Re: Goals and Requirements for DID Method Standardization?

+1 Steve
Definitely two separate topics

On Fri, Nov 29, 2024, 17:39 Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I Think there are two very separate business requirements here
>
> 1- maintaining VC verifiability when controller of issuer did no longer
> exists
> 2- upgrading cryptography when the underlying algorithm becomes vulnerable
>
> My immediate concern is #1 because it happens every day today. But that
> doesn’t discount the importance of #2
>
> Steven Capell
> Mob: 0410 437854
>
> On 30 Nov 2024, at 11:15 AM, Christopher Allen <
> ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:
>
> My challenge for long-lived VCs is that likely they require more than
> digital signatures, such aa additional proofs. Until we have some better
> choices for quantum-resistant signatures (a tough nut to crack) that means
> at minimum publicly provable time stamps with no phone-home or correlation
> (I currently use
> https://opentimestamps.org and am investigating very large Sphinx
> hash-based co-signing).
>
> My example use case is that I have over a hundred students that got their
> MBA in Sustainable Systems from an accredited small college, circa 2009.
> The school was then BGI.edu, become Pinchot.edu, merged with Presidio.edu,
> acquired by Dominican College. Multiple states, multiple accreditation
> bodies. But they should be able to have a credible MBA digital certificate
> for life. They can’t currently.
>
> Other long-term scenarios are IP transfers (not only copyright & trademark
> but trade secrets), fiduciary and healthcare directives, marriage related
> (a particular challenge given same-sex marriage being illegal in many
> countries), etc. Even many peer credentials need to survive a peers death.
>
> Biggest challenge in this category will be physical real property, or
> property mixed physical with digital (art in particular). Both will need to
> be provable 70+ years, well into a quantum-capable future.
>
> — Christopher Allen
>
>