Self-sovereign identity will change the way the world works.

What does it mean to have an identity ?

A fundamental rethink of identity must be undertaken if civilization is to continue in any self determined and free thinking way. In order to progress, we must give up the notion that identity is a singleton and replace it with the more loose notion that identities are relational and pluralistic. We also must identify just what it is we are seeking to protect and keep private and what privacy actually implies.

Learn more about Philosophy of Identity
Personal/Existential Identity
• Your self view arrived at by simple self awareness
• Nobody else’s business, it is private within the mind, emotions and body

It is what must be protected against all harassment and violence
• Day to day awareness of different aspects of self change
• Not a singleton identity

Self Declared Identity
• Who you say you are.
• May be different on different days
• Is different to different people
• Taken by others on trust
• Not a singleton identity

Social Identity
• Who others say you are.
• The collective impressions you receive from and have upon society
• But you are a different person to different people with different relationships.
• Not a singleton identity

Imposed Identity
• Imposed upon you by an authority
• Different authorities impose identities based on some presented fact or proof of some other identity
• Not a singular identity

Identity IS NOT SINGULAR:

Lets instead treat identities as pluralistic relationships, outside of which no one else has any business.

There is really no need for your electricity supplier to know who your kindergarten teacher was, yet with centralized identity databases and profiling, that’s exactly the kind of information that may be offered to them by some third party analytics company.

What we seek with Self-Sovereign identity systems is an anonymizing layer of distinct, purpose specific identity relationships with different counter-parties. For this we can explore and develop the following notions of identity relationships;

Learn more about the different Types of Identities
Transactional Identities
• A growing record of transactions of an entity or agent with another entity.
• Economic footprints which could be used as evidence for an attested identity.
• Many identities can be run in parallel by a single agent

Reputational Identity
• A more formalized social identity
• Identities built upon a history of third-party ratings of interactions
• Can act as abstracts of Transactional Identities

Attested Identity
• Identity by ‘accepted’ attestation of facts by third-parties such as an attendance record or certificate.
• An aggregated identity from proofs of different identity sources
• Attested identity networks could build up ‘webs of trust’.
• Can involve preferential attachment to trusted webs for efficient trust routing
Learn more about the Evolution of Identity
The models for online identity have advanced through four broad stages since the advent of the Internet: centralized identity, federated identity, user-centric identity, and self-sovereign identity.

Phase One: Centralized Identity (administrative control by a single authority or hierarchy)

In the Internet’s early days, centralized authorities became the issuers and authenticators of digital identity. Organizations like IANA (1988) determined the validity of IP addresses and ICANN (1998) arbitrated domain names. Then, beginning in 1995, certificate authorities (CAs) stepped up to help Internet commerce sites prove they were who they said they were.Some of these organizations took a small step beyond centralization and created hierarchies. A root controller could annoint other organizations to each oversee their own heirarchy.

However, the root still had the core power — they were just creating new, less powerful centralizations beneath them.Unfortunately, granting control of digital identity to centralized authorities of the online world suffers from the same problems caused by the state authorities of the physical world: users are locked in to a single authority who can deny their identity or even confirm a false identity. Centralization innately gives power to the centralized entities, not to the users.As the Internet grew, as power accumulated across hierarchies, a further problem was revealed: identities were increasingly balkanized. They multiplied as web sites did, forcing users to juggle dozens of identities on dozens of different sites — while having control over none of them.To a large extent, identity on the Internet today is still centralized — or at best, hierarchical. Digital identities are owned by CAs, domain registrars, and individual sites, and then rented to users or revoked at any time. However, for the last two decades there’s also been a growing push to return identities to the people, so that they actually could control them.Interlude: Foreshadowing the FuturePGP (1991) offered one of the first hints toward what could become self-sovereign identity. It introduced the 'Web of Trust', which established trust for a digital identity by allowing peers to act as introducers and validators of public keys.

