4 ms·

If you have arguments against DIDs, then raise them here for rational discussion from all POVs, which is something HN is great at. '"evan" was picked up by lit

If you have arguments against DIDs, then raise them here for rational discussion from all POVs, which is something HN is great at. '"evan" was picked up by literally some guy named Evan' is not an argument. It's also not factual. The Evan DID method spec [1] was written by Sebastian Wolfram and Philip Kaiser. It is for the Evan Network, which is a blockchain attempting to provide a usable decentralized market infrastructure. "that list alone is an extreme embarrassment for W3". First, a minor point. w3.org is the domain name, which has some minor cachet because it is a two letter domain. The organization is the World Wide Web Consortium, W3C. Second, hyperbole is present on HN at times, but should be avoided whenever possible because it raises the SNR for your comment, the thread, and HN overall. You could have phrased it without the hyperbole as "the status and standing of the objectors may be an impediment to future DID adoption". More accurate, and signal rather than noise. Of course, if you did any significant standards work you likely would know that objections like these are just as often motivated by market interests. I remember asking an OASIS long-time member about a rep on a standards committee I was on. The rep was from one big company whose name is a household word, and he seemed to do nothing but raise objections and build roadblocks. The long-time member told me he was known as that company's hatchet man. When they wanted to kill a spec before it got voted on they'd send him to join the TC and torpedo it from within. The work quality of the TC did not matter in what he raised, only his company's market drivers. "I need to read up more on the spec". I would suggest you follow my approach: I do not criticize something I have not read end to end twice. The Evan statement above makes me think you didn't even read it once. [1] https://github.com/evannetwork/evan.network-DID-method-specification/blob/master/evan_did_method_spec.md https://github.com/evannetwork/evan.network-DID-method-speci...

NoGravitas 4y ago
> It is for the Evan Network, which is a blockchain attempting to provide a usable decentralized market infrastructure. How's that going for them?
015a 4y ago
Ok; that's my mistake on the Evan one. But here's my counter: when it comes to web standards like this, I am fully prepared and willing to delegate my opinion to Mozilla (and a lesser but still positive degree, Google). The W3 (ok you want to be pedantic; W3C; talk about SNR) additionally has a ton of other extremely mature member organizations; Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Cloudflare, if even one of these organizations had their name anywhere on this spec I'd give it the time of day. I work at one of them; I've worked for two in the past; I know the people, they're extremely smart and well-intentioned. I don't agree with your statement that its worth discounting the professionalism and expertise of some member organizations just because you had one third-hand experience in an entirely unrelated organization of some no-name member roadblocking a proposal because of... market interests. Market interests?! Of course that would be a concern! Proposals need to serve the members of the org. The members of the org are, mostly, for-profit organizations! I'm blown away at the dissonance it takes to complain about non-professional SNR, then immediately follow-up with hearsay and supposition. But, ok, maybe not Web2 Big Tech. Maybe Web3 big tech? Where's the Ethereum Foundation? They're a W3C member org! Block/Square? They're getting very deep into crypto right now; also a member org; silent. Coinbase? Just an exchange, but a member. I mean, the list keeps going on. I've read the spec. I would not claim to fully understand it, but like Mozilla, it feels abstract and very short on even high-level use-cases. I also think TBL's response signals that's by-design; and I think that's a weak response because ultimately if the organizations who do develop tangible use-cases fly-in-the-night four years from now, the spec will become an unnecessary vestige of the web, like so many before it, while the organizations who actually put in the work and deliver value to Real Humans ignore it (or worse, are forced to keep the dying-but-not-dead vestige on life support) (its not the W3C/TBL who pays the six figure engineer salaries that maintain this shit, its their member orgs, and not even the ones who proposed and approved this). I also feel, weakly but still prescient, that while the W3C is relatively egalitarian, we can't ignore the politics. This was GOOGLE and MOZILLA who raised concerns (not to mention one anonymous org). TBL can object, and W3C can set the spec, but at the end of the day it will become a vestige even if the people involved with this spec do their best to make it happen, if Big Tech isn't on-board. I'm not, then, asserting that fighting big tech is never worthwhile; I'm just asserting that the W3C probably isn't the best abstraction layer to fight the fight. So yes: I will criticize. And I'll hyperbolize: the fact that the W3C has hundreds of member organizations, from implementors to thinkers to for-profits and non-profits, and they're willing to overrule real concerns from multiple established and respected members in-favor-of a grocery list of flag-planters, half of which DON'T EVEN HAVE LEGITIMATE WEBSITES, is an embarrassment. But, fortunately, probably, one that everyone will soon forget about.
- beandip0328 4y ago
  Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Cloudflare, if even one of these organizations had their name anywhere on this spec I'd give it the time of day. I work at one of them; I've worked for two in the past; I know the people, they're extremely smart and well-intentioned. Microsoft spent years helping to develop the ION DID method. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/identity-standards-blog/ion-we-have-liftoff/ba-p/1441555 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/identity-standards-bl... Not to mention incorporating DIDs and Verifiable Credentials into Azure AD (which services 95% of the Fortune 1000): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/verifiable-credentials/decentralized-identifier-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/veri... Block/Square? They're getting very deep into crypto right now; also a member org; silent. This would be the exact opposite of silence: https://twitter.com/csuwildcat/status/1542598105044078595?t=Ih7qPVeAM2W9qsUjCftwsw&s=19 https://twitter.com/csuwildcat/status/1542598105044078595?t=... Still feels like your intent is to rag on something you've taken little to no time to look into.

