Also casino virtuale free blackjack giocare a black jack video slots gioco baccarat in linea…

FWIW, I think a p2p social network that uses openID as authentication for access to a standardized subtree (API) of personal information – from vcards to calendaring to pictures – would get most of what you guys are looking for on the demand side. Supply side, it’s going to take a vendor wiring up the use of that API to avoid the laborious ‘please enter your name/email/shipping address’ forms for it to get traction. But I suspect that wouldn’t be hard to pull off if said p2p social network had much buy-in at all.

What is being proposed and developed by the identity folks — people with whom I generally share viewpoints and for whom I have the greatest respect — has no value if only one vendor (or other) site uses it; it has the most value if everyone uses it. It thus is aiming at becoming functionally a layer. From my pov, an identity protocol that succeeds — that becomes near ubiquitous — is functionally an altering of the center of the Big Zero.

Doc, on what do you base your confidence that if it works better for vendor venality than for individual freedom, it will fail? That assumes an untilted playing field. I do not believe that vendors always fail at gaining advantage over customers, and I’m worried that in this case we’re handing them the keys to the car they will drive right over us.

There is customer demand for VRM (although customers don’t call it that…yet). I see very little customer demand for the ID system that enables VRM to go forward. I am concerned that we’ll get the ID system way before we get VRM.

If I’m not mistaken, “better and better local identity/authentication solutions” is exactly what many in the user-centric identity development communities are working on. Or one of the things, anyway.

When I say there are only traders, I’m talking about pure online identities. I’m not talking about punters signing their souls away in a retail environment.

The repercussions for a pure online identity breaking the terms of the contracts it agrees to are to its reputation, not the physical consequences of a jail term for the human body that controls it (if a human does indeed control it).

And yes, of course, things such as EULAs, patent, copyright, and DMCA, are abominations that have no place in a digital marketplace.

I’m talking about identities that represent themselves – not necessarily humans, dogs, computers, or inanimate proxies.

I’m also talking about identity systems that have no achilles heel of a central database (whether in Vanuatu or anywhere else) or a black-box PKI that can be picked off piecemeal.

An identity needn’t be associated with a human being to have a reputation, nor to have the means to make transactions.

When you say ‘local identity’ solutions, you are probably not too far off the less vulnerable approach of ‘distributed identity systems’.

How do humans manage identity off-line?

Understanding how humans do if off-line, is the clue as to how abstract entities do it online.

Even so, there are big hurdles in terms of paradigm shift before we should start worrying about the technical hurdles of implementation. I’ll be happy when we can readily treat identities independently of any consideration as to whether they’re bound to a being.

I’m afraid it’s not true that there are only traders. Much of the law is being replaced by these non-negotiated contracts, and computers are making it easier than ever to demand agreement to such contracts.

Ideally these contracts will demand not just more standard material terms, but also serious protection for the privacy of members. Of course, the requirement that members prove their membership makes privacy protection harder, but they need not prove it. The contract can say, “If you are a member, check the box and the member contract applies to you. If it turns out you weren’t a member, you agree to the standard non-negotiated contract.”

We shouldn’t have an identity platform. We should have better and better local identity/authentication solutions.

However, I think some keys can be found in the VRM acronym:

V=Potency, ability to buy that which could be vended
R=Interrelationships and reputation
M=Making it all happen, making it possible, making it manageable.

An identity without the potential to be a vendor or a customer, is not an identity that vendors or customers are interested in.

Moreover, I think it’s important to break away from the ‘them and us’ polarisation between customers and vendors. It may be cute to reverse the roles, but it’s more powerful to include the reversal rather than to pretend it as usurper.

We are all equal participants in a marketplace, interested in making equitable exchanges involving any number of interested parties, and any manner of goods or monies.

There are no customers. There are no vendors. We are all traders.