IAME - Sistem Identifikasi Terdesentralisasi Untuk Ekosistem Blockchain

Abstract  

A decentralized identification system that would allow parties performing blockchain transactions to verify, on a primary level, the identity of each other without having to disclose non-essential sensitive personal information to the counterparties; and on a secondary level the source of the Cryptocurrencies in the transaction. Identification would be conducted by a multitude of independent third party validators, each verifying fragments of information that together would constitute a complete verification, such that only the original owner of the sensitive personal information retains her/his data in a wholesome and useful way. The result of the identification process would be hashed onto a designated blockchain and made accessible on a public repository such that the identification status and source of the cryptocurrencies associated with specific blockchain addresses can be consulted, without compromising the unique identification data.

Introduction 

Current identification systems rely on people having to share their personal information and supporting evidence with counterparties in order to identify themselves and their source of wealth. Those counterparties hold the shared data wholly, and the more data a person shares with those counterparties, the easier it is to identify the person and their source of wealth. If a person is to transact with n counterparties, it results into a topological star network with n nodes, each acting as point of vulnerability to the data sharer. Regardless of security measures, the more data a person surrenders, the more severe the fallout from any potential security breach.

All too often the counterparties/nodes do share the data partially or wholly with third parties, which in turn extends the initial star network, hence increasing the number of points of vulnerability in the former network. Technological innovation in encryption mostly work with regards to securing the transmission of data between two or more nodes in a network, however they do not address the issue of an increase in the number of nodes in a sensible data network. As the number of electronic transactions a person conducts increases in frequency, the number of nodes in their personal data network subsequently increases exponentially, consequently increasing the number of points of vulnerability.

The solution we are proposing is to change the way the identification process is conducted to the point that a person’s data is fragmented prior to confirmation by a series of independent third parties, who are not affiliated to any parties within the transaction. The third parties would be assigned the task of confirming fractured pieces of personal data, which by themselves are useless to malicious parties, however, the sum of which would constitute a valid identification to the transactional counterparty. As a result of this, this would bypass the need for any transactional counterparty from having to process or store non-essential data.

The above process would take place on the IAME Identification Network, a purpose-built system to service the fragmented identification process,fueled by the IAM cryptographic token. Functionality of the IAME Identification Network would principally serve Blockchain P2P transactions, however, usage would be extensible to merchant transactions and financial institutions in the provision of blockchain related services.

Deconstructing the Identification Process 

The conventional identification process starts with a party acceding to a request by a counterparty to identify itself so that that the counterparty may ascertain to a level with whom it is transacting. The party submits a statement filled with data that the counterparty has deemed to be necessary and the corresponding supporting evidence. After mapping the data to the supporting evidence, a decision is reached on whether identification of the party can be ascertained.

The process assumes that: 

if the party is genuine then all provided statements can be mapped onto supporting documentation. In principle, the more data that can be mapped on more supporting documents, the more difficult it is for a party to falsify its identity.

The mapping process itself is quite simplistic and can be categorized as follows:

1. Statement to string confirmation 

2. Statement to non-string confirmation 

3. Statement to publicly available information confirmation 

4. Statement to privately available information confirmation 

5. Statement to government records confirmation. 

Any identification process that can gather a maximum of the above mapping data is ideal for counterparties to guarantee that they are dealing with a genuine person, however, it can be disastrous for the sharing-party in the event of a security breach.

Fragmenting the Identification Process 

Building on the previous identification process, the same mapping functions can be achieved without the party disclosing any non-relevant data to a counterparty - by delegating the mapping functions to unrelated third-party Validators. The statement, supporting evidence and functions, would first have to be fragmented in such a way that third-party validators would be confirming fragments of data that, on their own, cannot be used by any malicious third party. However, together, the sum of confirmations would constitute a complete identification process.

Considering a simple scenario whereby a counterparty requires confirmation of 3 string type statements with an identification document as supporting evidence:

1. First Name: “John” 

2. Last Name: “Doe” 

3. Country: “Mauritius”

From the above information, a simplistic fragmentation can be derived by sending the 3 string type statements to be confirmed with the corresponding section of the identification document string to 3 different third-party validators who would each confirm the content of the string. The summation of their independent validations would hence be used as the equivalent of the counterparty itself validating the 3 string type statements by itself. Contrasted with a traditional identification process, in the fragmented identification process, the usefulness of the data is exponentially decreasing with the increase in fragmentation.

Drawing on on the fragmented identification principle, statements can be further fragmented to transform any useful string type statement into unintelligible data:

1. String Type Statement: John 

2. Fragment A: “Jo” 

3. Fragment B: “hn” 

4. Fragment C: “oh” 

Using the above process, we have rendered the string type statement, “John”, useless to potential malicious third-party validators.

 The IAM Token 

To operate the IAME Identification Network, a functional token will be issued, known as the IAM Token, which would operate as a validation token to initiate confirmation requests for validation packets on the IAME Identification Network. Parties would spend the token through the IAME Identification Network client and after deduction of equivalent blockchain hashing costs, the balance of IAM token would be paid out as reward to third-party validators who operate the validation processes on a for-profit basis. 

This would attribute not a store of value to the token but a market value based on natural demand and supply for identification processes. The value of the IAM Token would be, in essence, determined by 2 factors:

1. The cost of validation, which would be proportional to the financial cost of hashing the requested amount of data on the designated blockchain, setting a price floor for the token.

 2. Market demand, which would be proportional to the demand for blockchain identification based on the IAME Identification Network.

Because of the the ephemeral aspect of data validation in the field of identification, market demand would remain recurring and would only increase with an increased adoption of the IAME Identification Network.

 Reward and Ranking Mechanism 

As a continuation to the Trial Algorithm, there is a need for a reward and a ranking mechanism in such a way that good third-party validators are rewarded and bad third-party validators penalized. For this mechanism, two reward systems are proposed: a token reward system and a node ranking system.

1. The token reward system allocates a pool of IAM Tokens to the third-party validators for completing the fragmented validation process akin to mining 

2. The ranking system attributes an internal ranking system to third-party validators within the IAME Identification Network, such that higher ranked validators receive a higher proportion of the tokens, which is indicative of their ranks.. 

In principle, the determination of the allocation of any IAM token pool would be a function of the outcome of the Tribunal, while the ranking system would be a function of the outcomes of the Appeal and the Control Tribunal. Due to the application of a double blind procedure, the third-party validators would not be at any time aware of whether they are in a Tribunal, an Appeal, or a Control Tribunal - further reducing any risk of gaming the system. Third-party validation would be open to the public and, in the long-run, poorly ranked third-party validators would be banned from acting as nodes.

Official website

Whitepaper

Roadmap

Price - 1 IAM = 0.0001 ETH

Soft Cap - 1,000,000 USD

For more information and joining IAME social media today please follow the following links:

• Situs web : https://iame.io
• Whitepaper : https://iame.io/res/180301-IAME-White-Paper-en.pdf
• Facebook : https://facebook.com/IAMEidentity
• Twitter : https://twitter.com/@iameidentity
• Telegram : https://t.me/iame_identity

Bitcointalk Username: Uzael5968

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1359859

Address: 0x7631a7781f42B83CC1A40C3D0d44b3A4CD5b2254