6 ms·

(Disclaimer - I work in this space, but these words are my own). My understanding is DIDs are a unique identifier. There's a few methods that can be used regar

(Disclaimer - I work in this space, but these words are my own). My understanding is DIDs are a unique identifier. There's a few methods that can be used regarding the construction of the identifier. It could be a unique key (did:key- https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-key/ https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-key/). It could be using web infrastructure (did:web - https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-web/ https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-web/). It could be using blockchain infrastructure (did:ion). Whatever it is, it becomes an identifier used to receive credentials and send messages to. For example, your digital wallet can have a DID which can be used to store credentials. Your digital wallet can have many DIDs which can be useful to avoid correlation of identities. The credentials (and the identities they represent) themselves are normally bundled into things like Verifiable Credentials (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/ https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/) which have to be issued to something - like a DID.

jiggawatts 4y ago
On second reading with that background knowledge, the crypto pedigree reveals itself: "decentralized", "distributed", "independently of any centralized registry", "distributed ledger", "non-registry based", etc... It all makes sense now! It's yet another attempt at making Web 3.0 happen. Sigh...
- helpfulclippy 4y ago
  I'd argue that of those, "distributed ledger" is the only real red-flaggy one -- and even then, only because of its association with blockchain. I think when engineering web technologies, we should hope to find a lot of talk about decentralized, distributed stuff independent of central registries.
  - k__ 4y ago
    Yes. There is did:peer: and did:git: don't know what issues some people here have with blockchain scams again.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Why sigh? Why are Bitcoin maxis and HN Web 2.0 people so intent on keeping everyone from advancing to the next phases of the Web? Do you like centralized VC-funded “cloud”-hosted startups incubated in Silicon Valley that get gobbled up by big tech or dumped on the public? You like the extreme power inequality between those who run these systems and the public? You think the best our systems can do is extract rents at the behest of Wall Street? People who bought the shares at $100 dont want them to drop to $50 so Uber will take 50% of all drivers’ paychecks, while a decentralized autonomous network wouldn’t. Selling tokens is a one-time deal that makes the founders rich and then the network belongs to the participants. What happened to the open source, hacker ethos? You know, counterculture, hacking on something, or at the very least not buying into the corporate morass? What happened to cypherpunks and people who wrote M$ and worked on Free Software alternatives to Big Tech? Once upon a time America Online, Compuserve and Prodigy were today’s Google, Facebook etc. People left for the open, decentralized protocols like HTTP, as soon as good enough clients (browsers) appeared. Web 2.0 companies like FB or Google could have never even gotten started if they needed permission of AOL or MSN … the permissionless nature Web 1.0 made it possible. Once upon a time, long distance calls cost $3 a minute. Then the decentralized file sharing network Kazaa guys made Skype, and it became so widespread that VOIP dropped the cost to zero. We can all videoconference now and the telcos are reduced to providing dumb pipes. So why if Web 1.0 broke barriers and allowed anyone to write some HTML and serve via HTTP a website to the whole world … why is it sooooo terrible that in Web 3.0 people can write a smart contract and deploy it on some EVM compatible blockchain making the rules or payments instantly accessible to people around the world who control their own keys? Do you really think this won’t have any real applications?
  - mtsr 4y ago
    It might have something to do with all the cryptobro’s pushing get-rich-quick-schemes. Crypto-enthusiasts ignore how regulations existed for good reasons before regulatory capture made a mess of things. Not everyone likes the idea of an anarchocapitalist future. And I’m not even talking about the outright scamming and the fact that most crypto’s primary use case is criminal. Or the environmental issues of spending energy we can’t spare on something we could solve so many other ways.
- bawolff 4y ago
  9 billion buzzwords for basically "url-like string that starts with a vendor prefix"
- reflexco 4y ago
  It's common courtesy not to interject in a technical discussion with identity politics.
  - nailer 4y ago
    if there's was ever any mention of identity politics in jiggawatts' comment it has now been removed.
    - pbarthelemy 4y ago
      I think reflexco meant this as a joke….
      - reflexco 4y ago
        No, this is what identity politics is, reducing technical matters to which camp you're in ("your post gives me crypto vibes, scam!!"). Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this doesn't belong on HN.
        NoGravitas 4y ago
        No. Broad technical camps are not identity politics, and they're a necessary simplification for making judgements about the massive amount of technical novelty being produced today. I am not going to investigate each crypto scam presented to me for all of its technical details; there are too many of them. It's enough to know it's cryptocurrency-adjacent, and therefore, probably a scam.
        seoaeu 4y ago
        Honestly pretty funny that you are so critical of identity politics yet so uninformed about what that term actually means

