Re: Wallet Portability

*Medium technical abilities here*
When we discussed this at the Solid summit, I hosted a session on a
'contractors wallet'  trying to understand the basic semantics a 'pod'
could hold so I could make a prototype against that. There must be multiple
drafts of this from each party, is this something we can share as a group
and work from or towards unifying?

I'm joining this group to ensure that the credentials we are offering in
our products will not just stay relevant but push the standard forward.

Some questions... How much of the conversation will be highly technical?
What is the balance of commercial/government/independent attendees? Is
there some sort of survey we can offer at the end of the call to establish
the breakdown of the group and intentions and motivations of the majority?




On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:58 AM Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

>
> On 6/25/20 12:43 PM, Orie Steele wrote:
> > That's the motivation and the intention (you got it).
> >
> > We want to be able to move wallet content, and we want to know which
> > parts of that content are usable before and after the content has been
> > moved.
> >
> > The challenge is that we can't say __how__ a feature is implemented, but
> > we still want to know __if__ it is supported.
> >
> > Our first stab at a solution to this problem, was to describe the
> > interfaces as a set of abstract functions which operate on the data
> > model, and yield data model objects and side effects.
> >
> > We think that's sufficient, and we have tests to show that it works for
> > ethereum transfers and credential issuance...
> >
> > We're working towards testability regarding multiple credential formats,
> > for example JWT, LD Proofs and ZKPs... We think if we can show that we
> > have modeled functionality support in a way that works for these, that's
> > an indication that the general approach works.
> >
> > We also think it's helpful to have a list of wallet features, which have
> > descriptions which exist in one place... and which explain how those
> > features related to other standards... but just to be clear, we don't
> > see describing how those features are implemented as in scope.
>
> Just a thought -- being able to list supported features in a Web app
> manifest for Web-based wallets could be quite useful, especially to
> users that are "just in time" installing a wallet via a CHAPI interaction.
>
> >
> > OS
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:02 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> > <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 6/25/20 9:50 AM, Orie Steele wrote:
> >     > This is especially important when we consider wallets that support
> 3
> >     > credential formats and 10 currency / token types... Before you even
> >     > move, you might want to check that you can transfer funds after
> >     you move.
> >
> >     Yes, agreed. This highlights that there are at least two questions
> >     related to wallet portability:
> >
> >     1. Can I migrate wallet providers without loss of data?
> >     2. Can I migrate wallet providers without loss of
> >        functionality?
> >
> >     I believe what you're saying is that EDVs will enable us to answer #1
> >     above with a definite "yes".
> >
> >     The Universal Wallet 2020 work will enable us to answer #2 above
> with a
> >     definite yes/not for every standardized wallet feature.
> >
> >     Did I understanding you correctly?
> >
> >     -- manu
> >
> >     --
> >     Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> >     Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> >     blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> >     https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *ORIE STEELE*
> > Chief Technical Officer
> > www.transmute.industries
> >
> > <https://www.transmute.industries>
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>
>