralized ID platforms make a large, Yahoo! style hacknigh-on impossible. Instead of being able to penetrate a centralized database that houses all user information in a single location, attackers will have to obtain the private keys for every individual on a one-by-one basis, something which is extremely unlikely in practice. Alastair Johnson agrees:
"The major benefit of a decentralized ledger of personal data over a centralized database is the security against hackers that it provides. We’re all familiar with the major data breaches that have occurred in recent years, such as that at Equifax in 2017. These centralized databases act like magnets to hackers who often only need to take advantage of a single vulnerability to either take them down or extract data from them."
By contrast, decentralized ledgers aren't so sensitive to cyberattacks. "The hijacking of a single node will not disrupt the ongoing functioning of the ledger, as the other nodes can continue to operate without the compromised node’s involvement and the network requires consensus to prove the blocks."
Security is part of the reason why the Indian government, for example, is turning to blockchain for its AADHAAR database — the world's biggest biometric ID system, containing the records of over one billion people – as the country has been the victim of repeated hackings over the past year.
With such a revamped platform, there will be a variety of security benefits. The transparency and immutability of blockchains would mean that users are able to see when their data has been accessed and by whom, thereby providing a deterrent to any would-be hacker. Similarly, this transparency and immutability can be violated only in the unlikely event that a bad actor assumes control of 51 percent of the blockchain's nodes, which in theory would enable to access data and then erase the corresponding records of this illegitimate access.
AADHAAR currently isn't blockchain-based, while a comparable project from the government in Dubai to use blockchain-based ID at the international airport is still under construction. However, one government-led ID system than does use distributed ledger technology (DLT) right now is in Estonia. Its KSI (Keyless Signature Infrastructure) Blockchain forms the backbone of various e-services, including e-Health Record system, e-Prescription database, e-Law and e-Court systems, e-Police data, e-Banking, e-Business Register and e-Land Registry.
Once again, the use of the KSI Blockchain provides greater transparency than previous systems, since it detects when user data has been accessed and when it has been changed. And as the e-Estonia FAQ explains, it's much quicker than traditional platforms in detecting misuses of data:
"[It] currently takes organizations […] about seven months to detect breaches and manipulations of electronic data. With blockchain [solutions] like the one Estonia is using, these breaches and manipulations can be detected immediately."
Not only are breaches capable of being detected immediately or quickly on a blockchain-based ID system, but they're more likely to be detected more quickly than with a centralized platform due to their public and continuous access to scrutiny from a wide range of armchair experts and professionals alike, as highlighted by PolySwarm CTO Paul Makowski in a December blog post on decentralized threat intelligence:
"Geographically diverse security experts proficient at reverse engineering or capable of providing unique insight will be able to exercise their knowledge from the comfort of their own home or wherever (and whenever) they choose to work."

Standardization, interoperability

At the present moment in history, the world's digital identity systems are siloed off from each other, separated in a way that forces people to create new accounts and new data for virtually every digital service they use. This causes personal data to proliferate to dangerous levels, making data breaches and cybercrime much likelier. For instance, the cost of identity theft reached $106 billion in the United States alone between 2011 and 2017, at a time when the average consumer has a staggering 118 online accounts (at least in the United Kingdom, where data was available).
Blockchain-based digital ID systems offer a way out of this. While most chains are currently cut off from each other, standards for sovereign digital identity are being devised by the Digital Identity Foundation (DIF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Similarly, a number of startups are building interoperability platforms connecting separate blockchains together, including Polkadot, Cosmos and Aion. By working to achieve an ecosystem in which the standards of one identity platform are accepted by all other platforms that require ID verification, such organizations could dramatically reduce the amount of personal data people need to produce. Instead, users would create an account with one blockchain-based ID service, which they'll then use to register with a host of other services and systems.
INFOGRAPHICS
Never Stop Marketing CEO Jeremy Epstein said in a December blog:
"Interoperability standards free up capital and time to drive value. What’s more, it offers the possibility to pool security (making the whole system more robust against attack) and enable trust-free transactions across chains."
Blockchain interoperability is still a nascent field, and different organizations are pursuing different approaches to it. However, to take one example, Polkadot is aiming to achieve interoperability via its "heterogeneous multi-chain," which has three fundamental components. These are "parachains," which are in fact the individual blockchains being linked together, "bridges" that connect each parachain to the Polkadot network, and then the Polkadot network itself, which is a "relay chain" of the various parachains being connected.
Other routes to interoperability diverges from this, with Cosmos achieving inter-chain communication via use of the Tendermint consensus algorithm, and with the Aion network monetizing interchain transactions. However, assuming that an interoperability platform receives universal adoption within the blockchain ecosystem, users would find that they'll have to register their personal data only once. From then on, they'll be able to provide other platforms with ID attestations securely and quickly, all without having to reveal any of their data to the companies and services they use.

