Re: New Work Item Proposal: Data Integrity BIP340 Cryptosuite

po 4. 8. 2025 v 11:39 odesílatel Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com>
napsal:

> Thanks Melvin. I fully expect this to work. Although this:
>
> > So long as we can keep our canonical URIs in nostr, prepending a short
> prefix in the VC proofs does not strike me as a great hardship
>
> Threw me off a bit. What I believe Dave is proposing is about the encoding
> of the key in the verification method of the DID document. The proof (the
> signature bytes) are encoded using base58-btc.
>
> I agree with Dave that this should not effect did:nostr’s method specific
> identifier. Which is the hex encoding of the Schnorr key.
>

I think there is enough wiggle room to make it all work.  Thanks for
showing a willingness to compromise.  We'll use the hex form in nostr in
the verification method, and also we have schnorr signatures built into the
nostr protocol already.  I dont think we'll go multibase for nostr
identifiers in the document, as it would take up too much space (we have
millions of DIDs), but we could compromise if we are using VC proofs.  I
think it will all work out, maybe even with some inferencing.  Looking
forward to seeing how the spec progresses.


>
> Thanks,
> Will
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 3 Aug 2025, at 22:51, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> čt 31. 7. 2025 v 18:13 odesílatel Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com>
> napsal:
>
>> Hello CCG community,
>>
>> Digital Contract Design in collaboration with Legendary Requirements and
>> Danube Tech are proposing a new CCG Work Item for adoption:
>> https://dcdpr.github.io/data-integrity-schnorr-secp256k1/
>>
>> See the proposal issue here:
>> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/254
>>
>> We feel this is important as there are currently no up to date Data
>> Integrity cryptosuites available for the secp256k1 curve, which has wide
>> adoption throughout multiple blockchain ecosystems.
>>
>
> FYI: Dave Longley has suggested a potential workable proposal.  I will
> look into this a bit more, but it seems promising.
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/254#issuecomment-3148690444
>
> Pending this being a workable compromise, I withdraw my -1
>
> So long as we can keep our canonical URIs in nostr, prepending a short
> prefix in the VC proofs does not strike me as a great hardship, as we dont
> have a solution in this space right now, new libraries can be written.  I
> just need to verify this will work with nostr schnorr signatures and nonces.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> All the best,
>> Will Abramson
>>
>