>>14
You could use PGP for anything OpenID is designed for, and while I think something similar to OpenID could be useful for making authenticators, I don't think using an authenticator for identification is a good idea. In OpenID's case, it just shifts the authority onto DNS- something that can and still is broken regularly.

If a message board wants users to identify themselves, they should do the exact opposite and use an identification system as an authenticator. For example, it can require PGP-signed messages. If the user wants to delete the messages (or edit them) they can simply encode the change-request as a unified-diff that has been PGP-signed. Anyone can create a PGP-key, and despite convention, they don't have to be tied to an email address and could easily be used for pseudonyms.

I am extremely nervous about security protocols that are complicated, and opposed to security protocols that don't offer any value. Anything that starts talking about "credibility protocols" sets off red flags for me. In short, OpenID looks to me to be a bad idea.