Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 1 cited by

A Taxonomic Approach to Understanding Emerging Blockchain Identity Management Systems

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper categorizes emerging blockchain identity management systems into a taxonomy built from identifier architectures, credential architectures, authority models, and governance choices.

desk verdict A well-scoped NIST taxonomy of blockchain identity management that earns its place as a reference framework, with informal category boundaries as the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00929 v2 pith:DWZFWXTK submitted 2019-08-02 cs.CR

Loic Lesavre , Priam Varin , Peter Mell , Michael Davidson , James Shook This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords blockchainidentitymanagementtaxonomydecentralizedidentifierself-sovereignverifiablecredentialsmartcontractzero-knowledgeproof
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a map of the emerging field of blockchain-based identity management. It argues that the many proposed systems, though superficially different, can be understood as combinations of a few architectural choices: how identifiers are created and stored, how credentials are stored and revoked, who controls issuance, and how governance is arranged. The map is deliberately non-judgmental: the authors do not rank the architectures, but isolate the tradeoffs among them. The value of the map is that a reader can take any new or proposed system and locate it within the taxonomy, then ask which security, privacy, scalability, and custody properties come with that location. A sympathetic reader would take the taxonomy as a durable vocabulary for a field that is otherwise hard to compare.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the taxonomy itself, organized as two independent decomposition axes plus a set of cross-cutting properties. The first axis decomposes identifiers into onchain registries, bring-your-own blockchain addresses, and UTXO-based schemes; the second decomposes credentials into onchain registries, non-fungible token registries, and offchain objects. The taxonomy's work is to turn every concrete system into an intersection of these axes, so that properties such as who can revoke a credential, whether a subject can remove a credential from their own registry, and whether a presentation requires blockchain access become visible consequences of the architecture rather than ad hoc features.

What would settle it

Find any deployed or proposed identity system whose identifier and credential handling cannot be assigned to one of the taxonomy's architectures or combination patterns without an arbitrary choice—for example, a design that mixes a global registry and per-identifier registries so that both readings are equally valid and no decision rule in the paper settles it. One such system would show the taxonomy's boundaries are under-specified; several would show the design space is not captured by these categories.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that blockchain identity management systems can be productively categorized by a small set of distinguishing properties rather than reviewed one project at a time. The taxonomy separates identifier architectures (a per-identifier onchain registry, a global identifiers registry, an anchors registry fed by a second layer protocol, a bring-your-own blockchain address, and a UTXO-based model) from credential architectures (onchain registries, non-fungible token registries, user-mintable predefined NFTs, and offchain objects), and then lists the ways these can be combined, such as offchain credentials coupled with a global revocation registry. Cross-cutting axes classify authority as top-down or bottom-up, identifier origination, credential issuance, lifecycle and revocation, custody and delegation, presentation disclosure, public registries and reputation, and system governance. The paper explicitly does not attempt to judge between architectures; it highlights their differences so that the costs and benefits of each design can be examined.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy assumes the categories it draws—registries on the blockchain, addresses users bring themselves, credentials stored off the blockchain, and their combinations—are stable and distinct enough to classify a field that is still evolving; if real systems blur or outgrow those categories, the map becomes a snapshot of the projects surveyed rather than a durable framework.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new or proposed identity system can be located in the taxonomy, and its likely tradeoffs in scalability, cost, privacy, and user control read off from its location.
  • The top-down/bottom-up authority distinction becomes a spectrum rather than a binary, so hybrid governance—such as a system owner controlling registration but users controlling transfer—is a first-class design option.
  • The combination patterns show that offchain credentials are practical only when paired with an onchain artifact for revocation status, which tells adopters what infrastructure they cannot avoid.
  • The security section's list—private data leaks, metadata tracing, replay, key compromise, data withholding, and smart contract flaws—gives evaluators a fixed checklist to apply to any architecture in the taxonomy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would extend the taxonomy by treating selective disclosure via zero-knowledge proofs and pairwise-pseudonymous identifiers as measurable privacy properties, and comparing systems on those metrics; the paper describes the mechanisms but does not turn them into evaluation criteria.
  • The taxonomy implies a test: if a system cannot be assigned to at least one identifier architecture and one credential architecture without arbitrary choice, then either the system is genuinely novel or the taxonomy's boundaries need refinement.
  • The 2019 snapshot could be revisited to see whether the field is converging on one combination pattern (offchain credentials plus lightweight identifiers) or continuing to diversify; either result would use the taxonomy as a baseline.
  • The paper's need-to-know disclosure idea maps naturally onto legal data-minimization principles, suggesting a possible future tie between architecture choice and regulatory compliance, though the paper explicitly leaves regulation out of scope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a taxonomy of blockchain-based identity management systems (IDMSs). It first provides background terminology, roles, emerging standards, and building blocks, then proposes a set of distinguishing properties: authority models, identifier and credential lifecycle and custody, presentation disclosure, system architecture designs, public registries and reputation implications, and system governance. It reviews security and risk considerations, zero-knowledge protocols, data-mining concerns, ecosystem convergence, and several use cases. The stated goal is descriptive: the paper categorizes emerging systems by blockchain architecture, governance, and salient features, and explicitly disclaims any intent to judge between architectures.

