The word “identifier” is less specific than “phrase” because an identifier can be one word while phrase is explicitly multiple words. Even the original term “mnemonic phrase” got that part right. Just need to swap the geeky word mnemonic which nobody knows … so “secret phrase” or “secret sentence” … “private word list” …etc
Again, just don’t use “key” as that is already in heavy use in the crypto world for something completely different.
I keep looking for a better expression… “phrase” and “sentence” are descriptive, “identifier” relates to what it does in the ecosystem, “key” relates to its utility for the user, but key definitely drives confusion as you very well explain. Still, thinking of its use instead of its description, how about “private passkey” “personal passkey” or even “secret passkey”? “Passkey” sounds well to me, but I am not an English native speaker…
Another idea “Identity secret key” “Identity key phrase”… just thinking out loud.
Somehow, I felt the opposite way though, the current user login screen makes Blockstack authentication kind of unique and different than other ordinary centralized online application. This difference might make user thinking that Blockstack is more secure than other online application, at least, it is my feeling about Blockstack. Just my two cents …
Hi @Georgina @markmhendrickson,
Sorry for bringing these thoughts at such a late stage, I just started testing the authentication as well as reading these comments. Testing it out I had a similar experience as Georgina.
My interested in Blockstack foremost started due to the combination of simplicity and decentralisation. I’m afraid that this “process” might be overly focused on the ease of acquirement of new users, forgetting to focus on the end user benefit.
@markmhendrickson, I saw you reply regarding the FAQ. It’s a good Idea and it will add value. However I don’t think non-power users read those text very frequently.
From my perspective the new authenticator is good as it is, however, My opinion is that it needs to start with more of a biase towards those who already have keys/account.
I created my Blockstack.id account about a year ago and I was quite confused about this new process. It took me 2-3 trials until I fully understood how it is intended to work with my existing keys…
I want to state that I’m not a power user in any sense so there might be parts to this that I don’t understand. However, I would suggest moving up the “I already have keys” giving it equal weight to “Create Keys”.
v
Secondly, I’m not sure the world is ready for the term “keys” yet and I wonder if it wouldn’t be possible to use “ID” or “Account” instead? I guess that is a pedagogical choice that also simplify the signup process. All I can think of however is the difficulty of explaining to my parents and grandmother the concept of one set of keys to replace all of your accounts… I believe it would be easier for the non-power users to understand the concept of one (or a few) account/identity for all applications, then that account has a set of keys.
Thanks for taking the time and I hope the feedback can be useful!
/Niclas
1 Like
I just saw your comment Niclas. I actually agree with your suggestions and with what you say concerning the word ‘key’ which has been discussed… I actually liked the word ID. I also made some suggestions a while ago as some other members of the community. I actually don’t know if there is any definitive decision on this yet.
Best!
Georgina
1 Like
If I have an existing ID why is it asking me for my secret key?
With the connect library there is a new “authenticator”. There is browser.blockstack.org or localhost:8888, and there is app.blockstack.org or localhost:8080. Both apps/wallets/authenticators need to know you secret key.
Not sure whether that is related to your experience @josephfoboyle.id
@friedger, thanks for comments. I am lost. We built a web app to help renew blockstack ids and got creamed by the community for asking for secret key (only way to do it). Now I have to divulge my key in every new app I deal with?
Not every new app, just every new authenticator. This is quite common for wallets as well. Usually, you won’t be able to have the same keys in different wallets.
In the apps, you can just click on “I have already a secret key” and the authenticator will use your secret key for all apps.
It asks me for my key, everytime I go into an app. I log out of banter it wants my key. Is my key stored on apps.blockstack.org?
Are you using these two hosted versions of those apps in particular?
https://banter.pub/
https://blocksurvey.org/
I see the former has the new Blockstack Connect (which routes to the new authenticator at app.blockstack.org) while the latter has the old setup still (which routes to the – soon-to-be-deprecated – Blockstack Browser at browser.blockstack.org).
fwiw - I was able to recreate my landr [?] blockstack.id with my seedphrase and was able to log in, leave a comment and log out with ease.
The REBL One React+Blockstack app design template now implements Connect for user registration: https://one.rebl.run/
Hope this helps in making it the default for new Blockstack apps!
3 Likes
Hi @markmhendrickson and all who developed the new authenticator flow - big thank you! Love the fact you solved the tab jump. I’m implementing it in loopbomb and need a hand sorting out the styling. The es6 method didn’t play nice in my vue js app so I pulled it in using unpkg (using blockstack.js: 19.3.0);
script src=“https://unpkg.com/@blockstack/connect”
the authentication works and took a couple of hours (
) but the styling looks like this; (on my staging server test.loopbomb.com).
I’m rebuilding loopbomb using web components and learning a little about shadow doms etc but I’m not sure the react app generates css class and works in general - so I’m bit stuck on fixing the styling to get it live?
1 Like
This is great progress to see, Mike! Would you mind filing a GitHub issue here describing the problem you encountered specifically with the ES6 method? https://github.com/blockstack/ux/issues
I suspect we may want to fix that method’s compatibility with your app before trying to untangle issues with CSS generation here given the unpkg route you’ve taken as a workaround to the method problem.
@markmhendrickson I raised a bug on the styling - the error I saw was just me getting in a pickle importing react as a dev dependency. Might be helpful to add the react import to the docs?
npm i --save-dev react react-dom
After doing this I found the component behaves the same using both import techniques and its just the css that needs some attention.
Sounds good, I’ve created an issue here to track this work and will discuss today with the team. Thanks for reporting! https://github.com/blockstack/ux/issues/378