zlacker

>>sschue+(OP)
This is a great example of how this whole requirement hasn't been properly thought out.

> Desktop support is not currently within the project's scope.

What I would like to take from this is that, by their own definition, desktop apps are out of scope for Age Verification. So does that mean we will see a return of the 'desktop applications' instead of everything being a web service ?

One can dream perhaps. Until then adults who are willing to 'do what they're told' will be the ones who are inconvenienced by this constantly.

Edit: Also this will completely disable any new phone OS' being developed. Why would anyone bother when you can't verify your wallet to do anything online.

>>bileka+vb
> oes that mean we will see a return of the 'desktop applications'...?

No. It's still required by law, which means that your desktop application will require some interaction with your smartphone.

>>Luker8+xc
The wallet app can be started using a QR code. You can then finish the verification on your phone and continue on the desktop website/app/whatever.

>>Aaargh+Pd
What if you don't have a phone? Or what if your phone runs a custom rom and can't pass google's attlestation?

>>helloj+hl
Then you can't use this method of identification, just like you can't use it now. Surely it won't be the only way to identify yourself online. If this provides a frictionless way to do this for 95% of people then it's already a huge win.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

>>Aaargh+rG
The requirement for age id is already stupid.

The target, which are the children who access "forbidden" websites without authorization is likely to be lower than amount of people who won't be able to access due to those narrow specs.