Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Aggregating Digital Identities through Bridging. An Integration of Open Authentication Protocols for Web3 Identifiers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A privacy-preserving digital identity bridge can carry centralized Web2 credentials into Web3, giving DAOs a way to check that a wallet address is backed by real-world identity data without the user managing a second wallet.

desk verdict The bridge architecture is a plausible new composition and the WIDE proof of concept is real, but the sybil-resistance claim breaks because the protocol never binds one credential to one human—one credential can be replayed across arbitrarily many wallets even without tampering. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13770 v1 pith:5D5DFJMQ submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CR cs.DC

Ben Biedermann , Matthew Scerri , Victoria Kozlova , Joshua Ellul This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.DC
keywords digitalidentityWeb3bridgeOpenIDConnectverifiablecredentialssybilresistanceDAOprivacy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the fragmentation between Web2 identity systems (like OpenID Connect and the European digital identity wallet) and Web3 identifiers (EVM wallet addresses) can be overcome by a 'digital identity bridge': a server-based service that lets users export credentials from centralised issuers, encrypt them on their own device, and attach an on-chain attestation that ties the encrypted claims to their wallet address. The bridge is designed to give DAOs probabilistic sybil resistance by letting verifiers check that a wallet address is backed by real-world credentials, without the user having to manage a second SSI wallet or reveal plaintext data. The authors argue this answers the research question of whether authentication protocols should natively support Web3: rather than changing the protocols, a privacy-preserving middleware can provision centralised identities for Web3 activities. A proof-of-concept with a DAO's membership and customer-relation tool suggests that users can tie off-chain credentials such as university diplomas to their wallet, building reputation while keeping personal data encrypted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the digital identity bridge, a client-server architecture with a claims processor, a bridging server, a bridging database, an identity-logging smart contract, and a bridging library for verifiers. The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of client-side encryption and on-chain attestation: the user's claims are split into attribute-level payloads, encrypted under the user's public key before they leave the device, hashed, and then the bridge signs and logs a hash of the encrypted payload and the user's wallet address on an EVM chain. That log makes the wallet address provably associated with the encrypted credential at a given time, without revealing plaintext data, so verifiers can later require the user to decrypt and present selected attributes. The design also includes a presentation flow in which the user signs a consent message and the bridge issues a random token for redirect-based handoff to the relying party.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to see whether the bridging server detects a user who modifies the issuer field or an attribute of a claim in the client-side claims processor before encryption; if the server logs and attests the modified data as a valid bridged credential, the protocol demonstrably fails to provide verified provenance, and a DAO that relies on it would admit self-asserted sybils.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the root of trust of centralised credentials can be extended into Web3 through attested provenance. The protocol lets a user with an EVM wallet address export an OpenID Connect credential, split it into claims and attributes in a client-side claims processor, encrypt each payload with their public key, hash the encrypted payload, and upload the ciphertext and hash to a bridging server. The server verifies the user's wallet signature, stores the encrypted claims, and logs a signature over the wallet address and a hash of the encrypted payload to an EVM-compatible blockchain. Later, to present a credential, the user decrypts the payload, consents to a verifier's request, and the bridge logs the interaction on-chain. Taken together, the authors claim, this creates a privacy-preserving aggregator of centralised credentials for a Web3 identifier, providing probabilistic sybil resistance for DAOs and decoupling issuance from presentation.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that users will not tamper with their claims before encrypting them, because Web3 pseudonymity and probabilistic trust make tampering contrary to their interest; if that assumption fails, the bridge attests to self-asserted data rather than verified provenance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DAOs can run sybil checks by requiring a wallet to present a bridged real-world credential, making it harder to create duplicate pseudonymous identities without holding an extra wallet.
  • Users can build on-chain reputation for a single Ethereum address by accumulating attestations from centralised credentials and from DAO verifier credentials, all referenced on-chain.
  • The bridge removes the need for users to manage a separate SSI wallet or a second key pair for Web3 credential use.
  • Existing OIDC-based identity infrastructure, including the European digital identity wallet, can be provisioned for Web3 activities without modifying the underlying protocols.
  • Verifiers can choose case-by-case whether to trust the probabilistic on-chain evidence or require an additional attestation server for tamper-resistant onboarding.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the incentive assumption holds, the same bridging pattern could be extended to other pseudonymous systems beyond DAOs, such as gaming, social reputation, or airdrop eligibility, where verifiable uniqueness is valuable.
  • The unidirectional nature of the bridge suggests a reverse bridge, moving on-chain activity into Web2 identity frameworks, would require solving the opposite problem: proving that an off-chain credential was issued to the same human who controls a wallet, without revealing the wallet's transaction history.
  • The client-side tampering vulnerability could be tested empirically by offering a bounty for users who upload a modified credential that still passes a DAO's sybil check; the failure rate would quantify the bridge's actual assurance.
  • Replacing the centralised server's signature with a committee of witnesses or a threshold signature scheme would trade user privacy for reduced trust in a single operator, marking one direction the architecture could evolve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'digital identity bridge' that transfers credentials of centralised provenance (e.g., OIDC-based credentials from an EUDIW) into Web3 identifiers, with the goal of letting DAOs perform probabilistic sybil-resistance checks without requiring users to manage additional SSI wallets. The design, detailed in Sections 3.1–3.3, comprises a client-side claims processor, a centralised bridging server, an encrypted claims database, and an EVM smart contract for on-chain logging. A proof-of-concept called WIDE was implemented and demonstrated with the RaidGuild DAO using a university-affiliation credential use case. The authors claim that the bridge offers privacy-preserving credential aggregation, attested provenance, and probabilistic sybil resistance. The paper acknowledges in Section 5 that the bridge is unidirectional, depends on centralised infrastructure, and has not been tested with non-EU government identity systems.

