út 17. 3. 2026 v 3:03 odesílatel Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <
mwherman@parallelspace.net> napsal:
> To: The Original DID People,
>
> Who remembers how/why "methods" became part of the original Decentralized
> Identifier conversations? What was the original catalyst/reason d’etre for
> having “methods”?
>
> Why aren’t we all just using something simple and universal like:
> urn:<hash>? …that is, one universal syntax plus multiple diverse
> back-end technology implementations?
>
Originally there was work using schemes like ni:// (RFC 6920) and related
hash-based identifiers, which provide standardized content-addressable
identifiers. I also built a proof of concept using ni:// for the web, which
fed into later CG discussions.
DIDs emerged when the problem expanded beyond identifying content to
identifying subjects with control: keys, rotation, and service endpoints.
That shift introduced the need for method-specific resolution. At the same
time, “decentralized” became a popular framing, including from a marketing
perspective, which influenced the terminology and direction of the work.
From there, multiple use cases and stakeholders led to a proliferation of
methods.
In the case of did:nostr, the aim is closer to the original hash-based
simplicity, using the public key as a stable identifier, with
did:nostr:<hash> as a compromise to interoperate with the DID ecosystem.
>
>
> Michael
>
> Web 7.0
>