Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 199 posts

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#131

Post by cle »

eldenwrong wrote: post #129
smarx007 wrote: post #103

As a user, I am very happy that W3C has overruled the objections. As a developer, it may a bit of a PITA, albeit a necessary one. For Google, it makes sense for them to request at least some "standard" methods. If the number of DID methods is sufficiently large, Google won't be able to use their network effect to dominate any of them. Surprise, that's the aim of the spec. For Mozilla, it makes sense to support a smal…

What is the Web 3.0 garbage? I though DID needed some sort of blockchain like Bitcoin.

This is discussed in the intro of the spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#introduction. My understanding is that the DID method can use a "centralized" identity provider like the Mastercard Identity Service (https://github.com/Mastercard/did-methods/blob/master/id.md), which is presumably backed by some boring database, a decentralized-but-not-blockchain one like IPID which uses IPFS to store and lookup identities (https://did-ipid.github.io/ipid-did-method), or blockchain-specific ones like ENS.

> [Verifiable data registries] include distributed ledgers, decentralized file systems, databases of any kind, peer-to-peer networks, and other forms of trusted data storage.

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#132

Post by denton-scratch »

MBCook wrote: post #18

So 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.

IETF recommendations have to have a working implementation. A paper standard with no working implementation is just onanism, whoever promulgates it.

I think the W3C got lost in their XML dreams, and got huffed by WHATWG, whose standards I actively dislike.

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#133

Post by dmitriid »

r00bot wrote: post #119
dmitriid wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> like any technology, it has applications it excels in Name five.

I don't really think there are five applications it excels in, but there might be in the future..? Like I said, we're still working out what it's good for. I've seen promising applications but nothing I'd say is obviously better than traditional technology. To dismiss the entire technology because of (admittedly a lot of) grifters is premature in my opinion.

You said it has applications it excels at. Turns out "maybe in the future" and "we're still figuring out".

So. No applications it excels at.

> To dismiss the entire technology because of (admittedly a lot of) grifters is premature in my opinion.

It's been 13 years. When will dismissing it become mature? In another 13 years?

Or maybe the tech is just bad.

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#134

Post by nailer »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #113
topspin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That sounds very much like one of those solutions that is so complicated that it covers everything in theory, and in practice everyone just ignores it and picks some other standard (or 3...) that is actually narrow enough to cleanly implement and gets the job done.

It reminds me of openid 1, with the ridiculous URLs that regular people were supposed to remember.

openid died, and openid 'connect' is just a set of standardised claims for oauth.

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#135

Post by nailer »

inopinatus wrote: post #41
aasasd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Why are they calling these 'methods' ? These names are not verbs, they're nouns. Why not call them 'providers' or similar?

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#136

Post by nailer »

reflexco wrote: post #122
jiggawatts wrote: post #42

Earlier 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...

It's common courtesy not to interject in a technical discussion with identity politics.

if there's was ever any mention of identity politics in jiggawatts' comment it has now been removed.

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#137

Post by pbarthelemy »

nailer wrote: post #136
reflexco wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's common courtesy not to interject in a technical discussion with identity politics.

if there's was ever any mention of identity politics in jiggawatts' comment it has now been removed.

I think reflexco meant this as a joke….

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#138

Post by dane-pgp »

radicalbyte wrote: post #90
015a wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When we were designing the EU DCC we explicitly choose not to go down the path of the then-nascent w3c verifiable credentials using DIDs. There was a hard lobby from the blockchain bullshitters but they couldn't explain things without a lot of hand waving and technobabble so :) There's a reason why our spec (EU-DCC) is a global standard: we build on proven technology, we're explicit, and we're not open to allow anyon…

> we're not open to allow anyone and their dog to become a "trust anchor"

Or, to put it more simply, you designed another centralised identity system.

Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

#139

Post by k__ »

jiggawatts wrote: post #21

Something 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'm currently reading Self-Sovereign Identity.

Seemed to me that DIDs are a more general version of blockchain addresses.

Like, you create a DID from a public key, and everyone who handles DID related stuff can ensure only who controls the related private key is the real owner.

Post reply on HN