Significance. If the security and sybil-resistance claims were established, this would be a useful practical contribution to the Web2/Web3 identity interoperability space. The paper has several strengths: it provides a concrete, well-structured protocol description; it implements a live proof-of-concept (wid3.app and the dungeonmaster verifier); it builds on recognised standards such as EIP-4361 and OIDC flows; and it explicitly discusses trust assumptions and limitations in Sections 3.4 and 5. The authors are also candid that the bridging is one-way and that the centralised server may be a point of criticism. However, the central security claim—probabilistic sybil resistance through bridging—is not established by the described protocol. The protocol does not bind a credential to a unique human, and it relies on an untested incentive assumption about client-side tampering. There is no formal adversary model, no quantitative evaluation, and no adversarial testing. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's stated motivation is to help DAOs resist sybil attacks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, steps 10–14; Section 3.4] The protocol never binds the issuer credential to a unique human or to a single wallet. In steps 10–14, the server verifies only that the uploading client controls the private key corresponding to pk1 and w1; it then stores the client-supplied data, including u1 and the ciphertext, for that wallet, and signs a hash for on-chain logging. Nothing checks whether the same issuer credential or subject has already been bridged to another wallet address. The on-chain log commits only to w1 and a hash of the encrypted payload, not to an issuer-verified subject identifier. An attacker with one legitimate OIDC export can therefore run the client-side claims processor once per fresh wallet and obtain a valid per-wallet attestation and timestamp for every wallet. The five mitigations listed in Section 3.4—authentication, key possession, on-chain logging, presentation signing, and out-of-band verification—all operate per wallet; none enforces a one-credential-per-human invariant. Consequently, the claimed sybil resistance fails even under the paper's honest-user assumption.
  2. [Section 3.4] The client-side tampering issue is acknowledged but not resolved. The paper states that 'sophisticated users may alter their claims before encrypting them' and then justifies the design by asserting that tampering is not in the user's best interest in probabilistic Web3 trust models. This is an untested behavioural assumption, not a security property. No game-theoretic model or empirical evidence is provided to show that the cost of forging a claim exceeds the value of the resources a DAO protects. Because the bridging server never sees the issuer-signed original—the user exports, segregates, and encrypts the data entirely client-side—the server's attestation covers bytes it cannot verify. The proposed out-of-band second-server verification is explicitly 'not yet implemented' in the same section, so it cannot be used to support the current sybil-resistance or attested-provenance claims.
  3. [Section 4] The evaluation is qualitative and does not substantiate the paper's central claims. Section 4 describes a proof-of-concept and a deployment with the RaidGuild DAO, but it reports no quantitative results: there are no measurements of sybil-resistance effectiveness, no adversarial experiments, no analysis of the cost of creating a sybil identity, and no comparison with existing approaches such as Gitcoin Passport, which is only mentioned in passing in Section 5. The abstract's statement that 'findings indicate that a privacy-centric bridge can mitigate existing fragmentation' is therefore not supported by the reported evidence. For a paper whose motivation is sybil resistance and privacy, a security and performance evaluation is necessary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] Figure 1 is referenced and captioned as the general architecture, but no image appears in the manuscript; the reader cannot inspect the component diagram that Section 3.1 relies on.
  2. [Section 3.2] There are typographical and spacing errors, e.g., 'client-sidedclaims processorto' in the paragraph preceding step 1, and inconsistent terminology such as 'OID4VCI' versus 'OIDC4VCI' between the text and Table 1.
