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

Re: Proposed work item: did:key DID Method

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 19:57:18 -0500
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <00007339-4e96-39f2-686b-def8af0ddee1@digitalbazaar.com>
On 11/23/19 11:52 AM, Lucas T├ętreault wrote:>
> Can you comment on the differences between this and did:peer? It 
> seems as though it's quite similar (without being self-certifying)
> to what the did:peer spec calls Layer 2 support for did:peer.

On 11/23/19 11:57 AM, Orie Steele wrote:
> Regarding did:peer, this is clearly very different, it does not 
> involve storing of events 
> (.../peer-did-method-spec/index.html#backing-storage), you can see a
>  comparison in the peer did spec: 
> .../peer-did-method-spec/index.html#did-key-and-did-nacl

Yes, what Orie said. We had a long discussion with some of the did:peer
folks before announcing this spec as there was concern that we were
stomping on each others methods, but we later discovered that each has
two very different use cases.

The biggest difference between did:peer and did:key is that did:key is
guaranteed to never have to hit a blockchain when resolving them, there
is no CRDT protocol, there is no out-of-band history. did:key's
resolution is completely deterministic... with all of the upsides and
downsides that come with that approach.

did:key is specifically targeted at ultimate simplicity and ephemeral
interactions.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2019 00:57:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:03 UTC