W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > May 2019

Re: Prioritizing Individual Sovereignty over Interoperability

From: Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 16:25:19 +0000
To: "public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Message-ID: <BYAPR13MB2837D6BCB62BFA885F18B43CC3360@BYAPR13MB2837.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
The [Universal] DID Service (UDS) is looking more and more like the Internet Domain Name Service (DNS) ...in every way.

Both can be deployed centralized or decentralized, private or public, secured or unsecured, ...with dialable, quantifiable levels of trust.

DIDs can be used to deference any type if  document or page,  any collection of documents, or any property of a document/page, or subcollection of documents)/pages (e.g..existence, size of a subcollection), etc.

I'll be back to my home base soon and will be able to elaborate on this in more detail.

Best regards,
Michael Herman
Independent Blockchain Architect and Developer



________________________________
From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:13:05 PM
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Subject: Re: Prioritizing Individual Sovereignty over Interoperability

On 2019-04-30 7:24 am, Markus Sabadello wrote:
> You are right, my last comment went too far, I fully agree the community
> is gaining much, not losing.
>
> I think what I meant to say is that "DID" is losing (or changing) its
> original meaning and intent if it we say that domain names, Facebook
> usernames, etc. can also be DIDs.
>
> If that is the community consensus at the end of the debate, great.
> If we arrive at some middle ground that can enable the "bigger tent"
> while still maintaining the original narrative, also great.

While I accept Manu's concerns, I think also the debate has become
fuzzy and is not over. I don't think a "bigger tent" is necessarily
the only way to measure success. It depends on what the people in the
various sub-tents are being helped to do by the VC/DID system envisioned.

Perhaps reframing the "DID decentralization" and did:facebook and
did:web issue as the following will help:

1. Monetizing the Internet has created the stalking advertising model,
which now widely accepted as seriously problematic.

2. A Verifiable Claims / DID standard has in the past promised to help
make other monetizing methods more doable: direct sale of information,
private transactions, pseudo-anonymity, micropayments, subscriptions.

The question for me then is whether #2 is being helped or hurt by the
currently discussed changes. Is DID being set up now so that it will
principally help #1, because that's where the "bigger tent" currently is?

I'm not saying I know which way the technical details about
did:facebook and did:web fall. But if the debate could be framed about
which of those two is being helped, it might make it easier to follow,
at least for me.

Steven Rowat
Received on Saturday, 4 May 2019 16:25:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:49 UTC