  3. [Section 3.2, steps 8–14] The notation 'pk1(p1, ..., pn+1)' for encryption is nonstandard and could be confused with evaluating a public-key function; the paper should write E_{pk1}(p1, ..., pn+1). In addition, step 9 hashes only p1 to obtain h1, while step 14 defines h2 as a hash over pk1(pn+1) and h1, so the relationship between the payloads and the hash chain should be clarified.
  4. [Sections 2.2 and 3.4] The terms 'zero-knowledge attestation service' and 'attested provenance' are used without formal definition. Under the described protocol the server attests only to receipt of a ciphertext from a wallet owner, not to the truth of the claim or its issuer provenance, so these terms overstate the achieved guarantee.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a system design and proof-of-concept evaluation, with no derived quantitative predictions, fitted parameters, or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central contribution is a protocol and architecture for bridging centralised OIDC credentials into Web3 identifiers. The paper does not derive a quantitative prediction from an input dataset, does not fit parameters and then rename them as predictions, and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or prior work by the same authors to force its design choices. The bridge's claimed properties are argued from the protocol steps in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, and its applicability is supported by a live proof-of-concept (wid3.app and dungeonmaster.wid3-demo.app) and a collaboration with RaidGuild, which counts as direct implementation evidence rather than circular reasoning. The self-referential material, such as the use of the authors' WIDE application as the test artifact and the candid admission in Section 3.4 that sophisticated users may alter claims before encryption, states limitations and trust assumptions; it does not smuggle a conclusion into its premises. The skeptical concern that one credential can be replayed across many wallets is a substantive security critique of whether the protocol achieves sybil resistance, but that is a correctness or soundness issue, not a circularity issue. No step in the paper reduces to its own input by definition, by construction, or by self-citation, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the contribution is architectural. The main axioms are trust and incentive assumptions explicitly stated in Section 3.4. No unobserved physical or theoretical entities are postulated; the bridge components are implemented and accessible.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A user with control of the client-side claims processor will not alter claims before encryption, because Web3 pseudonymity and probabilistic trust make tampering contrary to their interest.
    Section 3.4 acknowledges that sophisticated users can modify claims before encryption; the protocol depends on this incentive assumption rather than on preventing or detecting tampering. If an attacker has a reason to cheat, the bridge attests to self-asserted data, not verified provenance.
  • standard math Sign-in-with-Ethereum (ERC-4361) proves ownership of the private key corresponding to the wallet address.
    Step 2 of Section 3.2 relies on signed message verification; this is a standard cryptographic assumption.
  • domain assumption The bridging server will faithfully sign and log attestations and will not forge, omit, or collude with relying parties.
    The server is a trusted third party for attestation (Sections 3.4 and 5 acknowledge centralisation as a limitation).
  • domain assumption On-chain records of hashes of encrypted payloads, together with salted hashes and predicates, do not disclose personal data protected by GDPR.
    The paper argues GDPR compliance through deletion and blinding (Section 2.2), but this depends on the strength of the encryption and hashing and on the server's handling; it is asserted rather than demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aggregating Digital Identities through Bridging. An Integration of Open Authentication Protocols for Web3 Identifiers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5D5DFJMQ

