Re: Future-proofing VCs via multiple signatures

Yes, that answers my question. Thanks Manu.

Definitely interested in the proof chain approach so will stay tuned.

Brian

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 8:57 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 1/14/22 4:34 AM, Brian Richter wrote:
> > It talks about the proofChain key in the VC but doesn't go into much
> detail
> > about it and the example looks the same as the proof set to me.. Could
> you
> > explain what that key is?
>
> Woops! That's because there's a bug in the example in the spec, well
> spotted,
> Brian, and apologies for that. It's fixed now (force refresh to see it):
>
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/data-integrity-spec/#example-a-proof-chain-in-a-data-document
>
> One design of proof chains, which were initially contemplated, expresses
> the
> concept via a "proofChain" property. The other approach is discussed in the
> issue Eugeniu pointed to (just extend via proof type):
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/data-integrity-spec/issues/26
>
> Both approaches are technically sound, so we'd need to debate the merits
> and
> draw-backs of each. If I had to bet on one winning out, it's the one that
> is
> compatible w/ the VC Data Model (uses the `proof` property), and just
> defines
> a proof type like "ProofChain2022". I'll note that this same approach
> could be
> used for M-of-N multi-sig proof types... so, I doubt the one in the spec
> survives a standardization round.
>
> Hope that helps, sorry about the bug, should be fixed now. Does that answer
> your question, or were you asking more from a "how does the algorithm
> work?"
> perspective?
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>
>