[OpenID] What are openids weaknesses?

[Jack]

Dave Kearns wrote:
> From: John Panzer
>>> Good point. So what should the terminology be? e.g. - my home 
>>> page
>> That's so 90's... :)
>> 
>>> - my web address
>> +1 -- at least I think non-techies have the most chance of 
>> understanding this one.
> 
> Understand, perhaps, but as it's a brand new construction it will 
> take a great deal of marketing to inculcate the term in people's 
> minds.
> 
> And, of course, all this emphasis on URLs completely ignores 
> iNames...

Maybe that was deliberate :-)
> 
> What's wrong with the well known term "identifier"?

That is much better. First, that's what it is; second, it accomodates
the possibility that you have more than one; third, it doesn't leave you
with the feeling that you're trying to communicate technology to
five-year-olds. Those "my this", "my that" formulations are patronising.

The way I see it, the big problem with computer cryptography (and
internet services that rely on it) is that it's harder to understand
than (say) a padlock, or a buried treasure-chest. It really _is_ harder.
Giving it a cute name doesn't solve that.

In fact even a padlock is hard to understand; I'm not a locksmith, and I
have only a vague notion of how barrels and tumblers work. So I buy
solid-looking, brand-name padlocks, if what I'm locking up is important;
and even then I'm not sure I trust them (there was a scandal about
flawed Kryptonite bicycle locks a few years ago). So I don't entrust
really valuable stuff to locks.

And I ride a cheap bike.
-- 
Jack.