@misc{pith2026250113770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aggregating Digital Identities through Bridging. An Integration of Open Authentication Protocols for Web3 Identifiers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5D5DFJMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13770}
}
read the original abstract

Web3's decentralised infrastructure has upended the standardised approach to digital identity established by protocols like OpenID Connect. Web2 and Web3 currently operate in silos, with Web2 leveraging selective disclosure JSON web tokens (SD-JWTs) and Web3 dApps being reliant on on-chain data and sometimes clinging to centralised system data. This fragmentation hinders user experience and the interconnectedness of the digital world. This paper explores the integration of Web3 within the OpenID Connect framework, scrutinising established authentication protocols for their adaptability to decentralised identities. The research examines the interplay between OpenID Connect and decentralised identity concepts, the limitations of existing protocols like OpenID Connect for verifiable credential issuance, OpenID Connect framework for verifiable presentations, and self-issued OpenID provider. As a result, a novel privacy-preserving digital identity bridge is proposed, which aims to answer the research question of whether authentication protocols should inherently support Web3 functionalities and the mechanisms for their integration. Through a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO) use case, the findings indicate that a privacy-centric bridge can mitigate existing fragmentation by aggregating different identities to provide a better user experience. While the digital identity bridge demonstrates a possible approach to harmonise digital identity across platforms for their use in Web3, the bridging is unidirectional and limits root trust of credentials. The bridge's dependence on centralised systems may further fuel the debate on (de-)centralised identities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. General Architecture of a digital identity bridge on the example of WIDE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. OIDC Data Export [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plain Text Data Review 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data Encryption The DAO that participated in the research is “RaidGuild”, which is a collective of technical freelancers servicing core Web3 infrastructure and applications, such as decentralised social platforms, decentralised finance (DeFi) protocols, and on-chain at…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Log-in with WIDE at Verifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: WIDE-enabled RaidGuild Member Profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Christopher Allen.The Path to Self-Sovereign Identity. Apr. 2016. url:http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/ 2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-identity.html

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    July 2022.doi: 10.18420/OID2022_13

    Paul Bastian, Carsten Stöcker, and Steffen Schwalm.Combination of x509 and DID/VC for inheritance properties of trust in digital identities. July 2022.doi: 10.18420/OID2022_13

    work page doi:10.18420/oid2022_13 2022

  3. [3]

    Oscar Burgos.SSI eIDAS Bridge reference implementation. Apr. 2020. url:https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/ collection/ssi- eidas- bridge/solution/ssi- eidas- bridge- reference- implementation (visited on 01/07/2024)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Wayne Chang et al.ERC-4361: Sign-In with Ethereum [DRAFT]. en. Ethereum Improvement Proposals. Online Serial, Oct. 2021.url: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4361 (visited on 11/15/2023)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Sam Curren, Tobias Looker, and Oliver Terbu.DIDComm Messaging Specification v2 Editor’s Draft. Apr. 2023. url: https://identity.foundation/didcomm-messaging/spec/ (visited on 02/18/2024)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Vienna, Austria, 2022

    Danube Tech GmbH.Universal Resolver. Vienna, Austria, 2022. url:https://dev.uniresolver.io/ (visited on 08/30/2023)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Shared and searchable encrypted data for untrusted servers

    Changyu Dong, Giovanni Russello, and Naranker Dulay. “Shared and searchable encrypted data for untrusted servers”. en. In:Journal of Computer Security19.3 (Jan. 2011). Publisher: IOS Press, pp. 367–397. issn: 0926-227X. doi: 10.3233/JCS- 2010- 0415 . url: https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal- of- computer- security/jcs415 (visited on 02/19/2024)

    doi:10.3233/jcs- 2011

  8. [8]

    European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP).Europass XML Schema V.3.0. en. 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity

    European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity. In collab. with European Commission. June 3, 2021. url:https://eur-lex.europa....

    2014

  2. [10]

    Legislative Body: EP, CONSIL

    European Parliament and European Council.Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937 (Text with...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Backup Publisher: European Union

    European Parliament and European Council.Regulation EU 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Backup Publisher: E...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Internet Draft

    Daniel Fett, Kristina Yasuda, and Brian Campbell.Selective Disclosure for JWTs (SD-JWT). Internet Draft. Num Pages: 84. Dec. 11, 2023. url:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-selective- disclosure-jwt/ (visited on 08/30/2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Gitcoin Passport Docs

    Gitcoin LLC. Gitcoin Passport Docs. Jan. 2024. url: https : / / docs . passport . gitcoin . co/(visited on 02/20/2024). 15 Aggregating Digital Identities through Bridging Biedermann et al. (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    arXiv:2102.03933 [cs]

    Thomas Hardjono.Blockchain Gateways, Bridges and Delegated Hash-Locks. arXiv:2102.03933 [cs]. Feb. 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.03933. url: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.03933 (visited on 02/19/2024)

    2021 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Request for Comments

    Dick Hardt.The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework. Request for Comments. Num Pages: 76. Oct. 2012. doi: 10.17487/RFC6749. url: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6749 (visited on 08/20/2023)

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Hyperledger Foundation.Hyperledger - The Open Global Ecosystem for Enterprise Blockchain. en. 2024. url: https://www.hyperledger.org (visited on 02/18/2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Achieving Corruption-Transparency in Service Governance Processes with Blockchain-Technology Based e-Participation

    Mohammad Mustafa Ibrahimy, Alex Norta, and Peeter Normak. “Achieving Corruption-Transparency in Service Governance Processes with Blockchain-Technology Based e-Participation”. In:Web Engineering. Ed. by Tommaso Di Noia et al. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer I...