Scaling toward a new kind of blockchain

The benefits promised by blockchain-based ID systems — control, security and standardization — are all appealing, yet questions remain as to how feasible such systems are and how long we'll have to wait for them to be released in fully functioning form. Added to this, there's also the worry that — for all the improvements offered by blockchains — as a society we may still remain wedded to 'traditional' online services and the organizations responsible for them, which may actively resist the adoption of decentralized platforms that enable us to keep data to ourselves.
Unsurprisingly, the biggest issue with regard to feasibility is that of scalability, so often the achilles heal of many a crypto-based project. Given that an ID service should — by definition — be able to serve millions of people, any blockchain that forms the basis of such a service has to be significantly scalable. Yet, so far the most popular blockchain for decentralized applications (DApps) — Ethereum — was almost brought down by a popular video game last year, CryptoKitties. This is why most of the platforms mentioned above aren't built on any of the most well-known blockchains, but rather on proprietary ledgers, some of which don't meet the conventional definition of a decentralized blockchain.
For example, Enigma is a "decentralized computation platform" that has been designed for use with identity verification, among other things. As described in its white paper, it solves the scalability problem by delegating all "intensive computations to an off-chain network." This network also stores all the user data, while the blockchain itself merely stores "references” to this data. In other words, Enigma's platform isn't really a blockchain — and while its off-chain network is still distributed (although each node sees separate parts of the overall data), this isn't decentralization in the way that, say, the Bitcoin blockchain is.
Something similar could be said for other ‘blockchain-based' ID platforms: Estonia's KSI Blockchain isn't a full-fledged blockchain that uses asymmetric key cryptography, but rather a Merkle tree-based ledger. Meanwhile, the Sovrin network achieves consensus via a limited set of "validator nodes," arguably making it less decentralized than certain other blockchains. Together, what such tradeoffs reveal is that, if an ID platform is to be scalable (and also private), it needs to be less distributed in certain areas — and arguably less secure as a result. But more importantly, from a practical viewpoint, it also needs to redefine and adapt just what a 'blockchain' is, since the most familiar chains currently aren't up to the task of securing and communicating our personal data on a massive scale.

Vested interests

This is why even the most advanced projects have roadmaps that extend beyond 2020, since a viable ID platform requires a new kind of distributed ledger that squares the need for cryptographic transparency with the need for individual privacy. And even if any of the platforms above reach this goal anytime soon, they will have another massive hurdle to clear: the dominance of existing arbiters of identity, including social media giants like Facebook, as well as national governments.

Governmental initiatives

For instance, the U.K. and Australian governments have been investing millions in building their own centralized ID verification systems in recent years, making it unlikely that they'll easily give way to a decentralized alternative. Likewise, the idea of Facebook overhauling itself with a truly decentralized platform — where users keep their personal data a secret — is, well, frankly unthinkable, seeing as how the social network reaps billions in annual profit from selling our data to the highest bidder. It’s also widely used to identify people online, so it’s unlikely that it will give up its dominance to blockchain-based platforms easily.
That said, a small number of national and state-based governments (e.g., Singapore, Illinois) have been trialling blockchain-based ID systems. In addition, figures within the burgeoning crypto-ID industry are hopeful that public and private organizations alike will either be forced to decentralize or will fall by the wayside.
"When you operate a centralized system that provides your organization with control and allows you to benefit from this position, it’s understandable that you might be resistant to change," says Alastair Johnson. "But when there is a penalty if this information is breached in the form of fines, loss of share price and cost of recovering the situation and all the PR damage that comes with a breach, businesses will start to see that the model has to fundamentally change."
A key driver of this change could be public sentiment, which has already been shifting in the wake of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal. "The blockchain provides clear benefits for customers in terms of control over personal data and digital identities and I expect the public recognition of this to move from an early adopter cohort to an early majority in the near future," Johnson says. "From the other side, I expect organizations that have already experienced breaches in their centralized databases to be amongst the most willing to adopt blockchain-based solutions, as they seek to rebuild trust with consumers."
It could be argued that slick, free-to-use, ad-based services such as Facebook will always be more attractive to the average user — a view strengthened by the fact that Facebook reported a 13 percent year-on-year increase of users in April, despite its recent loss of younger users in the wake of the aforementioned data harvesting scandal. However, Johnson believes that a gradual sea-change in attitudes is underway.
"The ‘Delete Facebook’ movement is one sign of change, as is the continuing scrutiny that the tech giant is being put under by American and European authorities. People are starting to wake up to the fact that their personal data is valuable. Not only could blockchain help them to monetize it for themselves, it will also eradicate the kinds of costly personal data loses that I have experienced myself."
And even if blockchain technology is still largely unproven outside the domain of cryptocurrencies, it will start winning converts as soon as it demonstrates its superiority to previous systems when it comes to privacy and security.
"Right now, there may be hesitation to adopt decentralized platforms, but its common sense that personal information should be owned and controlled by the person, and because of this it will prevail."
Link: https://cointelegraph.com