W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2020

Re: Real BTCR DID Document

From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:05:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN8C-_KYWBDncV9aoTBDRqW=sQsfsG7Ve7Z93gCUj5xigw4w1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Wolf McNally <wolf@wolfmcnally.com>
Add your voice here: https://github.com/cisco/cjose/issues/106
Maybe: https://www.chilkatsoft.com/refdoc/vcCkPrivateKeyRef.html


On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 1:24 PM Christopher Allen <
ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:03 AM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
> wrote:
>> I suggest changing the context to https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1
> Will do.
> You may want to consider returning a jwk formatted version of the same
>> base58 key, so that the btcr did can easily be used with JOSE... the method
>> resolver could automatically do this conversion.
> Which C or C++ library would you recommend to use to convert between them?
> Can you share what you think that DID Document would like that includes
> both representations? I don’t even like using base58 for the public key as
> no Bitcoin implemention uses base58 for public keys at all — bitcoind only
> used hex.
> Also, do you agree that this DID Document should not include information
> about the base58hash of the public key of the tip that is used in the BTCR
> Method to revoke or rotate this DID Document? My challenge is only a DID
> resolver can do this, so why put it in the DID Document at all?
> — Christopher Allen

Chief Technical Officer

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2020 21:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:57 UTC