Все публикации

Vitalik Buterin: Zero-Knowledge-Based Digital IDs Come with Serious Risks

Digital identity credentials. A review by a Bitcoin mixer: mixer.money
Vitalik Buterin: Zero-Knowledge-Based Digital IDs Come with Serious Risks

  1. The Benefits of ZK Identity Credentials
  2. Coercion and Centralization?
  3. Privacy Issues and Systemic Failures
  4. Potential Alternatives

In recent years, digital identity systems based on zero-knowledge proofs (ZK-proofs) have become one of the most talked-about areas in digital identification. Projects like World (formerly Worldcoin), backed by Sam Altman and Alex Blania, promise users the ability to prove their uniqueness and “humanness” without revealing personal data. But despite the clear benefits, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin warns that even the most advanced digital ID systems carry serious risks, especially when it comes to coercion and privacy protection.

The Benefits of ZK Identity Credentials

Zero-knowledge technology allows users to prove specific facts about themselves (like age, citizenship, or uniqueness as an individual) without revealing the underlying data. This is made possible through advanced cryptographic protocols that confirm a user meets certain criteria without disclosing sensitive information. As a result, ZK identity credentials could become powerful tools for combating bots, Sybil attacks, and fraud in areas like social networks, online voting, and other digital services.

On the surface, such systems seem like an ideal solution — they protect users from manipulation, ensure authenticity in online interactions, and eliminate the need to share personal information with third parties. This is especially crucial in an era where AI and sophisticated bots pose increasing threats to online environments.

Coercion and Centralization?

However, Buterin emphasizes that the biggest danger isn’t in the technology itself, but in how it’s implemented and governed. Most modern digital ID projects — including World — follow a “one person, one ID” principle. This means each user can have only a single public identifier, even if it’s wrapped in a ZK-proof layer.

In the real world, pseudonymity and anonymity often rely on the ability to maintain multiple accounts across different platforms. This separation allows people to manage their professional, personal, and public lives while shielding themselves from surveillance, harassment, or pressure from governments, employers, or bad actors. In a system built around a single universal ID, this flexibility disappears, and all user actions can be effectively tied to one public identity.

Buterin warns that this creates a risk of coercion. States, corporations, or online platforms could demand disclosure of a person’s primary ID, gaining access to their entire digital footprint. This is especially dangerous in a world facing growing threats from mass surveillance via drones and digital monitoring. Taking away people’s ability to protect themselves through pseudonyms and nicknames strips them of a vital tool for personal safety and privacy.

Privacy Issues and Systemic Failures

Even if a system relies on zero-knowledge proofs, it doesn’t eliminate all the risks associated with data leaks or technical errors. For example, issues with biometric data, lack of documentation, or stateless individuals could exclude certain users from these systems or subject them to discrimination. And if a digital ID becomes mandatory for accessing essential services, losing or having one’s ID revoked could lock a person out of critical resources.

Buterin also criticizes systems that rely on “proof of wealth” as an anti-Sybil mechanism. Such models exclude people who can’t afford to buy additional credentials, concentrating power among the wealthy and deepening social inequality in digital spaces.

Potential Alternatives

As an alternative, Buterin proposes a “pluralistic identity” model, where users can maintain multiple digital credentials. This would help distribute risks and reduce the likelihood of coercion since no single ID would hold all of a person’s information. He also advocates for decentralized credential issuance, where control is not concentrated in the hands of one organization or government, but distributed across multiple independent entities.

Another promising approach involves advanced cryptographic protocols, like multi-party computations, which can further protect user privacy, though these solutions require more complex infrastructure and closer cooperation between applications.

Conclusion

Zero-knowledge-based digital identity systems represent an important step forward for digital infrastructure, but they’re no silver bullet. As Vitalik Buterin points out, even the most sophisticated technology cannot fully eliminate the risks of coercion and privacy breaches if the system is built around a rigid “one person, one ID” framework. To safeguard users’ rights and freedoms, the digital identity space needs to strike a balance between security, convenience, and the ability to remain anonymous or pseudonymous online.

Ultimately, the top priority for developers should not be total transparency, but rather, the protection of user privacy. Only then can we build a digital environment that’s genuinely safe, fair, and open to all.


logo bitcoin mixer mixer.money

Our Bitcoin mixer publishes a weekly roundup
of interesting news from the world of cryptocurrencies.
Visit our blog: