- From: Jack Tanner <jack@tonomy.foundation>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:37:38 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: public-credentials@w3.org, rebal@tonomy.foundation, Suneet Bendre <bendre.android@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAPfSfL-P2=O1W8aA1Basjv7WdAob0aZvF9uZxrsEn5qLqpnASA@mail.gmail.com>
Hey @Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> What are the options you are considering for how to verify that a M/N proof set contains the required number of signatures? How do you express the condition for this? What we are doing here is using the W3C Verifiable Condition <https://github.com/w3c-ccg/verifiable-conditions>, a verification method type. I am wondering if you have got a different approach? Cheers, Jack On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 12:15, Jack Tanner <jack@tonomy.foundation> wrote: > For the cases that we are looking at > * Using multiple proofs to perform set-based multi-signature. (we want to > be able to asynchronous sign the VC) > * Using multiple proofs to perform chain-based multi-signature. > * Using multiple proofs to perform multi-level/enveloped multi-signature. > * Using a single proof to perform set-based multi-signature. (sign a VC > with a number of keys at once) > * Using a single proof to perform chain-based multi-signature. > * Using a single proof to perform M of N threshold multi-signature. (we > are using W3C's Verifiable Condition to express this condition in the DID > Document) > * Using a single proof to perform privacy-preserving M of N threshold > multi-signature. > > Food for thought, the implementation we just finished with JWT's is a kind > of chain proof in the end to make it comply to the JWT standard - we nested > each JWS as the payload for the next JWS inside the JWT. > > Proof sets for JSON-LD format is also a great approach. > > Cheers, > Jack > > On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 20:52, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 4:08 AM Jack Tanner <jack@tonomy.foundation> >> wrote: >> > What should the proof look like? >> >> We're trying to lock this down over the next couple of weeks in the >> VCWG. The specific sections of the Data Integrity spec (with examples) >> are here: >> >> >> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/59.html#proof-sets >> >> and here: >> >> >> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/59.html#proof-chains >> >> > Which VC library would make the most sense for the initial >> implementation? >> >> Digital Bazaar's open source vc-js library will support proof sets and >> chains (as specified in the Data Integrity spec by the VCWG) in >> production. There is strong customer pull for proof sets. There is not >> strong customer pull for proof chains, but given that we have the >> opportunity to define a global standard for doing that AND because >> there are use cases like notarization that are important, we plan to >> add full support for that as well. >> >> Regarding the concept of multi-signature, I am a bit concerned that >> people are talking past each other as there are a number of categories >> there and it's possible that not everyone is talking about the same >> categories of multisig. There are at least these categories: >> >> * Using multiple proofs to perform set-based multi-signature. >> * Using multiple proofs to perform chain-based multi-signature. >> * Using multiple proofs to perform multi-level/enveloped multi-signature. >> * Using a single proof to perform set-based multi-signature. >> * Using a single proof to perform chain-based multi-signature. >> * Using a single proof to perform M of N threshold multi-signature. >> * Using a single proof to perform privacy-preserving M of N threshold >> multi-signature. >> >> So, when you say "multi-signature" -- which one of these things are >> you talking about? >> >> -- 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/ >> > > > -- > _________________________________________ > > Jack Tanner > Founder and Architect | Tonomy Foundation > p: (+31) 6 2216 5433 > w: tonomy.foundation e: jack@tonomy.foundation > <https://twitter.com/@theblockstalk> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-tanner/> > -- _________________________________________ Jack Tanner Founder and Architect | Tonomy Foundation p: (+31) 6 2216 5433 w: tonomy.foundation e: jack@tonomy.foundation <https://twitter.com/@theblockstalk> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-tanner/>
Received on Monday, 10 October 2022 08:38:09 UTC