You are completely moving the goalposts, I thought we were talking about internet services trying to prevent spam..not government snooping and subpoenas. Are you claiming the government's ability to collect data about you from Google is a good thing? I'm pretty confused.
> Again, you're not answering the question. What does the web administrator do if someone is creating fake accounts using a private key? If you're going to use third party systems you don't need blockchain to begin with.
You are not answering the question either, is this web administrator the government? Are they going to serve Google with a subpoena?
> I'm not sayin everyone using metamask can host their own server, I'm saying someone who isn't using a centralized entity anywhere can do it, by definition.
Ok fair enough, I'm not saying anybody will be using "no centralized entity anywhere", not totally sure what your point is. Using a centralized entity for A is equivalent to using it for A+B?
you don't really make any sense. sorry. I already addressed your points. the government point is not really relevant. the point is that a web admin has recourse with Google and/or government depending on the nature of the activity.
I just don't see how "ask Google / the government to tell me the identities of its customers" could be seen as a positive of the current system for 99% of cases. Especially given that Google likely won't even have the information, especially for an account created to commit serious crimes warranting NSA snooping or legal intervention. Just like creating a private key, you don't need a SSN or a passport to create a Google account, or most other email providers.
I feel like you are intentionally ignoring the dangers of SSO tied to a company that can unilaterally delete your account, and has little incentive to unlock it or even let you plead your case.
> I feel like you are intentionally ignoring the dangers of SSO tied to a company that can unilaterally delete your account, and has little incentive to unlock it or even let you plead your case.
I feel like you are intentionally ignoring the dangers of crossing a road where there is a higher probability of dying than a FAANGM deleting your account.
Not sure I understand the argument, everything with a lower probability than dying is not worth fixing? If you are in higher risk groups (journalist, critical of Google, using virtual phone numbers etc) is the probability still low?
Account deletion is not the only risk, it's also privacy (Google knows what you sign into and when) and a myriad other advantages (native payments being the obvious one).
You are completely moving the goalposts, I thought we were talking about internet services trying to prevent spam..not government snooping and subpoenas. Are you claiming the government's ability to collect data about you from Google is a good thing? I'm pretty confused.
> Again, you're not answering the question. What does the web administrator do if someone is creating fake accounts using a private key? If you're going to use third party systems you don't need blockchain to begin with.
You are not answering the question either, is this web administrator the government? Are they going to serve Google with a subpoena?
> I'm not sayin everyone using metamask can host their own server, I'm saying someone who isn't using a centralized entity anywhere can do it, by definition.
Ok fair enough, I'm not saying anybody will be using "no centralized entity anywhere", not totally sure what your point is. Using a centralized entity for A is equivalent to using it for A+B?