NoGravitas 4y ago

> It is for the Evan Network, which is a blockchain attempting to provide a usable decentralized market infrastructure. How's that going for them?

015a 4y ago

Ok; that's my mistake on the Evan one. But here's my counter: when it comes to web standards like this, I am fully prepared and willing to delegate my opinion to Mozilla (and a lesser but still positive degree, Google). The W3 (ok you want to be pedantic; W3C; talk about SNR) additionally has a ton of other extremely mature member organizations; Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Cloudflare, if even one of these organizations had their name anywhere on this spec I'd give it the time of day. I work at one of them; I've worked for two in the past; I know the people, they're extremely smart and well-intentioned. I don't agree with your statement that its worth discounting the professionalism and expertise of some member organizations just because you had one third-hand experience in an entirely unrelated organization of some no-name member roadblocking a proposal because of... market interests. Market interests?! Of course that would be a concern! Proposals need to serve the members of the org. The members of the org are, mostly, for-profit organizations! I'm blown away at the dissonance it takes to complain about non-professional SNR, then immediately follow-up with hearsay and supposition. But, ok, maybe not Web2 Big Tech. Maybe Web3 big tech? Where's the Ethereum Foundation? They're a W3C member org! Block/Square? They're getting very deep into crypto right now; also a member org; silent. Coinbase? Just an exchange, but a member. I mean, the list keeps going on. I've read the spec. I would not claim to fully understand it, but like Mozilla, it feels abstract and very short on even high-level use-cases. I also think TBL's response signals that's by-design; and I think that's a weak response because ultimately if the organizations who do develop tangible use-cases fly-in-the-night four years from now, the spec will become an unnecessary vestige of the web, like so many before it, while the organizations who actually put in the work and deliver value to Real Humans ignore it (or worse, are forced to keep the dying-but-not-dead vestige on life support) (its not the W3C/TBL who pays the six figure engineer salaries that maintain this shit, its their member orgs, and not even the ones who proposed and approved this). I also feel, weakly but still prescient, that while the W3C is relatively egalitarian, we can't ignore the politics. This was GOOGLE and MOZILLA who raised concerns (not to mention one anonymous org). TBL can object, and W3C can set the spec, but at the end of the day it will become a vestige even if the people involved with this spec do their best to make it happen, if Big Tech isn't on-board. I'm not, then, asserting that fighting big tech is never worthwhile; I'm just asserting that the W3C probably isn't the best abstraction layer to fight the fight. So yes: I will criticize. And I'll hyperbolize: the fact that the W3C has hundreds of member organizations, from implementors to thinkers to for-profits and non-profits, and they're willing to overrule real concerns from multiple established and respected members in-favor-of a grocery list of flag-planters, half of which DON'T EVEN HAVE LEGITIMATE WEBSITES, is an embarrassment. But, fortunately, probably, one that everyone will soon forget about.

beandip0328 4y ago
Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Cloudflare, if even one of these organizations had their name anywhere on this spec I'd give it the time of day. I work at one of them; I've worked for two in the past; I know the people, they're extremely smart and well-intentioned. Microsoft spent years helping to develop the ION DID method. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/identity-standards-blog/ion-we-have-liftoff/ba-p/1441555 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/identity-standards-bl... Not to mention incorporating DIDs and Verifiable Credentials into Azure AD (which services 95% of the Fortune 1000): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/verifiable-credentials/decentralized-identifier-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/veri... Block/Square? They're getting very deep into crypto right now; also a member org; silent. This would be the exact opposite of silence: https://twitter.com/csuwildcat/status/1542598105044078595?t=Ih7qPVeAM2W9qsUjCftwsw&s=19 https://twitter.com/csuwildcat/status/1542598105044078595?t=... Still feels like your intent is to rag on something you've taken little to no time to look into.