4 ms·
> We use DIDs for identity but presently no blockchain DID methods. I notice that the documentation[0] says: "We introduced DID Placeholder because we weren't
by dane-pgp 4y ago
> We use DIDs for identity but presently no blockchain DID methods.
I notice that the documentation[0] says:
"We introduced DID Placeholder because we weren't totally satisfied with any of the existing DID methods. ... We cheekily titled the method "Placeholder", because we don't want it to stick around. We're actively hoping to replace it with something less centralized. We expect a method to emerge that fits the bill within the next few years, likely a permissioned DID consortium.
which seems to be an admission that the hard part of distributed social networking isn't actually solved yet, and the project relies on "actively hoping" that a solution will eventually "emerge". I'm also not sure what a "permissioned DID consortium" even is, let alone how it would be useful here.
Anyway, it seems a bit premature to abandon ActivityPub and introduce yet another incompatible social networking silo, based on the hope that the new project's magic placeholder beans eventually grow into a sturdy beanstalk. Perhaps "Beanstalk Social" would therefore be a better name for Jack's project (and he could even keep the same acronym).
[0] https://atproto.com/specs/did-plc https://atproto.com/specs/did-plc
- pfraze 4y agoGrant us a little leeway: it all takes time. The DID PLC registry is a placeholder because what we actually want is akin to a ICAN-style governance over it. When we talk about a “permissioned consortium” we mean as opposed to a “permissionless blockchain.” It’s not that we haven’t solved the mechanics; it’s that the right solution is a people/org problem and not a computing problem. We include DID Web as an option in our system, which comes with its own tradeoffs but essentially falls back to DNS+HTTP as a replacement solution. We did that for a lot of reasons, but one in particular is understanding that we may indeed have gotten this technical decision wrong, and need to move away from PLC. I should note however that DNS is akin to what we’re aiming for with DID PLC — a global org operating the central registry. The most egregiously absent solution with PLC is economic: it costs money to host the DIDs, but we don’t want to pass that cost on to end users. We’re going to need to suss that out, but the answer might just need to be that server operators pay for their registrations. I can understand you preferring ActivityPub. We wanted to pursue a different design. If we’re wrong, and AP thrives, I’ll be happy enough. Also, I missed “cheekily” in the copy review and I’m taking that out.
- dane-pgp 4y agoThank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns. Your transparency is very reassuring, and I appreciate your contributions to this important area of technology. I think I am still uneasy, though, about the idea of hoping for a global governance structure (with unknown accountability and financial controls) to come along and start granting (and revoking) people their online identities. I just feel like the professor in the Far Side cartoon pointing to the blackboard and saying "I think you should be more explicit here in step two"[0], but miracles happen every day, and important breakthroughs can take years of hard work before the answer is clear. Let's hope that you don't get stuck with a system that you're not happy with. [0] https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a3b19e99fad0ee2c1d663d4aa65d8dd1 https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a3b19e99fad0ee2c1d663...
- pfraze 4y agoSure, appreciate the conversation. Also, love that comic. Very fair concern. We’ll keep communicating what’s going on there and see what happens.