Significance. If taken as a descriptive taxonomy, the paper is a valuable synthesis of a fast-moving area. Its strengths include a clear terminology section, a broad survey of relevant standards (W3C DIDs, Verifiable Credentials, DIF Universal Resolver, Open Badges), and repeated, explicit scoping disclaimers in the Executive Summary, Section 1.2, and Section 1.3. The paper also incorporates feedback from a public comment period, which lends confidence in its accuracy. There are no formal derivations or empirical claims, so the central claim rests on the clarity and utility of the categorization rather than on a proof. The main limitations are the informal boundaries between categories and the lack of an explicit system-to-category mapping, but these do not undermine the stated claim because the paper explicitly frames itself as a conceptual breakdown and states in Section 4.4.3 that the combination list is not exhaustive and in Section 1.2 that other data models may emerge. The taxonomy may become dated, but it is a useful baseline for researchers and practitioners.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4] The taxonomy would be easier to apply if it included explicit decision rules and a table mapping each named system (uPort, BTCR, Element, Hyperledger Indy, Blockstack, and others) to the architecture cells in Sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.3; as written, uPort appears in both Section 4.4.1.2 and Section 4.4.3, so the reproducibility of the classification is limited.
  2. [Section 6.4] Reference [64] is cited for the ZenGo threshold-signature wallet, but [64] is actually "Practical Quantum-Safe Voting from Lattices" by del Pino et al.; the ZenGo claim needs a correct citation.
  3. [Figure 7] The figure caption contains a typo: "Identifier Orgination Schemes" should be "Identifier Origination Schemes."
  4. [Section 4.4.2.2] The statement that the offchain object architecture "ensures privacy by default" is stronger than the surrounding discussion warrants, since privacy outcomes depend on storage, transmission, and metadata handling; consider softening this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is a descriptive taxonomy built from external standards and publicly documented systems, with no derivation chain or fitted predictions.

full rationale

Walking the paper's claimed derivation chain, there is no derivation chain to inspect: the document is an expository taxonomy and survey, not a formal model with predictions. The central claim is that the paper categorizes emerging blockchain IDMSs by architecture, governance, and salient features, which is supported by descriptive sections built from external standards (W3C DIDs, Verifiable Credentials, DIF Universal Resolver), public projects (uPort, BTCR, SideTree/Element, Hyperledger Indy, Blockstack), and external research references. The only NIST-authored references are NISTIR 8202, cited for background definitions of blockchain and smart contracts, and the authors' Smart Contract Federated Identity Management paper, used as one example of a top-down/global-registry architecture; neither is load-bearing as evidence for the taxonomy's categories, and no parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. The taxonomy's informal categories and occasional overlapping placement of a system (e.g., uPort appearing in multiple combination patterns) are acknowledged limitations, and the paper explicitly disclaims exhaustiveness and avoids judging between architectures. No self-definitional reduction, no fitted input called prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation are present. Accordingly, the paper is self-contained as a descriptive taxonomy and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. Its load-bearing inputs are background definitions of blockchain and smart contracts from NISTIR 8202 and the emerging W3C/DIF standards, which the taxonomy treats as given.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Blockchains are tamper-evident and tamper-resistant distributed ledgers without a central authority.
    The taxonomy is built on NISTIR 8202's definition of blockchain, used in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The W3C DID and Verifiable Credentials specifications are emerging standards that will persist.
    Section 3.3 describes these standards as the basis for identifiers and credentials; if these standards change or fail, the taxonomy's categories tied to them may shift.
  • domain assumption The identity management roles (issuer, subject, holder, verifier, relying party) are sufficient to describe all blockchain identity management systems.
    Section 3.2 defines roles used throughout the taxonomy; if a system introduces a role outside this set, the taxonomy would need extension.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Taxonomic Approach to Understanding Emerging Blockchain Identity Management Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWZFWXTK