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Self-Sovereign Identity on Public Blockchains and the GDPR

    Galia Kondova and Jörn Erbguth. “Self-Sovereign Identity on Public Blockchains and the GDPR”. In:Proceedings of ACM SAC Conference. 3515213. SAC’20. Brno, Czech Republic: SSRN, Apr. 1, 2020, pp. 342–345. url: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3515213 (visited on 08/26/2023)

    2020

  11. [19]

    The European Digital Identity Wallet Architecture and Reference Framework

    Stavros Kounis. The European Digital Identity Wallet Architecture and Reference Framework. original-date: 2023-01-27T14:45:48Z. Apr. 20, 2023. url:https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc- architecture-and-reference-framework (visited on 08/26/2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Michael Kubach and Heiko Roßnagel.A lightweight trust management infrastructure for self-sovereign identity. en. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., 2021. isbn: 978-3-88579-706-7. url:https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500. 12116/36489 (visited on 08/20/2023)

    2021

  13. [21]

    A Survey of Solutions to the Sybil attack

    Brian Levine, Clay Shields, and N Margolin. “A Survey of Solutions to the Sybil attack”. In:Technical Report of Univ of Massachussets Amherst2006–052 (Nov. 2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    From Technology to Society: An Overview of Blockchain-Based DAO

    Lu Liu et al. “From Technology to Society: An Overview of Blockchain-Based DAO”. In:IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society2 (2021). Conference Name: IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, pp. 204–215. issn: 2644-1268. doi: 10.1109/OJCS.2021.3072661 . url: https://ieeexp...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Issue #152

    Joachim Lohkamp.Notice of concern DIF-TOIP. Issue #152. decentralized-identity/keri. en. June 2021. url: https://github.com/decentralized-identity/keri/issues/152 (visited on 02/16/2024)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Digital identity as a platform for improving refugee management

    Shirin Madon and Emrys Schoemaker. “Digital identity as a platform for improving refugee management”. en. In: Information Systems Journal31.6 (2021). _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/isj.12353, pp. 929–953. issn: 1365-2575. doi:10.1111/isj.12353. url: h...

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Applying assurance levels when issuing and verifying credentials using Trust Frameworks

    Victor Martinez Jurado et al. “Applying assurance levels when issuing and verifying credentials using Trust Frameworks”. en. In:Open Identity Summit 2021. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), 2021, pp. 167–178. isbn: 978-3-88579-706-7. url:https...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Internet Draft draft-miller-microid-01

    Jeremie Miller, Peter Saint-Andre, and Fred Stutzman.MicroID. Internet Draft draft-miller-microid-01. Num Pages:

  19. [27]

    Internet Engineering Task Force, Dec. 2007. url:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-miller- microid-00 (visited on 08/25/2023)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Kim Nguyen.Qualified Electronic Attestation of Attributes (QEAA) as a new essential eIDAS trust service. Sept

  21. [29]

    Padayatti, Lal Chandran, and Aron Szabo.EUDI wallets with OpenID for verifiable credentials

    George J. Padayatti, Lal Chandran, and Aron Szabo.EUDI wallets with OpenID for verifiable credentials. Nov

  22. [30]

    OpenID Foundation.Connect Working Group – Specifications. en-US. Jan. 2023. url:https://openid.net/wg/ connect/specifications/ (visited on 02/18/2024)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Probably Nothing Inc.Disco.xyz - Components. en. Oct. 2023. url:https://docs.disco.xyz/v3/introduction/ architecture (visited on 08/27/2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    url: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eudi-wallets-openid-verifiable-credentials-igrantio- pkqgf/ (visited on 02/18/2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Self-Sovereign Identity. Decentralized Digital Identity and Verifiable Credentials

    Alexander Preuschkat, Drummond Reed, and Daniel Hardman. “Self-Sovereign Identity. Decentralized Digital Identity and Verifiable Credentials”. In: vol. 1. Manning, 2021. Chap. Example Scenarios showing how SSI works, pp. 40–57. 16 Aggregating Digital Identities through Bridgin...

    2025

  26. [34]

    The basic building blocks of SSI

    Drummond Reed, Rieks Joosten, and Oskar van Deventer. “The basic building blocks of SSI”. In:Self-Sovereign Identity. Decentralized Digital Identity and Verifiable Credentials. Ed. by Alexander Preuschkat and Drummond Reed. Vol. 1. Section: An Introduction to SSI. Manning, 202...

