I've been having a hard time with one thing for a few days now... The more I hear about ZKP or cryptograpic proof, the more it seems to be unnecessarily complicated. In fact, very simple. Suppose, you just prove that you 18+. But what happens in relity? You have to show your entire ID - name, addres, everything. But only one thing was needed. This is where ZKP is a little different - you prove it, but you don't show anything. This is where Sign Protocol seems interesting to me. At first, I thought - another attestation layer, store data, verify it, that's it. But later I realized that are not storing data, but rather working more on the burden.
Point is actually...
Proof is not enough, it has to be usable. For example, when a license is issued, a hash is stored without providing the entire data. If someone else wants, they can verify it without seeing original documnt. Although it may seem small, the structure of trust changes here. Another thing - reusability. Once verified, it becomes a credential and remains with you. The hassle repeated KYC is reduced. But here comes a little doubt.... Will the government or institution adopt it? Will it trust? And who define the rules? Because in an infrstructure project, the real issue only one thing - usage.
Who is actually using it?
Until this answer is clear... hansty, I want to stay in observe mode for a bit. Let's see what happens. 🤔🚀