@misc{pith2026190800929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Taxonomic Approach to Understanding Emerging Blockchain Identity Management Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWZFWXTK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00929}
}
read the original abstract

Identity management systems (IDMSs) are widely used to provision user identities while managing authentication, authorization, and data sharing within organizations and on the web. Traditional identity systems typically suffer from single points of failure, lack of interoperability, and privacy issues, such as enabling mass data collection and user tracking. Blockchain technology has the potential to alleviate these concerns: it can support the ability for users to control the custody of their own identifiers and credentials, enabling novel data ownership and governance models with built-in control and consent mechanisms. Hence, blockchain-based IDMSs, which could benefit both users and businesses, are beginning to proliferate. This work categorizes these systems into a taxonomy based on differences in blockchain architectures, governance models, and other salient features. Context is provided for the taxonomy through the description of related terms, emerging standards, and use cases while highlighting relevant security and privacy considerations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00929 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Federated Identity Management Issuer App User Identity Data Issuer User App Issuer App App User Identity Data User Issuer App App [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. User-Centric Identity Management [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. DID Lookup Using the Universal Resolver Relying Party Universal Resolver Blockchain start a DID query DID Driver call to DID driver execution of DID method retrieval of DID metadata compilation of DID document return the DID document [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Systematic Review and Layered Framework for Privacy-by-Design in Self-Sovereign Identity Systems

    cs.ET 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors organize SSI components into four privacy-oriented layers and present a Design Assistance Dashboard that rates each component as low, medium, or good privacy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Interagency or Internal Report (IR) 8149

    Temoshok D, Abruzzi C (2018) Developing Trust Frameworks to Support Identity Federations. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Interagency or Internal Report (IR) 8149. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8149

    doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8149 2018

  2. [2]

    (European Union Blockchain Observatory & Forum)

    Lyons T, Courcelas L, Timsit K (2018) Blockchain for Government and Public Services. (European Union Blockchain Observatory & Forum). Available at https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/sites/default/files/reports/eu_observatory_blockchain _in_government_services_v1_2018-12-07.pdf

    2018

  3. [3]

    (European Union Blockchain Observatory & Forum)

    Lyons T, Courcelas L, Timsit K (2019) Blockchain and Digital Identity. (European Union Blockchain Observatory & Forum). Available at https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/sites/default/files/report_identity_v0.9.4.pdf

    2019

  4. [4]

    Available at https://illinoisblockchain.tech/illinois-partners-with- evernym-to-launch-birth-registration-pilot-f2668664f67c

    The Illinois Blockchain Initiative (2017) Illinois Partners with Evernym to Launch Birth Registration Pilot. Available at https://illinoisblockchain.tech/illinois-partners-with- evernym-to-launch-birth-registration-pilot-f2668664f67c

    2017

  5. [5]

    Federal Government

    ACT-IAC Emerging Technology Community of Interest - Blockchain Working Group (2017) Blockchain Primer: Enabling Blockchain Innovation in the U.S. Federal Government. Available at https://www.actiac.org/act-iac-white-paper-enabling- blockchain-innovation-us-federal-government

    2017

  6. [6]

    Government

    ACT-IAC Emerging Technology Community of Interest - Blockchain Working Group (2018) Blockchain Playbook for Federal U.S. Government. Available at https://www.actiac.org/act-iac-white-paper-blockchain-playbook-us-federal-government

    2018

  7. [7]

    (MIT News)

