The future will be easy to use

Sat Dec 2 20:08:28 PST 1995

>That's today's method, more or less.  It doesn't address my needs.  The
>name you pick for your key may or may not mean anything to me.  It might be
>pronounceable, giving it some advantage over a radix-64 string, but it
>might also be non-unique, making it worthless as an identifier.
>
>What means something to me is whatever name (or symbol) I assign to the
>person behind the key in question.  That's the one in my mind and therefore
>the only one of interest to me.  You, however, don't know what's in my
>mind.  You don't even know my preferred symbol set.
>

Why not give it two names?  A local name that could be a icon or something,
and a universal name (i.e. MD5 hash of key)