Continuing the discussion from Blockchain Name System documentation/wiki:
I agree. I think we have a scope problem. I actually thought Passcard was the namespace (currently implemented on Namecoin) and BNS was the profile schema/resolver.
I think we need better separation of concerns.
Each of these could be discrete systems/specs:
- Name with pointer to identity info
- Identity info
- Mechanism to prove ownership of the name
After our lengthy discussion about renaming Openname to Passcard and Onename press release announcing Passcard, we now find ourselves chatting on namesystem.info and with a github named namesystem. It’s confusing.
Passcard is already a much better gravatar - a single way for end users to describe and update their identity. Add user friendly authentication to the mix and I think it’s a no brainer for services to adopt this.
All of this other stuff:
“digital media (what Mine is working on), stores, websites, places, physical products, etc.”
Distracts from the message & complicates discussions and development. Great if you want to attract academics and researchers who are happy spending 10 years discussing things (maybe you do?) - bad if you want to get businesses who need to ship products and end users who just want their life to be easier and more magical using Passcard.