    Durant E , Trachy A (2017) Digital Diploma debuts at MIT. (MIT News). Available at http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-debuts-secure-digital-diploma-using-bitcoin-blockchain- technology-1017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Available at https://e- estonia.com/wp-content/uploads/faq-a4-v03-blockchain-1-1.pdf

    e-Estonia (2019) FAQ Estonian Blockchain Technology. Available at https://e- estonia.com/wp-content/uploads/faq-a4-v03-blockchain-1-1.pdf

    work page 2019

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    (Joinup)

    Offerman A (2018) Swiss City of Zug issues Ethereum blockchain-based eIDs. (Joinup). Available at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/egovernment/document/swiss-city- zug-issues-ethereum-blockchain-based-eids

    2018

  2. [10]

    Available at https://vonx.io

    VON (2019) Verifiable Organizations Network. Available at https://vonx.io

    2019

  3. [11]

    (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Interagency or Internal Report (IR) 8202

    Yaga D, Mell P, Roby N, Scarfone K (2018) Blockchain Technology Overview. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Interagency or Internal Report (IR) 8202. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8202

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    (W3C Credentials Community Group)

    Reed D, Sporny M, Longley D, Allen C, Grant R, Sabadello M (2019) Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 – Data Model and Syntaxes for Decentralized Identifiers. (W3C Credentials Community Group). Available at https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE PAPER BLOCK...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Sporny M, Kellogg G, Lanthaler M (2014) JSON-LD 1.0 - A JSON-based serialization for linked data. (W3C). Available at https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/

    2014

  6. [14]

    (W3C Credentials Community Group)

    Hughes A, Sporny M, Reed D (2019) A Primer for Decentralized Identifiers - An introduction to self-administered identifiers for curious people. (W3C Credentials Community Group). Available at https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-primer/

    2019

  7. [15]

    Available at https://identity.foundation/.well-known/resources/did-configuration/

    Decentralized Identity Foundation (2019) Well-Known DID Configuration. Available at https://identity.foundation/.well-known/resources/did-configuration/

    2019

  8. [16]

    Sporny M, Longley D, Chadwick D (2019) Verifiable credentials data model 1.0 – Expressing verifiable information on the Web. (W3C). Available at https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/

    2019

  9. [17]

    (Medium - Decentralized Identity Foundation)

    Sabadello M (2017) A universal resolver for self-sovereign identifiers. (Medium - Decentralized Identity Foundation). Available at https://medium.com/decentralized- identity/a-universal-resolver-for-self-sovereign-identifiers-48e6b4a5cc3c

    2017

  10. [18]

    Available at https://github.com/decentralized-identity/identity-hub/blob/master/explainer.md

    Decentralized Identity Foundation (2019) DIF Identity Hubs. Available at https://github.com/decentralized-identity/identity-hub/blob/master/explainer.md

    2019

  11. [19]

    Rebooting the Web of Trust VI

    Sabadello M, Den Hartog K, Lundkvist C, Franz C, Elias A, Hughes A, Jordan J, Zagidulin D (2018) Introduction to DID Auth. Rebooting the Web of Trust VI. Available: https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust- spring2018/blob/master/final-docu...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Available at https://www.imsglobal.org/sites/default/files/Badges/OBv2p0Final/index.html

    IMS Global (2018) Open Badges v2.0. Available at https://www.imsglobal.org/sites/default/files/Badges/OBv2p0Final/index.html

    2018

  13. [21]

    (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-32

    Kuhn DR, Hu VC, Polk WT, Chang S-J (2001) Introduction to Public Key Technology and the Federal PKI Infrastructure. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-32. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-32

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-130

    Barker E, Smid M, Branstad D, Chokhani S (2013) A Framework for Designing Cryptographic Key Management Systems. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-130. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-130

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Available at https://sovrin.org

    Sovrin (2019) Sovrin. Available at https://sovrin.org

    2019

  16. [24]

    Available at https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/hyperledger-indy

    Hyperledger (2019) Hyperledger Indy. Available at https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/hyperledger-indy

    2019

  17. [25]

    Available at https://github.com/decentralized-identity/sidetree/blob/master/docs/protocol.md

    Decentralized Identity Foundation (2019) Sidetree Protocol Specification. Available at https://github.com/decentralized-identity/sidetree/blob/master/docs/protocol.md

