Seems it's going to flop as hard as the Semantic Web and RDF, if not harder, given Google and Mozilla are not going to implement it, and Apple never implements anything anyway,
Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
141–150 of 199 posts
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 htt…
Love how you think your money is safe. You are losing 10-15% a year from inflation. Nobody has to literally steal it when they can dilute it
Straight to criticizing something else. lol
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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….
No, this is what identity politics is, reducing technical matters to which camp you're in ("your post gives me crypto vibes, scam!!"). Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this doesn't belong on HN.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DID in my opinion is unlikely to succeed. Probably a few big tech companies will form a consortium and use their weight for setting a de-facto standard.
Putting the centralized in decentralized.
Probably so. Centralized isn't always a bad word as you can see from the tire fire that is crypto.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#145I may be suffering from a deficiency of reading comprehension. Can someone please explain to me in plain terms what a DID is and what it's for? It's a "globally unique persistent identifier that does not require a centralized registration authority"[1] - great, an identifier for what exactly? Is it just supposed to be an identifier for anything at all ? Local and remote resources? People? Pokemon cards? [1] https://w…
See https://w3c.github.io/did-use-cases/#onlineShopper It's blockchain bullshit that you can ignore.
OMG, their example is pretty much an NFT.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#146Something 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…
Conceptually, those solutions that you’ve worked with are about account principals and access management. When you deployed a smartcard, the human identity of the person you were assigning an account principal to was established offline, ultimately linked to proof of birth and residence.
Typically your company will validate those credentials to some level for employees. At a minimum, you establish what you need to know for payroll, in other cases you do extensive background investigations. For the public, however, we’re stuck with rudimentary solutions for ID verification (bank/credit accounts, mailing letters, etc) or unreliable and invasive solutions like ID.me.
The idea of things like DID and sovereign identity is that the human has agency and can provide or not provide credentials to establish who they are. That could include a verifiable, signed representation of your birth certificate, a professional license or some other credential. Think of it as a new iteration of 90s “web of trust” concepts.
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#147Great post
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#148An "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…
How does one prove they own the DID?
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
1. Permissionless, censorship-resistant global money transfer
2. Smart contracts
3. Append-only logs synchronised between mutually distrusting parties
4. Decentralised identities
5. Microtransactions for online games and to replace web advertising
Re: Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C
#150Earlier 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…
I am philosophically opposed to "Web 3.0" because I am philosophically opposed to cryptocurrency and do not believe it decentralizes anything.
Regardless of the follies of Wall Street, blockchains and smart contracts do not fix them. There is no particular reason why a DAO would not also cut worker wages to benefit the tokenholder class - it's the exact same structure as a corporation, just without the pesky regulation getting in the way. There is nothing about decentralized finance that guarantees that the employees are also tokenholders anymore than regular ol' brick-and-mortar capitalism guarantees that employees are also shareholders. If you want a worker's cooperative, you can start one right now without needing to buy Ethereum and develop a fragile smart contract.
DeFi isn't destroying power structures, nor is it making them less rigid. It's just a changing of the guard, from corporations and investors to anonymous "whales" and DAOs. This isn't actually decentralizing anything, it's just obfuscating how much the system has been corrupted.
As for open source and Free Software, well... their political opinions outside of hacker ethos are all over the map. The space is vaguely libertarian and vaguely leftist, which means there's plenty of people in the space who don't want more unregulated capitalism.
Your example about long distance calls is also wrong. Or, at least, missing some context. Skype was actually kind of late to the "cheap long-distance" party; the government had already done the hard work of breaking up the phone monopoly and ensuring that companies could place and terminate calls on other people's networks. This is because "permissionless" is not a capability, it is a policy. Even ostensibly permissionless blockchains could effectively become permissioned if miners and exchanges colluded in a way that made economic sense. I know this can happen because it's exactly the same thing that happened in Web 2.0.