7 ms·

I may be wrong, but are you thinking of DIDs as an ID for an object, like CIDs in IPFS. If so, then you are confusing what DIDs are for. They're created as a me

I may be wrong, but are you thinking of DIDs as an ID for an object, like CIDs in IPFS. If so, then you are confusing what DIDs are for. They're created as a method of using some distributed network as a backend for a entity (could be a Human, could be another machine) to store their identifiers on. These entity's can take actions, like signing a doc and uploading it to a blockchain. The DID in this instance is the record of verifying who this entity is, and if they should be trusted to do that action. Content addressable IDs, or CIDs in IPFS are used to identity a document or object. So the distinction here is objects (some record of data) vs entities (something that can take actions).

hobofan 8y ago
For a lot of use-cases cases I don't see a need for a distinction between the two (if you don't have a requirement for mutability, revokation, etc.). Especially in recent developments in the decentralized space, it seems to me that having most data (regardless of object or entity) be immutable and content-addressable, makes reasoning about systems a lot easier, since you don't have to worry about the data you are pointing to changing from under you. Of course, different use-cases have different needs. > The DID in this instance is the record of verifying who this entity is, and if they should be trusted to do that action. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to use a CID for that. As long as the content the CID points to contains the record of the entity, and a cryptographic signature, you could do the exact same thing.
- eudoxus 8y ago
  Except in the DID instance, you can represent a DID using a CID. This is how IPFS creates their implementation called IPID[0]. DID is a schema/protocol for DID and DDO, and its associated content. Its one step higher then a CID. [0] - https://github.com/jonnycrunch/ipid https://github.com/jonnycrunch/ipid

hobofan 8y ago

For a lot of use-cases cases I don't see a need for a distinction between the two (if you don't have a requirement for mutability, revokation, etc.). Especially in recent developments in the decentralized space, it seems to me that having most data (regardless of object or entity) be immutable and content-addressable, makes reasoning about systems a lot easier, since you don't have to worry about the data you are pointing to changing from under you. Of course, different use-cases have different needs. > The DID in this instance is the record of verifying who this entity is, and if they should be trusted to do that action. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to use a CID for that. As long as the content the CID points to contains the record of the entity, and a cryptographic signature, you could do the exact same thing.

eudoxus 8y ago
Except in the DID instance, you can represent a DID using a CID. This is how IPFS creates their implementation called IPID[0]. DID is a schema/protocol for DID and DDO, and its associated content. Its one step higher then a CID. [0] - https://github.com/jonnycrunch/ipid https://github.com/jonnycrunch/ipid