Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 Becomes a W3C Recommendation

Post by miohtama » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 3:50 PM UTC

cplli wrote: post #25

jceb81 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the link: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/solutions/... I haven't used their implementation yet but Microsoft initiated the did:ion method. I guess they'll support it :-D In general, the idea with DID methods is that you can support many methods without too much effort - for example the Universal Resolver implements already a good bunch: https://dev.uniresolver.io/ However, pointing in the di…

Ok, I'll have to look more in-depth into the Microsoft link, they link to many more pages including a whitepaper. Regarding all the blockchain centric DID methods, would someone wanting to validate a DID (eg: did:thecoin:whatever_would_go_here), need to hold a copy of the blockchain? (in a scenario where one doesn't want to be dependent on a third party for blockchain interactions).

Post by radicalbyte » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

ivan_gammel wrote: post #23

t_mann wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There'll surely be custodial services if this takes off.

This reminds me of web service/UDDI registries, that were supposed to come, and all the WS buzz in early 2000s. Some of them came indeed only to be shut down in a few years.

Post by teddyh » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

isitmadeofglass wrote: post #34

cplli wrote: post #11

I was initially pretty hyped when I read the abstract for DIDs, bookmarked the spec and read it later. The "spec" is a bunch of buzzwords and vague generic "concepts". The DIDs themselves mean basically nothing, it's the "methods" that actually must have their own specification and actually "do something". Another feeling you can quickly get from DIDs is that they're blockchain centric. The entire concept is "jack of…

> The entire concept is "jack of all trades, master of none" is The quote is “a jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.”

Post by riedel » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

hosh wrote: post #30

cplli wrote: post #11

I was initially pretty hyped when I read the abstract for DIDs, bookmarked the spec and read it later. The "spec" is a bunch of buzzwords and vague generic "concepts". The DIDs themselves mean basically nothing, it's the "methods" that actually must have their own specification and actually "do something". Another feeling you can quickly get from DIDs is that they're blockchain centric. The entire concept is "jack of…

Both Google and Mozilla objected to this standard because the "method" is left undefined. W3C overruled them. https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/01/w3c_overrules_objecti...

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 4:55 PM UTC

riedel wrote: post #57

hosh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Google and Mozilla objected to this standard because the "method" is left undefined. W3C overruled them. https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/01/w3c_overrules_objecti...

Funny to see Google and Mozilla siding on ethical issues. It really seems like the W3C has finally lost its compass and now wants to venture into the blockchain. Only positive thing is to see Google loosing once in a standards fight, however, I think it might just have been the wrong anarchist endeavour inside the W3C. In the end we will get more centralisation because looks like nobody except the big ones can push s…