jiggawatts 4y ago

On second reading with that background knowledge, the crypto pedigree reveals itself: "decentralized", "distributed", "independently of any centralized registry", "distributed ledger", "non-registry based", etc... It all makes sense now! It's yet another attempt at making Web 3.0 happen. Sigh...

helpfulclippy 4y ago
I'd argue that of those, "distributed ledger" is the only real red-flaggy one -- and even then, only because of its association with blockchain. I think when engineering web technologies, we should hope to find a lot of talk about decentralized, distributed stuff independent of central registries.
- k__ 4y ago
  Yes. There is did:peer: and did:git: don't know what issues some people here have with blockchain scams again.
EGreg 4y ago
Why sigh? Why are Bitcoin maxis and HN Web 2.0 people so intent on keeping everyone from advancing to the next phases of the Web? Do you like centralized VC-funded “cloud”-hosted startups incubated in Silicon Valley that get gobbled up by big tech or dumped on the public? You like the extreme power inequality between those who run these systems and the public? You think the best our systems can do is extract rents at the behest of Wall Street? People who bought the shares at $100 dont want them to drop to $50 so Uber will take 50% of all drivers’ paychecks, while a decentralized autonomous network wouldn’t. Selling tokens is a one-time deal that makes the founders rich and then the network belongs to the participants. What happened to the open source, hacker ethos? You know, counterculture, hacking on something, or at the very least not buying into the corporate morass? What happened to cypherpunks and people who wrote M$ and worked on Free Software alternatives to Big Tech? Once upon a time America Online, Compuserve and Prodigy were today’s Google, Facebook etc. People left for the open, decentralized protocols like HTTP, as soon as good enough clients (browsers) appeared. Web 2.0 companies like FB or Google could have never even gotten started if they needed permission of AOL or MSN … the permissionless nature Web 1.0 made it possible. Once upon a time, long distance calls cost $3 a minute. Then the decentralized file sharing network Kazaa guys made Skype, and it became so widespread that VOIP dropped the cost to zero. We can all videoconference now and the telcos are reduced to providing dumb pipes. So why if Web 1.0 broke barriers and allowed anyone to write some HTML and serve via HTTP a website to the whole world … why is it sooooo terrible that in Web 3.0 people can write a smart contract and deploy it on some EVM compatible blockchain making the rules or payments instantly accessible to people around the world who control their own keys? Do you really think this won’t have any real applications?
- mtsr 4y ago
  It might have something to do with all the cryptobro’s pushing get-rich-quick-schemes. Crypto-enthusiasts ignore how regulations existed for good reasons before regulatory capture made a mess of things. Not everyone likes the idea of an anarchocapitalist future. And I’m not even talking about the outright scamming and the fact that most crypto’s primary use case is criminal. Or the environmental issues of spending energy we can’t spare on something we could solve so many other ways.
bawolff 4y ago
9 billion buzzwords for basically "url-like string that starts with a vendor prefix"
reflexco 4y ago
It's common courtesy not to interject in a technical discussion with identity politics.
- nailer 4y ago
  if there's was ever any mention of identity politics in jiggawatts' comment it has now been removed.
  - pbarthelemy 4y ago
    I think reflexco meant this as a joke….
    - reflexco 4y ago
      No, this is what identity politics is, reducing technical matters to which camp you're in ("your post gives me crypto vibes, scam!!"). Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this doesn't belong on HN.
      - NoGravitas 4y ago
        No. Broad technical camps are not identity politics, and they're a necessary simplification for making judgements about the massive amount of technical novelty being produced today. I am not going to investigate each crypto scam presented to me for all of its technical details; there are too many of them. It's enough to know it's cryptocurrency-adjacent, and therefore, probably a scam.
      - seoaeu 4y ago
        Honestly pretty funny that you are so critical of identity politics yet so uninformed about what that term actually means