W3C has been on the sidelines for a while now. WHATWG--mostly Google people--calls the shots.
Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
91–100 of 199 posts
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. The list at 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.
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?
That's never been a requirement. There exists SPV to verify cryptographic signatures without downloading a blockchain.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 en…
I personally take a hesitant approach to crypto/blockchain technology. I'm open to using it where it's legitimately better than other approaches, but for the vast, vast majority of applications traditional methods are always going to be better than shoe-horned decentralization. It's very unfortunate that the grifters have given the technology such a bad name when, like any technology, it has applications it excels in…
> like any technology, it has applications it excels in
Name five.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#94An "Explain Like I'm Five" of what DID is (for those who don't know, like me):
"Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier that enables verifiable, decentralized digital identity. A DID refers to any subject (e.g., a person, organization, thing, data model, abstract entity, etc.) as determined by the controller of the DID. In contrast to typical, federated identifiers, DIDs have been designed so that they may be decoupled from centralized registries, identity providers, and certificate authorities. Specifically, while other parties might be used to help enable the discovery of information related to a DID, the design enables the controller of a DID to prove control over it without requiring permission from any other party."
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 sentences on why usb type-c/usb3/usb4/thunderbolt are a failure.
And despite all the mess they are selling well.
You don't buy USB, you buy a device that has USB. If you do buy USB (e.g. for extension or multiple ports) it's also because of your devices, not because you care about USB specifically.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#96Something that should be a bit of a warning flag is that I have two decades of identity-related experience but I still have no idea what DID even is . For reference, I've worked with three vendors' implementations of LDAP, several versions of SAML, OAuth, JWT, Okta, Azure Active Directory, etc, etc... I've even deployed Smart Card authentication in the field several times. I literally have no idea, not a clue what DI…
I found it all pretty simple after looking at it briefly when I first learned about it. A DID URI is a URI with a 'method' and globally unique part: did:method:somegloballyuniqueid. The "did" part is literal; a standardized URI namespace. The method part is some symbol that specifies how the unique id resolves and its representation (JSON, whatever.) The method part is what this story is about; W3C has declined to en…
The method part is only necessary in the case of anonymous, or untrusted, access. If the distributed access points are trusted, known to each other and verifiable, the method part becomes irrelevant because it can be addressed in the body of the message and the willingness of the distant end to process, or not, such message.
As somebody interested in solving for decentralization and previously unaware of the W3C DID effort I formed my own proven solution to this problem 3 years ago. This was one of the less challenging and trivial aspects of the problem space.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 en…
>Crypto-enthusiasts ignore how regulations existed for good reasons before regulatory capture made a mess of things.
What way do you propose out of regulatory capture?
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#98An "Explain Like I'm Five" of what DID is (for those who don't know, like me): "Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier that enables verifiable, decentralized digital identity. A DID refers to any subject (e.g., a person, organization, thing, data model, abstract entity, etc.) as determined by the controller of the DID. In contrast to typical, federated identifiers, DIDs have been designed so th…
So, it's like business cards?
They represent your identity, have a relatively standardized format, but anyone can issue them, decide what to put on them and where the contact methods point, and you can have as many number and different versions as you wish.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#99So if Google, Apple, and Mozilla all opposed this what are the chances it ever actually becomes useful? Just because something was given the stamp of approval by the W3C doesn’t mean they actually have to implement it.
[deleted]
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
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…
Because if you actually look at what cryptocurrency is being used for, it’s overwhelmingly:
- Scams - Risky financial structures that we regulated out of existence because they were risky and unregulated - Money laundering
If there are real applications of the technology, they would’ve popped up by now.
Just look at the whole space of cryptocurrency lending. Regulations exist for good reason, we have stress tests https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/large-bank-capit..., consumer protections, all kinds of safeguard so when you put money in a bank account you don’t have to worry that somebody’s gonna run with it.
Web 3.0 is a buzzword-filled collective hallucination. People keep shouting the buzzwords, but still nobody knows what it’s supposed to mean in any concrete way. NFTs are scams and still haven’t found a real use case that’s not a ponzi, crypto lending is 2008 capital structures but turned up to 11, DAOs are useless because courts and corporate governance are things that exists, I can go on and on.
If you have a concrete proposal of how this magical Web 3.0 future is supposed to be better I’m all ears, but where I’m standing it’s all ponzi, scams, shaky capital structuring, and criminal enterprises.