3 ms·
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
by 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 agoExcept 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