    2019

  18. [26]

    Available at NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE PAPER BLOCKCHAIN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 47 https://github.com/decentralized-identity/ion

    Decentralized Identity Foundation (2019) ION. Available at NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE PAPER BLOCKCHAIN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 47 https://github.com/decentralized-identity/ion

    2019

  19. [27]

    Rebooting the Web of Trust IX

    Guy A, Lamers D, Looker T, Sporny M, Zagidulin D, Bluhm D, Hamilton Duffy K (2019) Encrypted Data Vaults. Rebooting the Web of Trust IX. Available at https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot9-prague/blob/master/final- documents/encrypted-data-vaults.pdf

    2019

  20. [28]

    Available at https://3box.io/

    3Box (2019) 3Box. Available at https://3box.io/

    2019

  21. [29]

    Available at https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Hyperledger+Aries+Proposal

    Hyperledger (2019) Hyperledger Aries Proposal. Available at https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Hyperledger+Aries+Proposal

    2019

  22. [30]

    (Medium - Decentralized Identity Foundation)

    Terbu O (2019) The Self-sovereign Identity Stack. (Medium - Decentralized Identity Foundation). Available at https://medium.com/decentralized-identity/the-self-sovereign- identity-stack-8a2cc95f2d45

    2019

  23. [31]

    Available at https://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-identity.html

    Allen C (2016) The Path to Self-Sovereign Identity (lifewithalacrity.com). Available at https://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-identity.html

    2016

  24. [32]

    Open Identity Summit 2019

    Mell P, Dray J, Shook J (2019) Smart Contract Federated Identity Management without Third Party Authentication Services. Open Identity Summit 2019. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=925957

    2019

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10528

    Angieri S, García-Martínez A, Liu B, Yan Z, Wang C, Bagnulo M (2018) An experiment in distributed Internet address management using blockchains. arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10528

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Network and Distributed System Security Symposium 2014

    Garman C, Green M, Miers I (2014) Decentralized Anonymous Credentials. Network and Distributed System Security Symposium 2014. https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/07_3_1.pdf

    2014

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint

    Sonnino A, Al-Bassam M, Bano S, Meiklejohn S, Danezis G (2018) Coconut: Threshold issuance selective disclosure credentials with applications to distributed ledgers. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07344

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Computers & Security

    Kubilay MY, Kiraz MS, Mantar HA (2018) CertLedger: A New PKI Model with Certificate Transparency Based on Blockchain. Computers & Security. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.05.013

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    SSRN Electronic Journal

    Goodell G , Aste T (2019) A Decentralised Digital Identity Architecture. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3342238

    2019

  30. [38]

    Available at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki

    Wuille P (2012) BIP32: Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets. Available at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki

    2012

  31. [39]

    2017 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (IEEE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada), pp 25- NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE PAPER BLOCKCHAIN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 48

    Augot D, Chabanne H, Clémot O, George W (2017) Transforming face-to-face identity proofing into anonymous digital identity using the bitcoin blockchain. 2017 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (IEEE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada), pp 25- NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE...

    2017

  32. [40]

    Available at https://ipfs.io

    IPFS (2019) IPFS. Available at https://ipfs.io

    2019

  33. [41]

    Available at https://github.com/decentralized-identity/element

    Decentralized Identity Foundation (accessed 05/20/19) Element. Available at https://github.com/decentralized-identity/element

  34. [42]

    Available at https://uport.me

    Uport (2019) Uport. Available at https://uport.me

    2019

  35. [43]

    2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, (IEEE, San Jose, California), pp 180-184

    Zyskind G, Nathan O, Pentland A (2015) Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to protect personal data. 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, (IEEE, San Jose, California), pp 180-184. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPW.2015.27

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11655

    Bertram S, Georg C-P (2018) A privacy-preserving system for data ownership using blockchain and distributed databases. arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11655

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cryptology ePrint Archive

    Kokoris-Kogias E, Alp EC, Siby SD, Gailly N, Gasser L, Jovanovic P, Syta E, Ford B (2018) Calypso: Auditable sharing of private data over blockchains. Cryptology ePrint Archive. https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/209/20180806:124914

