W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2016

Re: decentralised

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@truecred.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:41:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnD8kh5q6bNczfneMmk9ETY3Fp3U=_QRyQQJxeeboLj88w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
+1
On Jun 15, 2016 9:38 AM, "Dave Longley" <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 06/15/2016 04:31 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 14 June 2016 at 16:21, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> > <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 06/13/2016 07:33 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >     > "The Web currently does not have a mechanism where people and
> >     > organizations can claim identifiers that they have sole ownership
> >     > over. Identifiers, such as those rooted in domain names like emails
> >     > addresses and website addresses, are effectively rented by people
> >     > and organizations rather than owned. Therefore, their use as
> >     > long-term identifiers is dependent upon parameters outside of their
> >     > control. One danger is that if the rent is not paid, all data
> >     > associated with the identifier can be made temporarily or
> permanently
> >     > inaccessible. This document specifies a mechanism where people and
> >     > organizations can cryptographically claim ownership over
> identifiers
> >     > such that they control them and the documents that they refer to."
> >     >
> >     > This is not a significant danger.  It's like saying the google
> could
> >     > lose google.com <http://google.com> <http://google.com> due to
> >     factors outside of their
> >     > control.  It wont happen, will it?
>
> Is the assertion that Google will be around forever -- or at least
> longer than anyone's lifetime? Is the assertion that the likelihood of
> Google losing its domain is the same as the likelihood of some random
> person? What about some random person who falls on difficult times and
> can't pay for their domain? What about some random person that needs an
> identifier that doesn't reveal certain aspects about them by being
> attached to their domain?
>
> I don't think this covers many cases.
>
> >
> > Have a look at
> >
> > https://tld-list.com/
> >
> > There's a few domains in the $1-$2 range.
> >
> > Lets encrypt certs are free.  But well HTTPS is not mandatory for a
> > domain.
>
> Certificates may be free, paying for the education to be able to
> maintain one and use Lets encrypt is not free (in many countries). HTTPS
> may be mandatory to be able to adequately prove various assertions about
> your identity.
>
> >
> > But actually I think everyone should get credit from the govt to have
> > one domain (and probably server space) for free.
>
> Which government? While a laudable goal, not every government is free
> and stable.
>
> > This is a service that
> > should be a utility and covered by tax revenue, or passport registration
> > fees.  It should be started from school so that children have the
> > ability to learn programming.
>
> This may work coming from a first world perspective. What about everyone
> else?
>
> >
> > For example have a look at what you can get for 2.99 a month from
> scaleway:
> >
> > https://www.scaleway.com/
> >
> > 2 x86 64bit Cores
> > 2GB Memory
> > 50GB SSD Disk
> > 200Mbit/s
> > Unmetered bandwidth
>
> Again, consider the perspective. This approach works for people living
> in first world countries with tech experience and the desire to run
> their own servers and/or governments that they trust to indefinitely
> provide these services on their behalf.
>
> Second of all, how are you going to pay for that in the first place? Are
> you going to present some identity and/or payment credentials that you
> already possess? I think perspective is key here.
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 13:42:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC