6 ms·

I'm gonna bet just from the requirements list quoted in that post that the implementations are supposed to be blockchains.

by aasasd 4y ago

inopinatus 4y ago
Spot on. The list at https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#did-methods https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#did-methods tells you everyone who hopes to cash in. Basically it's like a urn, but every sketchy blockchain startup gets their own namespace.
- aasasd 4y ago
  Do they explain anywhere whether the browser is expected to keep a bunch of multi-gigabyte blockchains on my disk? Or, is it simply that Google, Mozilla and whoever else have to serve verification requests for their users? Or is the whole joke in that none of this is figured out?
  - duskwuff 4y ago
    If I had to guess, I'd say it's the third one. Given that Mozilla and Google have already publicly objected to this proposal, I don't expect them to implement it. The W3C's word is not the law; no one is obligated to implement every specification they put forth.
  - ajvs 4y ago
    That's never been a requirement. There exists SPV to verify cryptographic signatures without downloading a blockchain.
  - unreal37 4y ago
    It's simply a URI standard for crypto signatures. It provides no function except an address to something else. That's why Google is asking for a few "working" integrations to prove the theory. Because someone goes to implement it and figures out the standard is missing something they need critically, they can modify the standard before it becomes a 1.0 standard.
- 015a 4y ago
  I think it speaks extreme volumes that the "methods" of "did" and "com" were both proposed by no-name crypto organizations; "cosmos" seems to be proposed by one guy with a template website maybe unrelated to the relatively major Cosmos blockchain (they're fighting amongst themselves lol); "ens" was proposed by some organization with no website; "evan" was picked up by literally some guy named Evan. Its not just that they're crypto related; its not even the major players in the crypto space. There are physical organizations you can point to in the crypto space, and if they hopped in and said "yeah this is cool" then that's something. 80% of these organizations have nothing to them. They look like they were formed overnight as this proposal was going through its development. The only seemingly legitimate proposal in that list, not an obvious planting-my-flag-in-the-ground, is: Baidu proposes "ccp". Lol. Looks like Workday is there proposing "work" as well, that's... something. I need to read up more on the spec, but that list alone is an extreme embarrassment for W3. Google & Mozilla bring up a fantastic point: What are these things actually going to be used for, not hypothetically, in reality, what is the use case? Its very clear that the Web2 players don't have a good answer for that, and even the successful Web3 players don't either. Is the best response W3 has actually a bunch of nobodies who see something that kind of resembles (but not really) a new DNS, and want to plant their flag in case it gets big?
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    > plant their flag in case it gets big? You have just summarised crypto.
  - csande17 4y ago
    Don't forget the Korean Ministry of the Interior, who are apparently using a two-line Markdown file as their website and a random Gmail address as their only method of contact. For an identity verification standard, you'd think they'd demand the authors have more verifiable identities.
    - 015a 4y ago
      I understand that the list presented there is more-so early stage proposals; its not like they've been registered to manage that DID method. That being said; it speaks some amount to the professionalism of the authors and supporters of this spec. The sane people ask: what are the real, tangible use-cases? There's no answer. Ok, well short of that: are there are least real, tangible organizations who will be building on top of this? Not only is the answer weak, but the meeting notes from the DID-WG indicate a high level aversion to any known, named authority participating in a significant capacity [1]. They were rather concerned about Mastercard's proposed "id" DID method, for privacy/centralization reasons, maybe those are valid but... > Markus Sabadello: … Even if we don’t apply it, since in the past we haven’t, even then I think this registration should not be accepted as-is, because it’s incomplete.. > Manu Sporny: Just about every DID Method is incomplete… not a good criteria.. It really comes off as a bunch of people who are mad at the centralization of big tech, want to change it, but lack focus & expertise on how to implement that change. And they managed to drag W3C/TBL down to their level. [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2022-01-11-did https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2022-01-11-d...
- nailer 4y ago
  Why are they calling these 'methods' ? These names are not verbs, they're nouns. Why not call them 'providers' or similar?

