Re: Web3 First Impressions by Moxie Marlinspike (was: Re: Ideals meet Implementations - Blockchains, NFTs, Decentralization, Oh My!)

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:29 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:

>
>    - Why have you listed VCs as not generating "Value due to scarcity?"
>    GIven the essentially unlimited variety of claims that could be
>    incorporated into a VC, it seems to me that one could craft a VC which has
>    semantic content equivalent to any NFT. (i.e. A VC that identifies the
>    "ownership" of some specific object.) The limited issuance of such VCs
>    would create a "scarce" resource in just the same way that issuance of an
>    NFT does.
>    - Why do you say that a VC is not "transferable?" Rights that are
>    recorded in a VC could either be delegated , in whole or in part, or the
>    "ownership" of the VC itself might be transferred by the issuance of a
>    new VC recording the delegation or transfer. How is this different from an
>    NFT?
>
>  ...

>
>    - Why do you say that a VC only proves the "identity of an entity" but
>    not "ownership of an object?" I can issue a VC to identify the
>    existence (identity) of some right (e.g. the ownership of, or limited
>    right to use, an object) and then issue another VC to associate that VC
>    with some identified individual. While the VC-based mechanics are a bit
>    different from what is typical with NFTs, how is the net effect different
>    from that provided by issuing an NFT?
>
> When I read this, I realize that once again, our language around the use
of "owner" is entirely wrong. We've in the past tried to do better and
avoid any of the words associated with property rights idea of "ownership"
in DIDs and VCs, but it keeps cropping back in. (An aside: "control" is
better but not perfect. I've also been seeking language from the "law of
agency" such as authority. Not so far limited success in coming up with
something better).

Part of the problem is that there is a natural centrality in the controller
of a DID, and for the issuer of a VC. This natural centrality isn't
"ownership", but sometimes acts like it. Similary, there is the problem
that multiple parties may have unrestricted read-access (no encryption or
DRM), but are restricted in their ability to fully verify the VC by some
other party. Though this is not part of the definition of "holder", I feel
that a holder a) has to have a readable version of the VC, and b) can fully
verify it, else they are not truly a "holder". They also are not an owner,
instead have limited control or authority.

Another part of the problem when comparing NFTs to VCs is that the role of
the issuer in an NFT is very limited, or none at all (typically only a
royalty on future sales), once the transfer is complete. Whereas an issuer
of a VC can always revoke a VC, refuse to reissue one on expiration, and
issue a new one possibly even to a new cryptographic party so it resembles
a "transfer" but isn't. As far as I know, there is no way to "transfer" the
issuer's role in a VC — they either issued it, didn't issue it, or there is
a problem. Thus NFT isn't quite comparable to a VC, as in effect the issue
has no (or limited) control or authority over its future use. Note also
that I don't know of any NFT that is revocable or expires.

-- Christopher Allen