This isn't that, instead it seems to delegate the registration to some Namecoin-like thing, and I verify my identity but signing the content with my secret key? Did I get that right? I guess the advantage of that approach are human readable user names
This part can be addressed easily with avatars such as those Gravatar makes. Using a blockchain instead seems like a huge overkill, and also brings 'login' back into the equation, albeit with a different connotation than traditional login.
So if I wanted to make a post, I first generate a public-private key pair, and then sign posts using my public key?
People hated it and actually took the time to complain.
The lesson for me - make your auth process precisely what people expect - if there's feedback, it should be about your product, not about the signup process.
Signup process is not a feature - it's plumbing.
In the case of this new product / service - I note the headline is almost unrelated to what the product does - it's a headline about how the auth works on this - the technology something is built with shouldn't be the marketing message.
This is a Hacker project to explore improved ways of doing things with the new primitives of our collective technology base. In this case, owning your own identity with a decentralized identity system.
I think marketing posts are better suited for another forum, no?
No, Hacker News "Show HN" posts are often launch/marketing posts - totally accepted here.
I tried leaving them blank and got an error message: "You need to include a valid Handshake name and signature generated with the key associated with the name."
But it doesn't explain how you do that.
There are many ways to get Handshake names, but the easiest ways are to use Bob (non custodial) [4] or Namebase (custodial) [5].
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/handshake/comments/pt55vb/namecheap...
[3] https://twitter.com/opera/status/1476841607005622273
This is different from a website like Hacker News or Reddit which aim to be social media websites and avenues to engage in discourse.
Applause, instead, is as you might say, a tech demo, but also aims to, through UX and feature, create a different kind of environment than general social media networks. Instead, when a user engages in the act of 'signing' something, people can either agree in whole or not. If they agree in whole, they actually sign the original message itself. It's closer to a "shouting out to the void in a certified manner, and others can join in the shout" versus "shouting out to the void and debating."
> Name: applause.chat
> Internationalized Domain Name: applause.chat
> Registry Domain ID: 1deb3f28409a44cb92dcf6ad12b77b70-DONUTS
> Domain Status:
> clientTransferProhibited
> addPeriod
> Nameservers:
> ns1.linode.com
> ns2.linode.com
> ns3.linode.com
> Dates
> Registry Expiration: 2022-12-29 02:01:19 UTC
> Updated: 2021-12-29 02:07:14 UTC
> Created: 2021-12-29 02:01:19 UTC
Just looking at Handshake - if I buy HNS and purchase a domain, sure I can use the handshakeName and signature to authenticate to supported websites. But if I want to host a website with the domain, the possible options are using hns.to domain or have my DNS point to a different DNS server. Both are not viable options for my end users to reach my website. Is the expectation that overtime Handshake gains popularity and all existing services would have a mechanism to integrate into this?
At the same time my login is not present in the handshake chain, that would make sense.
It's open source on github [5] and mixes Web 2 and Web 3 together causing some interesting benefits.
It supports drag and drop among other things!
Hope you like it!
MIT LICENSED! Do whatever you want with it!
[1] https://github.com/kyokan/bob-extension/pull/15