I'm gonna bet just from the requirements list quoted in that post that the implementations are supposed to be blockchains.

by aasasd 4y ago

I'm gonna bet just from the requirements list quoted in that post that the implementations are supposed to be blockchains.

inopinatus 4y ago

Spot on. The list at https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#did-methods https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#did-methods tells you everyone who hopes to cash in. Basically it's like a urn, but every sketchy blockchain startup gets their own namespace.

aasasd 4y ago
Do they explain anywhere whether the browser is expected to keep a bunch of multi-gigabyte blockchains on my disk? Or, is it simply that Google, Mozilla and whoever else have to serve verification requests for their users? Or is the whole joke in that none of this is figured out?
- duskwuff 4y ago
  If I had to guess, I'd say it's the third one. Given that Mozilla and Google have already publicly objected to this proposal, I don't expect them to implement it. The W3C's word is not the law; no one is obligated to implement every specification they put forth.
- ajvs 4y ago
  That's never been a requirement. There exists SPV to verify cryptographic signatures without downloading a blockchain.
- unreal37 4y ago
  It's simply a URI standard for crypto signatures. It provides no function except an address to something else. That's why Google is asking for a few "working" integrations to prove the theory. Because someone goes to implement it and figures out the standard is missing something they need critically, they can modify the standard before it becomes a 1.0 standard.
015a 4y ago
I think it speaks extreme volumes that the "methods" of "did" and "com" were both proposed by no-name crypto organizations; "cosmos" seems to be proposed by one guy with a template website maybe unrelated to the relatively major Cosmos blockchain (they're fighting amongst themselves lol); "ens" was proposed by some organization with no website; "evan" was picked up by literally some guy named Evan. Its not just that they're crypto related; its not even the major players in the crypto space. There are physical organizations you can point to in the crypto space, and if they hopped in and said "yeah this is cool" then that's something. 80% of these organizations have nothing to them. They look like they were formed overnight as this proposal was going through its development. The only seemingly legitimate proposal in that list, not an obvious planting-my-flag-in-the-ground, is: Baidu proposes "ccp". Lol. Looks like Workday is there proposing "work" as well, that's... something. I need to read up more on the spec, but that list alone is an extreme embarrassment for W3. Google & Mozilla bring up a fantastic point: What are these things actually going to be used for, not hypothetically, in reality, what is the use case? Its very clear that the Web2 players don't have a good answer for that, and even the successful Web3 players don't either. Is the best response W3 has actually a bunch of nobodies who see something that kind of resembles (but not really) a new DNS, and want to plant their flag in case it gets big?
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  > plant their flag in case it gets big? You have just summarised crypto.
- csande17 4y ago
  Don't forget the Korean Ministry of the Interior, who are apparently using a two-line Markdown file as their website and a random Gmail address as their only method of contact. For an identity verification standard, you'd think they'd demand the authors have more verifiable identities.
  - 015a 4y ago
    I understand that the list presented there is more-so early stage proposals; its not like they've been registered to manage that DID method. That being said; it speaks some amount to the professionalism of the authors and supporters of this spec. The sane people ask: what are the real, tangible use-cases? There's no answer. Ok, well short of that: are there are least real, tangible organizations who will be building on top of this? Not only is the answer weak, but the meeting notes from the DID-WG indicate a high level aversion to any known, named authority participating in a significant capacity [1]. They were rather concerned about Mastercard's proposed "id" DID method, for privacy/centralization reasons, maybe those are valid but... > Markus Sabadello: … Even if we don’t apply it, since in the past we haven’t, even then I think this registration should not be accepted as-is, because it’s incomplete.. > Manu Sporny: Just about every DID Method is incomplete… not a good criteria.. It really comes off as a bunch of people who are mad at the centralization of big tech, want to change it, but lack focus & expertise on how to implement that change. And they managed to drag W3C/TBL down to their level. [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2022-01-11-did https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2022-01-11-d...
nailer 4y ago
Why are they calling these 'methods' ? These names are not verbs, they're nouns. Why not call them 'providers' or similar?