I'm a personal and professional advocate from r passkeys, yet I must acknowledge that your criticisms and skepticism are valid. I don't see this as a flaw in the passkeys concept so much as a growing pain. It's a very different mental model, and I've seen businesses make some very poor implementation decisions based on some poor understanding of what this system aims to be. That in turn adds to a bad consumer impression, a growing body of bad examples for others to look to and replucate, and it all just compounds.
This rebuttalakes no sense to me. What you cite is about about transport encryption. App -> Server. The end of the process is that the receiver (Telegram servers) receives a decrypted (plaintext) message, just as kelsey98765431 is saying.
The simplified terminology is not for you or I as technologists. It is for the general consumer market. Yes, public/private key cryptography has been a thing for decades, but it has been out of reach for the consumer market. The whole passkey idea is to reduce the technical and cognitive friction to make it a viable replacement for passwords.
Yes! I dove into this (and later, Moondlander) because I have mobility issues and had to reduce travel, but the resulting 90WPM and (unprovably) faster coding have been awesome side-effects.
> Yeah it's a neat idea but I struggle to think of good use-cases [...] If I'm working on a service [...]
I suspect that's simply not the use-case they're targeting. You're thinking of a database as simply the persistence component for your service, a means to an end. For you, the service/app/software is the thing you're trying to deliver. Where this looks useful is the cases where the data itself is the thing you're trying to deliver.
Yes, thank you. A mindset which thinks that documentation is wasted due to a need to constantly update, is cousin to the mindset which thinks that software, once written, is a purchased asset which needs no further attention nor maintenance.
