Re: Introducing the Bitcoin Ordinals DID Method

Thanks for the notes Gabe, I was sad I couldn't make your session.

I like your definition of Decentralizable

> the design leads to decentralization even if the current conditions are
> not decentralized (e.g., Bitcoin is decentralizable even if only one node
> were running)


Point number 5 is very interesting to me:
5. Able to be implemented across multiple permissionless anchor systems.
This allows for a diversity of implementations without mandating
interoperability between chains, which could be complex and hinder other
principles.

At first I was shocked at this statement thinking about the complexity it
would bring about.. But then I realized this method theoretically could be
built that way if we look at Bitcoin as the sum of all its forks. Ordinal
theory can be applied to all Bitcoin chains so maybe they should be
interoperable.. I was originally thinking each would need its own method
but this has given me some food for thought, thanks.

Brian

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:03 AM Gabe Cohen <gabe@tbd.email> wrote:

> Manu,
>
> You may be interested in my notes from a recent session on this topic from
> IIW: https://decentralgabe.xyz/did-x-continued-the-perfect-did-method/
>
> Gabe
>
> On May 2, 2023 at 6:38:18 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:02 AM Alen Horvat <alen.horvat@netis.si> wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts/remarks from experience of designing/building DID methods/VDRs:
>>
>>
>> Alen, your list is excellent. We should capture it in a DID Method
>> implementers guide and explain each item in more detail.
>>
>> Do you think you would be willing to put such a document together? I
>> imagine that we might be able to pull it in as a work item in the next
>> W3C DID WG.
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> --
>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>>
>