W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2022

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

From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 13:18:57 +0000
To: Simone Ravaioli <simone.ravaioli@parchment.com>, Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>, "Darrell O'Donnell (darrell.odonnell@continuumloop.com)" <darrell.odonnell@continuumloop.com>
CC: Taylor Kendal <taylor@learningeconomy.io>, Juan Caballero <caballerojuan@pm.me>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>, W3c CCG <public-credentials@w3.org>, "public-vc-edu@w3.org" <public-vc-edu@w3.org>, "stepan.g@affinidi.com" <stepan.g@affinidi.com>, Balázs Némethi <b@taqanu.com>
Message-ID: <MWHPR1301MB209462672F4323A529B1E592C3229@MWHPR1301MB2094.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

Darrell has this correct. VCs are simply a serialization format that can be used it encapsulate or present any type of data/object on the planet ...with an attached trustable proof and possibly other metadata. Here's some examples:
- https://youtu.be/kM30pd3w8qE
- https://youtu.be/mf0aKLvJoCw

Wrt to NFTs, first, from a data management perspective, a conventional NFT is an unnormalized data object. The current conventions conflate the digital representation of the Asset with digital representation of a Deed to the Asset ...the latter conveying Title (a set of rights) to the Asset to a subject.

Second, how an Asset and Deed are serialized is a trustable way is a separate dimension/question. Obviously, IMO, VCs are also the solution for separately representing/serializing both the Asset and the Deed. We're starting to define this separation here:
- https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bluetoquenfe-1-0-0.md
- https://github.com/mwherman2000/TrustedDigitalWeb/blob/master/specifications/did-methods/did-bluetoquedeed-1-0-0.md

Michael Herman
Trusted Digital Web

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

From: Simone Ravaioli <simone.ravaioli@parchment.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022, 5:22 a.m.
To: Alan Karp; Bob Wyman; Christopher Allen
Cc: Taylor Kendal; Juan Caballero; Manu Sporny; Drummond Reed; W3c CCG; public-vc-edu@w3.org; stepan.g@affinidi.com; Balázs Némethi
Subject: Re: Web3 First Impressions by Moxie Marlinspike (was: Re: Ideals meet Implementations - Blockchains, NFTs, Decentralization, Oh My!)

Exactly !

This brief thread already produced substantial value and elevated the conversation. Thx Bob, Christopher,  Adrian, Alan et all !

- How might we feed this back in the emergent, “adjacent possible” credentialing conversation ?
- What responsibility - agency, ownership, control, stake - should CCG take with regards to "NFT credentials” ?
- Do we feel any sense of fostering/parenting with regards to  this “toddler" making noises and bouncing at the door ?
- Is there an opportunity for this community to find additional (alternative) avenues to participate and shape the future of the internet of credentials ?
- How might we best organise to address this ?

IMHO, the CCG voice is needed more than ever in that #rabbithole.

The discourse online is quickly reaching “escape velocity”:

- Imagine DAO replacing standards bodies like DIF and W3C<https://twitter.com/sgershuni/status/1486654386537381893?s=20>
- How can Verifiable Credentials be used to help DAOs ?<https://twitter.com/sgershuni/status/1486654386537381893?s=20>
- Individual community members we are increasingly taking a public interest and open enquiry approach into Web3<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aniljohn_my-first-impressions-of-web3-activity-6888942553350078464-vn63>

While not fully Autonomous, CCG is already a Distributed Organization. The caliber of the individual contributions to CCG is unparalleled in this domain, however I would argue that value is not adequately recognised - “karma tokens” have already been coined by Reddit (ie.  We all do this pro-bono).  Is there something we should not be afraid to reflect on although it may feel dystopian ?

Our community is of made of season experts, most of us lived across the 3 generations of the Internet.  How do we think about the future of CCG from a human resource perspective ?  It feels there is increasing energy and excitement out there in regards to credentials (of all sorts) coming from the next generation of humans, likely the next leaders of CCG.

These emerging communities share many of those “first principles” we ascribe to: openness, self-sovereignty, decentralisation. In fact, they are stretching (if not re-rewriting) how those principles are acted out.   It feels like this might be an opportunity to double click on “open” and not only welcome, but actively invite those new rough ideas, criticised them to make them better, not to shut them off.

If adoption is the ultimate outcome of standards making, then we should strive to be as attentive and responsive to what is happening “out there”.


— Simone Ravaioli

On 27 Jan 2022, at 00:05, Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com<mailto:alanhkarp@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't see the word "Subject" in the discussion.  I thought that an Issuer creates a VC identifying a Subject, which may or not be the same as the Holder, the party that knows the private key associated with presenting the VC to a Verifier.

Alan Karp

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:34 PM Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com<mailto:ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:29 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us<mailto: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
Received on Friday, 28 January 2022 13:19:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:28 UTC