    2018

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.00878

    Patsonakis C, Samari K, Kiayias A, Roussopoulos M (2019) On the Practicality of Smart Contract PKI. arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.00878

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Available at https://0xcert.org

    0xcert (2019) 0xcert. Available at https://0xcert.org

    2019

  40. [48]

    Available at https://centrifuge.io

    Centrifuge (2019) Centrifuge. Available at https://centrifuge.io

    2019

  41. [49]

    Available at https://blockstack.org

    Blockstack (2019) Blockstack. Available at https://blockstack.org

    2019

  42. [50]

    Available at https://github.com/SmartIdentity/smartId-contracts

    SmartIdentity (2019) Smart Identity. Available at https://github.com/SmartIdentity/smartId-contracts

    2019

  43. [51]

    Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Contracts (BCC '17) (ACM, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates), pp 35-40

    Al-Bassam M (2017) SCPKI: a smart contract-based PKI and identity system. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Contracts (BCC '17) (ACM, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates), pp 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055518.3055530

    2017

  44. [52]

    Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology (Springer, Oslo, Norway), pp 373-389

    Azouvi S, Al-Bassam M, Meiklejohn S (2017) Who am I? Secure identity registration on distributed ledgers. Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology (Springer, Oslo, Norway), pp 373-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 67816-0_21

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (IEEE, Singapore), pp 105-114

    Dykcik L, Chuat L, Szalachowski P, Perrig A (2018) BlockPKI: An Automated, Resilient, and Transparent Public-Key Infrastructure. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (IEEE, Singapore), pp 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2018.00022

    2018

  46. [54]

    Available at https://tplprotocol.org NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE PAPER BLOCKCHAIN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 49

    TPL (2019) Transaction Permission Layer Protocol. Available at https://tplprotocol.org NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE PAPER BLOCKCHAIN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 49

    2019

  47. [55]

    Available at https://github.com/bcgov/TheOrgBook

    Province of British Columbia (2019) TheOrgBook. Available at https://github.com/bcgov/TheOrgBook

    2019

  48. [56]

    31st IFIP International Conference on ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (SEC 2016) (Springer, Ghent, Belgium), pp 398-411

    Schaub A, Bazin R, Hasan O, Brunie L (2016) A trustless privacy-preserving reputation system. 31st IFIP International Conference on ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (SEC 2016) (Springer, Ghent, Belgium), pp 398-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33630-5_27

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2015 10th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (IEEE, London, United Kingdom), pp 131-138

    Dennis R, Owen G (2015) Rep on the block: A next generation reputation system based on the blockchain. 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (IEEE, London, United Kingdom), pp 131-138. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITST.2015.7412073

    2015

  50. [58]

    2016 IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), (IEEE, Atlanta, Georgia), pp 192-198

    Yasin A, Liu L (2016) An online identity and smart contract management system. 2016 IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), (IEEE, Atlanta, Georgia), pp 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2016.2

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.04584

    Hardjono T, Pentland A (2019) Verifiable anonymous identities and access control in permissioned blockchains. arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.04584

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Available at https://bloom.co

    Bloom (2019) Bloom. Available at https://bloom.co

    2019

  53. [61]

    (Medium - Consensys Diligence)

    Marx S (2019) Upgradeability Is a Bug. (Medium - Consensys Diligence). Available at https://medium.com/consensys-diligence/upgradeability-is-a-bug-dba0203152ce

    2019

  54. [62]

    IEEE Security & Privacy 16(4):20-29

    Dunphy P, Petitcolas FA (2018) A first look at identity management schemes on the blockchain. IEEE Security & Privacy 16(4):20-29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.3111247

    2018

  55. [63]

    SIAM Journal on Computing 18(1):186-208

    Goldwasser S, Micali S, Rackoff C (1989) The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM Journal on Computing 18(1):186-208. https://doi.org/10.1137/0218012

    1989 doi

  56. [64]

    Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ACM, Dallas, Texas), pp 1565-1581

    Del Pino R, Lyubashevsky V, Neven G, Seiler G (2017) Practical quantum-safe voting from lattices. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ACM, Dallas, Texas), pp 1565-1581. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3134101

    2017

  57. [65]

    2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE, San Jose, California), pp 459-474

    Sasson EB, Chiesa A, Garman C, Green M, Miers I, Tromer E, Virza M (2014) Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (IEEE, San Jose, California), pp 459-474. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2014.36

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    Available at https://zkp.science

    ZKProofs (2019) Zero-Knowledge Proofs. Available at https://zkp.science

    2019

  59. [67]

    Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology (Springer, Oslo, Norway), pp 390-407

    Augot D, Chabanne H, Chenevier T, George W, Lambert L (2017) A user-centric system for verified identities on the bitcoin blockchain. Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology (Springer, Oslo, Norway), pp 390-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-678...