    2021

  27. [35]

    A Survey on Single Sign-On Techniques

    Vedala Radha and Danish Sahitha. “A Survey on Single Sign-On Techniques”. In:Procedia Technology4 (Dec. 31, 2012), pp. 134–139.doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2012.05.019

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    RaidGuild DAO.RaidGuild - A Decentralized Collective of Mercenaries Ready to Slay Your Web3 Product Demons. en. 2024.url: https://raidguild.org (visited on 02/20/2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Vorstellung des Umsetzungskonzepts

    SDIKA Consortium.Schaufenster sichere digitale Identitäten Karlsruhe. Vorstellung des Umsetzungskonzepts. 2020. url: https://www.digitale-technologien.de/DT/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/sdi_sdika_praesentation. pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 (visited on 02/18/2024)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Self-representation of online identity in collected hyperlinks

    Terrell Russell and Frederic Stutzman. “Self-representation of online identity in collected hyperlinks”. en. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 44.1 (2007). _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/meet.1450440375, pp...

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    Analysis and Evaluation of Blockchain-based Self-Sovereign Identity Systems

    Martin Schäffner. “Analysis and Evaluation of Blockchain-based Self-Sovereign Identity Systems”. MA thesis. TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Manu Sporny et al.Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0. 2022. url:https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ (visited on 08/25/2023)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-Resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols

    Divya Siddarth et al. “Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-Resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols”. In:Frontiers in Blockchain3 (2020). issn: 2624-7852. url:https://www. frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbloc.2020.590171 (visited on 02/18/2024)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Key Event Receipt Infrastructure (KERI)

    Samuel M. Smith. “Key Event Receipt Infrastructure (KERI)”. arXiv:1907.02143 [cs]. Oct. 2021. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.1907.02143. url: http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.02143 (visited on 02/18/2024)

    1907 doi

  35. [43]

    ValidatedID S.L.The time for the eIDAS Bridge. de. Feb. 2022. url:https://www.validatedid.com/de/blog/ post/the-time-for-the-eidas-bridge (visited on 04/17/2024)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Manu Sporny et al.Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0. 2023. url:https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model- 2.0/ (visited on 08/29/2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    ESTONIAN E-RESIDENCY AND CONCEPTIONS OF PLATFORM-BASED STATE- INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIP

    P Tammpuu et al. “ESTONIAN E-RESIDENCY AND CONCEPTIONS OF PLATFORM-BASED STATE- INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIP”. en. In:Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences26.1 (2022), p. 3. issn: 1406-0922. doi:10.3176/tr.2022.1.01. url: https://kirj.ee/trames-publications/?filter%...

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    The Social Construction of Self-Sovereign Identity: An Extended Model of Interpretive Flexibility

    Linda Weigl et al. “The Social Construction of Self-Sovereign Identity: An Extended Model of Interpretive Flexibility”. In: Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. HICCS. 2022, pp. 2543–2552

    2022

  39. [47]

    arXiv:2304.06111 [cs]

    Shicheng Wan et al.Web3: The Next Internet Revolution. arXiv:2304.06111 [cs]. Mar. 2023. url:http://arxiv. org/abs/2304.06111 (visited on 04/17/2024)

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fennie Wang and Primavera De Filippi.Self-Sovereign Identity in a Globalized World: Credentials-Based Identity Systems as a Driver for Economic Inclusion. en. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, Jan. 2020. url:https: //papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3524367 (visited on 04/07/2024)

    2020

  41. [50]

    Whose Name Is It, Anyway? Decentralized Identity Systems on the Web

    Daniel J. Weitzner. “Whose Name Is It, Anyway? Decentralized Identity Systems on the Web”. In:IEEE Internet Computing 11.4 (July 2007). Conference Name: IEEE Internet Computing, pp. 72–76. issn: 1941-0131. doi: 10.1109/MIC.2007.95

    2007 doi

  42. [51]

    Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets

    Pieter Wuille.BIP-32. Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets. en. Feb. 2012. url:https://github.com/bitcoin/ bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki (visited on 08/02/2024). 17

    2012

  43. [2023]

    url: https://www.teletrust.de/fileadmin/user_upload/01_Informationstag_Elektronische- Signatur-und-Vertrauensdienste_D-Trust_Nguyen.pdf (visited on 02/18/2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.