With an asymmetric cryptographic key you can sign messages to prove that those messages came from the same specific private key.
You can then create strong evidence of the identity of the key (that you have the key) by using systems/accounts that are identified to you and that only you have access to share other signed messages that proves that the owner of the account has the private key in question.
This is probably more convenient and trusted world wide (some people might not trust authorities of unknown countries but might trust some online systems that are known worldwide) while offering a comparable level of security/trust to my opinion.
The traditional channels of law/notary/governments have their benefits too (like physical inspection to match a government provided ID) but it looks like to me that they also have bigger costs (harder to access the data (probably not digitalized or protected from public acces) , higher fees, potentially less recognized worldwide)
With an asymmetric cryptographic key you can sign messages to prove that those messages came from the same specific private key. You can then create strong evidence of the identity of the key (that you have the key) by using systems/accounts that are identified to you and that only you have access to share other signed messages that proves that the owner of the account has the private key in question. This is probably more convenient and trusted world wide (some people might not trust authorities of unknown countries but might trust some online systems that are known worldwide) while offering a comparable level of security/trust to my opinion. The traditional channels of law/notary/governments have their benefits too (like physical inspection to match a government provided ID) but it looks like to me that they also have bigger costs (harder to access the data (probably not digitalized or protected from public acces) , higher fees, potentially less recognized worldwide)