Compleet
0e7871f395
- Stories gain a required type (report | essay); all 28 classified per the boundary rule now stated in EDITORIAL.md - Nav: What's up · Opine · Podcast · Book · Guides · Forum, each gated on real content (Forum waits on a forumUrl); logo is Home - /whats-up (reports, newest first) and /opine (essays, editorial order) share a StoryArchive component with subject filters - Static /tags/<tag> pages for subjects carried by 2+ stories; tags stay overlapping, never exclusive departments - /corrections: generated from revision history (commits beginning 'Correction:'), so the page cannot under-report - About, RSS, Corrections, Weekly briefing move to the footer Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.4 KiB
title, type, description, published, editorialOrder, reviewed, author, maintainers, status, featured, homepage, section, draft, tags, trustPattern
| title | type | description | published | editorialOrder | reviewed | author | maintainers | status | featured | homepage | section | draft | tags | trustPattern | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The name you give a key | essay | Petnames offer a modest way through the impossible demand that online names be secure, global, decentralised and easy to remember. | 2026-07-14 | 17 | 2026-07-14 | Ana |
|
developing | false | false | Design | false |
|
|
Public keys are secure identifiers and terrible names. Human names are memorable and famously non-unique. Global registries make names usable by deciding who gets which one, thereby becoming an authority.
Zooko's Triangle describes the constraint: a naming system wants names that are secure, decentralised and human-meaningful, but traditionally gets at most two.
Blockchains are often said to defeat the triangle. More accurately, they place uniqueness and conflict resolution into ledger consensus and governance. That may be a worthwhile trade. It is not the disappearance of trust.
The petname answer
A petname system declines the global ambition. The secure identifier remains a key. You attach a local name meaningful to you: "Mum", "the plumber from Alderney", "Ana's release key". An introducer may suggest a nickname, but your address book decides what you see.
Two people can use different names for the same key without conflict. A malicious global claimant cannot automatically overwrite the relationship you already recorded.
This is how humans already navigate trust. We rarely need a single universal name for everyone. We need stable reference inside a relationship, plus an explicit process for introduction.
The limitation is also the benefit. Petnames do not make discovery effortless. They make the source of meaning visible. The name is yours, the key is theirs, and the binding came from a particular encounter.