Anyone could be validator in the PGP model. The result was a powerful example of decentralized trust management, but it focused on email addresses, which meant that it still depended on centralized hierarchies. For a variety of reasons, PGP never became broadly adopted.Other early thoughts appeared in “Establishing Identity without Certification Authority” (1996), a paper by Carl Ellison that examined how digital identity was created. He considered both authorities such as Certificate Authorities and peer-to-peer systems like PGP as options for defining digital identity. He then settled on a method for verifying online identity by exchanging shared secrets over a secure channel. This allowed users to control their own identity without depending on a managing authority.Ellison was also at the heart of the SPKI/SDSI project (1999) . Its goal was to build a simpler public infrastructure for identity certificates that could replace the complicated X.509 system. Although centralized authorities were considered as an option, they were not the only option.It was a beginning, but an even more revolutionary reconception of identity in the 21st century would be required to truly bring self-sovereignty to the forefront.

Phase Two: Federated Identity (administrative control by multiple, federated authorities)

The next major advancement for digital identity occurred at the turn of the century when a variety of commercial organizations moved beyond hierarchy to debalkanize online identity in a new manner.Microsoft’s Passport (1999) initiative was one of the first. It imagined federated identity, which allowed users to utilize the same identity on multiple sites. However, it put Microsoft at the center of the federation, which made it almost as centralized as traditional authorities.In response Sun Microsoft organized the Liberty Alliance (2001). They resisted the idea of centralized authority, instead creating a "true" federation, but the result was instaed an oligarchy: the power of centralized authority was now divided among several powerful entities.Federation improved on the problem of balkanization: users could wander from site to site under the system. However, each individual site remained an authority.

Phase Three: User-Centric Identity (individual or administrative control across multiple authorities without requiring a federation)

The Augmented Social Network (2000) laid the groundwork for a new sort of digital identity in their proposal for the creation of a next-generation Internet. In an extensive white paper, they suggested building “persistent online identity” into the very architecture of the Internet. From the viewpoint of self-sovereign identity, their most important advance was “the assumption that every individual ought to have the right to control his or her own online identity”. The ASN group felt that Passport and the Liberty Alliance could not meet these goals because the “business-based initiatives” put too much emphasis on the privatization of information and the modeling of users as consumers.These ASN ideas would become the foundation of much that followed.The Identity Commons (2001-Present) began to consolidate the new work on digital identity with a focus on decentralization. Their most important contribution may have been the creation, in association with the Identity Gang, of the Internet Identity Workshop (2005-Present) working group. For the last ten years, the IIW has advanced the idea of decentralized identity in a series of semi-yearly meetings.The IIW community focused on a new term that countered the server-centric model of centralized authorities: user-centric identity. The term suggests that users are placed in the middle of the identity process. Initial discussions of the topic focused on creating a better user experience, which underlined the need to put users front and center in the quest for online identity. However the definition of a user-centric identity soon expanded to include the desire for a user to have more control over his identity and for trust to be decentralized.The work of the IIW has supported many new methods for creating digital identity, including OpenID (2005), OpenID 2.0 (2006), OpenID Connect (2014), OAuth (2010), and FIDO (2013).

As implemented, user-centric methodologies tend to focus on two elements: user consent and interoperability. By adopting them, a user can decide to share an identity from one service to another and thus debalkanize his digital self.The user-centric identity communities had even more ambitious visions; they intended to give users complete control of their digital identities. Unfortunately, powerful institutions co-opted their efforts and kept them from fully realizing their goals. Much as with the Liberty Alliance, final ownership of user-centric identities today remain with the entities that register them.OpenID offers an example. A user can theoretically register his own OpenID, which he can then use autonomously. However, this takes some technical know-how, so the casual Internet user is more likely to use an OpenID from one public web site as a login for another. If the user selects a site that is long-lived and trustworthy, he can gain many of the advantages of a self-sovereign identity — but it could be taken away at any time by the registering entity!Facebook Connect (2008) appeared a few years after OpenID, leveraging lessons learned, and thus was several times more successful largely due to a better user interface. Unfortunately, Facebook Connect veers even further from the original user-centric ideal of user control. To start with, there’s no choice of provider; it’s Facebook. Worse, Facebook has a history of arbitrarily closing accounts, as was seen in their recent real-name controversy. As a result, people who access other sites with their “user-centric” Facebook Connect identity may be even more vulnerable than OpenID users to losing that identity in multiple places at one time.It’s central authorities all over again. Worse, it’s like state-controlled authentication of identity, except with a self-elected “rogue” state.In other words: being user-centric isn’t enough.

