I admit I am new to the ordinals thingo. my understanding is that btco inherits the risks of using the underlying ledger as an integrity mechanism.
Some examples of risks of trusting a blockchain for data integrity are explained here by a pretty good security auditing firm.
In order to help end-users make safe choices, it it also worth explicitly enumerating the dangers of using a DID that is subject to adversarial rewriting of a did document via attack on the ledger.
I think something you could do with btco that might mitigate these risks is:
* add a cryptographic signature segment to the end of the DID that signs the part before it. Upon resolution of the did doc, verify that the signature corresponds to one of the verification methods (rel=authentication) in the did doc AND, critically, that the did doc contains an integrity proof that is signed by the same key.
Then if I used the did for awhile, but later that DID is attacked via eclipse attack or mining pool collusion, such that some validators resolve the did:btco ordinal to a did doc I didn’t intend, the attacker would be unlikely to be able to add the integrity proof unless they’ve also stolen my integrity proof mechanism.
I can empathize with why people may prefer to try to stay safe (from identity theft, etc) by trusting a ledger, and why other people would want to stay safe by only trusting their ability to keep their keys a secret. I don’t think there’s a one size fits all approach, which is why I think it’s important that all candidate solutions earnestly advertise the risks and benefits so end-users can make a decision of informed consent.
Sorry if the ordinals or inscription aspect to things provides further integrity or reliability on top of BTC itself. If so, the above considerations may not apply.
I found the above report at this link
which contains a good quote
The study resulted in a report that provides holistic analysis that’s available to anyone considering blockchains for important matters so they can better understand the potential vulnerabilities within these systems.
“The report demonstrates the continued need for careful review when assessing new technologies, such as blockchains, as they proliferate in our society and economy” said Joshua Baron, DARPA program manager overseeing the study. “We should not take any promise of security on face value and anyone using blockchains for matters of high importance must think through the associated vulnerabilities.”
On May 6, 2023, at 1:18 AM, Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Cool work thanks for sharing.
You can promote it as the Rolex of DIDs, there might be someone who is eager to have that 😅
But all in all great that we continue to develop on new technology that is coming! That is the only way to move knowledge and become better in iterations!
On Wed, May 3, 2023, 20:45 Brian Richter <email@example.com> wrote:
Thank you Markus, your feedback means a lot.
I'd love to present the method to the DIF ID working group to discuss the technical implementation if you'll have me.
I really like this. I remember the did:btcr method, which was one of the
first DID methods ever, and I always thought a method based only on
Bitcoin could be very useful for certain use cases where you don't need
a lot of DIDs.
Yes, this approach is neither cheap nor scalable, but it's probably much
more reliable than many other DID methods.
did:btcr used TxRefs and OP_RETURN operations, whereas if I understand
correctly did:btco uses ordinals and inscriptions.
I don't really know anything about ordinals and inscriptions. :)
How many Bitcoin transactions would you actually have to write, and how
much would that cost, for let's say a "typical" DID document with one
verification method and one service endpoint?
Anyway, very interesting.