4 ms·

> PLC isn’t tied to atproto Isn’t PLC (a did method created by bluesky) tied to bluesky (or some other central authority)? Why do they call it a did when it’s

> PLC isn’t tied to atproto Isn’t PLC (a did method created by bluesky) tied to bluesky (or some other central authority)? Why do they call it a did when it’s centralised? As did:plc isnt portable, why didn’t they just use did:web, and decorate the identity docs with PLC-like behaviour? Why isn’t the method-specific-id part of the did something deterministic/portable, like a hash of a public key that can at least permit some revolver-driven portability? Why didn’t they use some mechanism for decentralisation, like a DHT (e.g. did:pkarr)? It seems to me that PLC is thinly veiled attempt for another master to exert control.

danabramov 1y ago
I think they're saying using PLC as an identity method is not tied to buying into the whole AT spec. So you can use it for something else. >Isn’t PLC tied to bluesky (or some other central authority)? Yes, PLC is currently tied to Bluesky, and is in the process of moving out into a separate legal entity (https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org). It would indeed remain centralized. >Why didn’t they use some mechanism for decentralisation, like a DHT (e.g. did:pkarr)? AFAIK Bluesky is open to supporting more did methods in atproto in the future as long as they can act as permanent identifiers. I found a response from Bryan about `did:dht` here: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/discussions/2705#discussioncomment-11514233 https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/discussions/2705#d...: >did:dht is interesting and maybe could work, for atproto, but there have been many DHT projects in the history of decentralized computing, and only a small handful have really worked out. AKA, been resilient to abuse, attacks, neglect, etc, over years and decades. magnet links are cool but kind of the exception to the rule. I think if the W3C standardized did:dht it could be a real contender, but somebody needs to carry the flag and demonstrate it working "in real life" with millions of users, and I suspect that will be difficult, and I would not expect Bluesky to lead that charge (we already have our own pet DID method to maintain and support).
rmccue 1y ago
DIDs are a W3C standard, not invented by Bluesky. The PLC method specifically is currently hosted by them, but they’re working on moving it, as Dan says. The method specific ID for PLC is a hash of the genesis operation, so it’s not just an arbitrary ID that the PLC server creates.
- supermatt 1y ago
  The PLC DID method is absolutely created by bluesky. I never said the id they use is arbitrary, I said why not use something deterministic, so it can be handled by alternate resolvers - something that is absolutely possible while still maintaining plc integrity.
  - Retr0id 1y ago
    It can be handled by alternative resolvers, like https://plc.wtf https://plc.wtf
    - supermatt 1y ago
      Non-plc resolvers. This resolver you referenced is still using plc.directory upstream.
      - Retr0id 1y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what a non-plc plc resolver would entail.
  - rmccue 1y ago
    I never said it wasn’t created by Bluesky, so I’m really not sure why you’re trying to argue that I am. The point is that PLC is usable as a DID method for things that aren’t atproto. The ID is deterministic, you can reconstruct it by hashing the genesis entry in the audit log.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
verdverm 1y ago
> why didn’t they just use did:web If you lose your domain, you lose your account. The PLC doesn't have this particular issue
- supermatt 1y ago
  I’m not even suggesting people use their own did:web - for that very reason. I am saying that Bluesky could have used a did:web that uses the plc domain with exactly the same effect. As is all did:plc resolution is effectively hardcoded to https://plc.directory https://plc.directory so what exactly does having its own method change (given they could decorate the docs with any additional functionality)? I don’t think did:web is the way forward either, as any domain “ownership” is temporary - including plc.directory. Even extending did:key (so the identity is actually owned by the user via a keypair) and providing a doc resolver (users could register with multiple “resolvers” including bluesky controlled ones) would at least mean an id not tied to a central authority - but they chose to use their own assigned method specific identifiers. ATProto is great. PLC sucks.
  - verdverm 1y ago
    Some interesting points in there you have made. I run my own PLC read-only mirror and do resolution that way, the main PLC is not hardcoded and is a variable you can configure in the official packages There is also talk of supporting the did:webvh (or something like that) which addresses the domain loss iirc. > multiple “resolvers As an ATProto developer, how many authorities would I have to consult? Where would that list come from and live? More builders are welcome if you want to work on this problem. I'm working on private data and permissions for ATProto
    - supermatt 1y ago
      At present you would have one - bluesky. Just as with PLC. I would hope that some form of truly distributed resolvers would become commonplace - such as those that leverage mainline DHT - and bluesky could then switch to that as well. Where do these discussions take place? I’d love to get involved somehow.
supermatt 1y ago
It seems like this comment is getting downvoted. For what exactly? If I am wrong about something then point it out.
- verdverm 1y ago
  The last sentence is most likely, also blockchain is looked down upon here as it has never lived up to the supposed benefits. They come with a host of problems something like the proof-of-authority ledger the PLC uses does not have. Yes, some centralization was exchanged for not being blockchain based, an acceptable tradeoff imho
  - supermatt 1y ago
    There are lots of options not using blockchain - I never even mentioned blockchain once. The proof of authority ledger that PLC uses can still be used via canonical resolution of actual decentralised did methods. Right now it’s not a did (decentralised identifier) - it’s just a centralised bluesky plc id masquerading as a did.
    - verdverm 1y ago
      > I never even mentioned blockchain once DHT is effectively synonymous with blockchain if you need to have distributed, permissionless writes. How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? Also, commenting about downvoting will get you more downvotes
      - supermatt 1y ago
        > How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? By being a DHT, not a blockchain? There are many ways for permissionless updates, such as those employed by BEP-44 on mainline DHT (BitTorrent - not blockchain based), IPNS (part of IPFS - also not blockchain based). I don’t really care about the downvotes - I just want people to comment why, because I’ve said little that isn’t true.