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    4th International Conference on Security in Communication Networks (Springer, Amalfi, Italy), pp 180-

    Katz J, Ostrovsky R, Rabin MO (2004) Identity-based zero-knowledge. 4th International Conference on Security in Communication Networks (Springer, Amalfi, Italy), pp 180-

    2004

  61. [69]

    2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), pp 1-7

    Othman A, Callahan J (2018) The Horcrux protocol: a method for decentralized biometric-based self-sovereign identity. 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), pp 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2018.8489316

    2018

  62. [70]

    https://standards.ieee.org/standard/2410-2017.html

    IEEE (2017) IEEE 2410-2017 - IEEE Standard for Biometric Open Protocol (IEEE Standards Association). https://standards.ieee.org/standard/2410-2017.html

    2017

  63. [71]

    Available at https://github.com/Luxoft/cordentity

    Luxoft (2019) Cordentity. Available at https://github.com/Luxoft/cordentity

    2019

  64. [72]

    (SecureKey) Available at https://securekey.com/press-releases/hyperledger-indy

    Douglas S (2018) SecureKey Technologies to explore interoperability between Verified.Me and Hyperledger Indy. (SecureKey) Available at https://securekey.com/press-releases/hyperledger-indy

    2018

  65. [73]

    (2019) MOBI

    MOBI. (2019) MOBI. Available at https://dlt.mobi

    2019

  66. [74]

    Available at https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/gleif- uport-test-verified-data-exchange-in-financial-and-commercial-transactions/

    ConsenSys (2019) GLEIF and uPort Test Verified Data Exchange in Financial and Commercial Transactions. Available at https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/gleif- uport-test-verified-data-exchange-in-financial-and-commercial-transactions/

    2019

  67. [75]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (2006) Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC), Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS) 200. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpub...

    2006

  68. [76]

    https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC7519

    Jones M, Bradley J, Sakimura N (2015) JSON Web Token (JWT) (Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)), IETF Request for Comments (RFC) 7519. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC7519

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Interagency or Internal Report (IR) 7695

    Cheikes BA, Waltermire D, Scarfone K (2011) Common Platform Enumeration: Naming Specification Version 2.3. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD), NIST Interagency or Internal Report (IR) 7695. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7695

    2011 doi

  70. [78]

    (W3C Credentials Community Group)

    Allen C, Hamilton Duffy K, Grant R, Pape D (2019) BTCR DID Method. (W3C Credentials Community Group). https://w3c-ccg.github.io/didm-btcr/

    2019

  71. [79]

    Available at https://github.com/orbitdb/orbit-db

    OrbitDB (2019) OrbitDB. Available at https://github.com/orbitdb/orbit-db

    2019

  72. [80]

    ZKProof.org (2019) Zero Knowledge Proof Standardization. Available at https://zkproof.org NIST CYBERSECURITY WHITE PAPER BLOCKCHAIN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 51 Appendix A—Acronyms Selected acronyms and abbreviations used in this paper are defined below. ACT-IAC AML API B...

    2019

  73. [83]

    (Preimage resistant ) It is computationally infeasible to compute the correct input value given some output value (the hash function is “one way”)

  74. [84]

    (Second preimage resistant ) One cannot find an input that hashes to a specific output

  75. [85]

    Curation Market A token -based organization model that aims at incentivizing and coordinating market participants around the curation of some information

    (Collision resistant ) It is computationally infeasible to find any two distinct inputs that map to the same output. Curation Market A token -based organization model that aims at incentivizing and coordinating market participants around the curation of some information. Term ...

  76. [192]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30598-9_13

    doi

  77. [2509]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/PST.2017.00014

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.