- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 09:29:43 -0400
- To: Tobias Looker <tobias.looker@mattr.global>, "Joosten, H.J.M. (Rieks)" <rieks.joosten@tno.nl>
- Cc: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>, Karan Verma <karnverma@alumni.stanford.edu>, Michael Chen <shihjay2@gmail.com>
On 5/4/20 5:33 AM, Tobias Looker wrote: > We are however as Mike has alluded to working on an implementation using > cryptographic accumulators that we think offer enhanced privacy > guarantees when they are required. Yes, +1 to the above. This isn't an either/or decision... it's an *and* decision. Bitstring-based Revocation Lists are appropriate for a set of use cases, Accumulator-based revocation mechanisms are appropriate for another set of use cases. There is a significant overlap between the two sets of use cases. I'd argue that the latter is a superset of the former. If we can get Accumulator-based revocation mechanisms into the mainstream using the techniques that Mike L. mentioned, then great, we can probably drop the Bitstring-based Revocation Lists as archaic and less performant than the Accumulator-based revocation mechanisms. That said, we're not there yet, so we need something that's going to be usable in the near term (next several months), while we wait for the Accumulator-based revocation mechanisms to be formalized. If we're lucky, they are formalized at the same time... I can see a few ways that could happen. The community should dual-tracking this stuff to hedge our bets... if both get standardized around the same time, great, if not, one might be standardized a year or two before the other one. -- 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
Received on Monday, 4 May 2020 13:30:00 UTC