danabramov 1y ago

I think they're saying using PLC as an identity method is not tied to buying into the whole AT spec. So you can use it for something else. >Isn’t PLC tied to bluesky (or some other central authority)? Yes, PLC is currently tied to Bluesky, and is in the process of moving out into a separate legal entity (https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org). It would indeed remain centralized. >Why didn’t they use some mechanism for decentralisation, like a DHT (e.g. did:pkarr)? AFAIK Bluesky is open to supporting more did methods in atproto in the future as long as they can act as permanent identifiers. I found a response from Bryan about `did:dht` here: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/discussions/2705#discussioncomment-11514233 https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/discussions/2705#d...: >did:dht is interesting and maybe could work, for atproto, but there have been many DHT projects in the history of decentralized computing, and only a small handful have really worked out. AKA, been resilient to abuse, attacks, neglect, etc, over years and decades. magnet links are cool but kind of the exception to the rule. I think if the W3C standardized did:dht it could be a real contender, but somebody needs to carry the flag and demonstrate it working "in real life" with millions of users, and I suspect that will be difficult, and I would not expect Bluesky to lead that charge (we already have our own pet DID method to maintain and support).

rmccue 1y ago

DIDs are a W3C standard, not invented by Bluesky. The PLC method specifically is currently hosted by them, but they’re working on moving it, as Dan says. The method specific ID for PLC is a hash of the genesis operation, so it’s not just an arbitrary ID that the PLC server creates.

supermatt 1y ago
The PLC DID method is absolutely created by bluesky. I never said the id they use is arbitrary, I said why not use something deterministic, so it can be handled by alternate resolvers - something that is absolutely possible while still maintaining plc integrity.
- Retr0id 1y ago
  It can be handled by alternative resolvers, like https://plc.wtf https://plc.wtf
  - supermatt 1y ago
    Non-plc resolvers. This resolver you referenced is still using plc.directory upstream.
    - Retr0id 1y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what a non-plc plc resolver would entail.
- rmccue 1y ago
  I never said it wasn’t created by Bluesky, so I’m really not sure why you’re trying to argue that I am. The point is that PLC is usable as a DID method for things that aren’t atproto. The ID is deterministic, you can reconstruct it by hashing the genesis entry in the audit log.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

verdverm 1y ago

> why didn’t they just use did:web If you lose your domain, you lose your account. The PLC doesn't have this particular issue

supermatt 1y ago
I’m not even suggesting people use their own did:web - for that very reason. I am saying that Bluesky could have used a did:web that uses the plc domain with exactly the same effect. As is all did:plc resolution is effectively hardcoded to https://plc.directory https://plc.directory so what exactly does having its own method change (given they could decorate the docs with any additional functionality)? I don’t think did:web is the way forward either, as any domain “ownership” is temporary - including plc.directory. Even extending did:key (so the identity is actually owned by the user via a keypair) and providing a doc resolver (users could register with multiple “resolvers” including bluesky controlled ones) would at least mean an id not tied to a central authority - but they chose to use their own assigned method specific identifiers. ATProto is great. PLC sucks.
- verdverm 1y ago
  Some interesting points in there you have made. I run my own PLC read-only mirror and do resolution that way, the main PLC is not hardcoded and is a variable you can configure in the official packages There is also talk of supporting the did:webvh (or something like that) which addresses the domain loss iirc. > multiple “resolvers As an ATProto developer, how many authorities would I have to consult? Where would that list come from and live? More builders are welcome if you want to work on this problem. I'm working on private data and permissions for ATProto
  - supermatt 1y ago
    At present you would have one - bluesky. Just as with PLC. I would hope that some form of truly distributed resolvers would become commonplace - such as those that leverage mainline DHT - and bluesky could then switch to that as well. Where do these discussions take place? I’d love to get involved somehow.

supermatt 1y ago

It seems like this comment is getting downvoted. For what exactly? If I am wrong about something then point it out.

verdverm 1y ago
The last sentence is most likely, also blockchain is looked down upon here as it has never lived up to the supposed benefits. They come with a host of problems something like the proof-of-authority ledger the PLC uses does not have. Yes, some centralization was exchanged for not being blockchain based, an acceptable tradeoff imho
- supermatt 1y ago
  There are lots of options not using blockchain - I never even mentioned blockchain once. The proof of authority ledger that PLC uses can still be used via canonical resolution of actual decentralised did methods. Right now it’s not a did (decentralised identifier) - it’s just a centralised bluesky plc id masquerading as a did.
  - verdverm 1y ago
    > I never even mentioned blockchain once DHT is effectively synonymous with blockchain if you need to have distributed, permissionless writes. How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? Also, commenting about downvoting will get you more downvotes
    - supermatt 1y ago
      > How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? By being a DHT, not a blockchain? There are many ways for permissionless updates, such as those employed by BEP-44 on mainline DHT (BitTorrent - not blockchain based), IPNS (part of IPFS - also not blockchain based). I don’t really care about the downvotes - I just want people to comment why, because I’ve said little that isn’t true.