alt Hacker News> Which defeats part of the point of passkeys in the first place in that they are supposed to be device-bound
If you watch the original Apple WWDC talk presenting passkeys, you will find that they were always intended to sync, at least for the consumer use-case.
What you are describing is how the WebAuthn standard had been implemented by Yubico and Google up until the point of the introduction of “passkeys” by Apple.
The reason passkeys have their own name and definition is because they are meant to be a phishing-resistant primary factor that competes with the UX of passwords. And a great usability trait of passwords is that they’re convenient to use across all your devices. With a technology involving public/private keypairs, the only possible way to compete with that UX is to sync the private key across the user’s devices.
> the only possible way to compete with that UX is to sync the private key across the user’s devices
This is my issue with passkeys. Either we lessen security to improve UX (syncing across devices implies extracting private keys from secure enclaves, at which point it’s no different to password syncing), or we have a proliferation of different keys per website across devices (assuming the website supports multiple passkeys).
Perhaps this trade off is not resolvable in a way that happily satisfies both the security constraint and the UX requirement.