Re: [PROPOSED WORK ITEM] CEL DID Method (did:cel)

Hi Melvin,

Thank you for the comparison framework — this is exactly
what the discussion needs.

On Question #1 (DAG vs Heartbeat):
Yes. A refs-based DAG provides cryptographic temporal proof
without requiring periodic entries. Each reference is itself
a witness.

On universal anchoring (potential addition to comparison):
Any hash-based method could anchor to SHA-256("") — a
mathematical constant derivable by anyone. No central log
required: the DAG structure itself is the log.

Possible table row:
| Method     | Can Anchor to GLR? | Notes
    |
| did:key      | N/A                            | Ephemeral
              |
| did:cel       | Yes                            | Could reduce heartbeat
need |
| did:webvh | Yes                            | Via refs extension
         |


Best regards,
Manh Thanh Le
---
Related exploration:
github.com/glogos-org/glogos/blob/main/GENESIS.md#appendix-z-cross-network-interoperability

On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 3:51 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> ne 4. 1. 2026 v 7:58 odesílatel Amir Hameed <amsaalegal@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>> Hey All, it’s very hard to follow the whole thread and especially the
>> priors methods which I am sure must be taken into account before we go into
>> full discussion, I would suggest if we can create a tabular data document
>> where all existing methods their strengths, weakness and infrastructure can
>> be compared so that once we move ahead with CEL we have the whole context
>> of how DID evolved since its inception. That would help us have better
>> clarity.
>>
>> Regards
>> Amir Hameed
>>
>
> Hi Amir, all,
>
> I agree with Amir’s suggestion that a comparative document would be very
> helpful. Having followed DID method evolution since the early
> blockchain-based approaches, I think a structured comparison could give the
> group shared context and reduce repeated re-litigation as we discuss
> did:cel.
>
> Below is a *draft comparison framework*, intended as a starting point.
> Corrections and additions are very welcome.
> ------------------------------
> DID Methods – Draft Comparison Infrastructure & Cost
> Method Infrastructure Required Estimated Cost DNS Dependency
> did:key None Zero No
> did:web Domain + HTTPS server ~$10–50/year Yes
> did:webvh Domain + HTTPS + version log ~$10–50/year Yes
> did:cel File storage + 3+ witnesses Near-zero No
> did:nostr Public Nostr relays Near-zero Optional
> did:ion Bitcoin node + IPFS (or provider) Variable (BTC fees) No
> did:indy Permissioned ledger membership Network-dependent No
> Security Properties
> Method Key Rotation History Verifiable Censorship Resistance Fork
> Protection
> did:key No (new DID required) N/A N/A N/A
> did:web Manual replacement No Low None
> did:webvh Yes (logged) Yes Medium Pre-rotation
> did:cel Yes Yes High Heartbeats
> did:nostr Via events Via relays High Relay consensus
> did:ion Yes (Sidetree) Yes (blockchain) High Bitcoin finality
> did:indy Yes Yes (ledger) Medium Ledger consensus
> Privacy Considerations
> Method Resolution Tracking Witness Visibility Correlation Risk
> did:key None N/A High
> did:web Server logs N/A High
> did:webvh Server logs Witnesses see content Medium–High
> did:cel Storage logs Oblivious (hash only) Medium
> did:nostr Relay logs Relays see events Medium
> did:ion IPFS / node logs N/A Medium
> did:indy Ledger queries logged N/A Low (ZKP)
> Operational Characteristics
> Method Offline Create Offline Resolve Implementation Complexity Spec
> Maturity
> did:key Yes Yes Very low Stable
> did:web No No Low Stable
> did:webvh No No Medium Draft
> did:cel Yes No (cacheable) Medium Draft
> did:nostr Yes (basic) Yes (basic) Low–Medium Draft
> did:ion No No High Stable
> did:indy No No High Stable
> ------------------------------
> Key Trade-offs (Brief)
>
>    -
>
>    *DNS vs non-DNS:* did:web and did:webvh leverage DNS trust but inherit
>    its failure modes; did:cel and did:nostr avoid DNS entirely but raise
>    discovery and UX questions.
>    -
>
>    *Optionality:* did:webvh supports many optional features, increasing
>    flexibility but also the security analysis surface; did:cel aims to reduce
>    optionality to simplify guarantees.
>    -
>
>    *Witness models:* visible witnesses vs oblivious witnesses vs
>    blockchains present different privacy and trust trade-offs.
>    -
>
>    *History guarantees:* both did:webvh and did:cel provide verifiable
>    history, but via different mechanisms and threat assumptions.
>
> ------------------------------
> Questions for the Group
>
>    1.
>
>    Would a DAG structure materially improve fork detection over linear
>    history plus heartbeats?
>    2.
>
>    What long-term incentive models make sense for witnesses?
>    3.
>
>    How should migration from did:web to did:webvh or did:cel be handled?
>    4.
>
>    Should the CCG define a shared DID-method comparison and test suite?
>    5.
>
>    Given overlapping goals, should did:nostr be compared more formally
>    alongside did:cel?
>
> ------------------------------
> Suggested Next Steps
>
>    -
>
>    Create a living comparison document (HackMD or GitHub).
>    -
>
>    Invite method authors to review and correct entries.
>    -
>
>    Add implementation status, deployments, and failure-mode analysis.
>
> I’m happy to help maintain or contribute to such a document if there’s
> interest.
>
> Best regards,
> *Melvin*
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 at 12:05 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> Given the discussion over the past several weeks around did:cel,
>>> here's the work item adoption tracker issue:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/255
>>>
>>> Please provide additional support in that issue if you haven't already
>>> done so via the mailing list.
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone that has commented with suggestions on how we can
>>> potentially further align work happening in this area. I'll try to
>>> follow up on some of the comments that came in over the holidays to
>>> provide some more thoughts on alignment.
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>>>
>>>