Re: Energy & BlockChain

For clarification; i think DIDs are an important constituent of the works
being done.

i also think its important their not mandatory or that a specified method
is made mandatory for the definition of verifiable claims.

FWIW; I liked the old DHT stuff, i know there were issues and objections;
and,

i've not fully baked my views as yet.  I found
http://jeffsayre.com/2011/08/24/building-the-social-web-the-layers-of-the-smartup-stack/
today
when going through my thoughts (stimulated by reviewing the spec; where it
was noted that only participants of RWOT should comment, or something i
interpreted in that way - and was unlikely to be given much thought
overall).

For some; the W3 journey has been longer than my own in this area.
 Certainly, being that its now 2:15am where i am;  i've found the schedules
difficult to contend with, alongside other human factors; and,

It's my reckoning that some of the issues are out of scope for w3 other
than its need to have use-cases that are meritoriously supported for any w3
related works needed, to provide the technical support for those methods to
be functionally added to the requirements analysis.  An example perhaps
being - i'm not sure how much W3 really cares about energy use.

But if methods use more or less energy; then perhaps that's something that
can later be taken into consideration in the standards-dev work; in-line
with other broader implications.

therein also: some time ago i did some work around decentralised discovery
services:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schema-gen/2017Feb/0006.html

Yet that's all kinda different to verifiable claims.  It's perhaps another
use-case for DIDs, i think i've even heard similar ideas mentioned.  but;
doesn't mean I think HTTP-SIGNATURES is not awesome, nor does it mean that
the use of that work - around the concepts of Verifiable claims or
tamper-evident machine-readable hyperlinked (semantic web) documents
requires DID Vendors & Operators; nor do i think it should ever be
mandatory for humans to use the web.

is it a good technology to bake?  probably.   Is it a mandatory requirement
for W3C Verifiable Claims.  Probably not.  IMHO.


On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 02:10 Christopher Allan Webber <
cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:

> Susan Bradford writes:
>
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the last discussion between Manu
> and
> > Drummond concluded to just use the Credentials CG mailing list for the
> DID
> > Spec and put the specs as CG work items.
>
> The group voted and unanimously accepted DIDs as a work item of the CCG
> several months ago.  9 votes for, 0 against.
>
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Jul/0036.html
>