How do we solve this for wider adoption?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

We have to decide if logging in with nostr is a desire-able thing to have. The ecosystem seems to be moving to passkeys, i don’t see why we necessarily need npub identities for login. There are many reasons you wouldn’t want that: privacy, etc.

Logging in with nostr was a big plus for me but I’m not a normal use case.

What are passkeys?

So a private key is stored locally on device and the corresponding public key is stored in the server.

That’s pretty much just Nostr sign-in.

The only difference is that passkey approach generates a new key for every app. It’s like using a different private key for every nostr client.

Sounds like a massive difference. A compromised nsec would be catastrophic.

Yes. This discussion has changed my attitude towards Nostr Signin/Connect

They’re login tokens that are encrypted on your device and tied to a master identity.

Passkeys are utter trash in implementation but the underlying concept is good

npub login is flawed because it can’t support multi identity and is non-private by design

And also they don’t use obscure shit like BIP304 signatures so they can be put onto a secure element

All the "hardware wallet" implementations for Bitcoin show that you can make a secure element for BIP340 just fine.

Specialized SEs != TPMs in computers, SEs in phones, etc

Ah yes correct.

BIP340 are Schnorr signatures?

From: https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TPM-Rev-2.0-Part-1-Architecture-01.07-2014-03-13.pdf

Section: C.4.3 EC Schnorr

"If a TPM supports ECC, it should support the TPM_ALG_ECSCHNORR scheme."