Phase Four: Self-Sovereign Identity (individual control across any number of authorities)


User-centric designs turned centralized identities into interoperable federated identities with centralized control, while also respecting some level of user consent about how to share an identity (and with whom). It was an important step toward true user control of identity, but just a step. To take the next step required user autonomy.This is the heart of self-sovereign identity, a term that’s coming into increased use in the ‘10s. Rather than just advocating that users be at the center of the identity process, self-sovereign identity requires that users be the rulers of their own identity.One of the first references to identity sovereignty occurred in February 2012, when developer Moxie Marlinspike wrote about “Sovereign Source Authority”. He said that individuals “have an established Right to an ‘identity’”, but that national registration destroys that sovereignty. Some ideas are in the air, so it’s no surprise that almost simultaneously, in March 2012, Patrick Deegan began work on Open Mustard Seed, an open-source framework that gives users control of their digital identity and their data in decentralized system was one of several "personal cloud" initiatives that appeared around the same time.Since then, the idea of self-sovereign identity has proliferated. Marlinspike has blogged how the term has evolved. As a developer, he shows one way to address self-sovereign identity: as a mathematical policy, where cryptography is used to protect a user’s autonomy and control. However, that’s not the only model. Respect Network instead addresses self-sovereign identity as a legal policy; they define contractual rules and principles that members of their network agree to follow. The Windhover Principles For Digital Identity, Trust and Data and Everynym’s Identity System Essentials offer some additional perspectives on the rapid advent of self-sovereign identity since 2012.

In the last year, self-sovereign identity has also entered the sphere of international policy. This has largely been driven by the refugee crisis that has beset Europe, which has resulted in many people lacking a recognized identity due to their flight from the state that issued their credentials. However, it’s a long-standing international problem, as foreign workers have often been abused by the countries they work in due to the lack of state-issued credentials.If self-sovereign identity was becoming relevant a few years ago, in light of current international crises its importance has skyrocketed.Self-sovereign identity is the next step beyond user-centric identity and that means it begins at the same place: the user must be central to the administration of identity. That requires not just the interoperability of a user’s identity across multiple locations, with the user’s consent, but also true user control of that digital identity, creating user autonomy. To accomplish this, a self-sovereign identity must be transportable; it can’t be locked down to one site or locale.A self-sovereign identity must also allow ordinary users to make claims, which could include personally identifying information or facts about personal capability or group membership. It can even contain information about the user that was asserted by other persons or groups.

The time to move toward self-sovereign identity is now.

The Natural Progression

Now, think about your identity in real life today. You have a birth certificate, a passport, or a driver’s license, in addition to life's changes such as marriage and your job career which essentially tells the world who you are.  Yet, misplaced in the wrong hands your identity is at risk of theft. In today’s era of multiple digital IDs and log-ins, it’s hard to remember them all and even harder to ensure your identity is safe as you progress through life..

Welcome to Main


What if there was a single, easy-to-remember ID that you could use both in real-life and online to share and protect all of your personal information? 
The concept of Self-Sovereign Identity is no longer hypothetical. It’s real, and it’s on the horizon. With the help of blockchain and decentralization technologies, we can now put ownership and control of identity and of personal data in the hands of the user.

However, blockchain today is much like the internet in the early ’90s. It wasn’t until the Web Browser was invented that the internet was truly adopted by the masses; UX being the key element taking the Internet mainstream. Similarly, blockchain is a groundbreaking technology with the promise to change almost every aspect of our lives, but no vessel to take it to the masses. We intend for Main to be the vessel that will take this set of revolutionary technologies to the people.

Our vision for identity here at Main in the coming decade is to create a sovereign ID with which you can share information with family & friends; use as your student ID; as your corporate identity; as your verified driver’s license; as your verified social security; one that will become your single sign-on to all systems both online and offline. You own it and you control it —  not an enterprise or government-controlled entity. No one else has access to it. It is your sovereign ID.

This. Is. You.

The Whitepaper


The Problem.
The Solution.
The Blockchain.
The Token.
The Future.

Read the Whitepaper