Re: Bluesky spins out an entity for did:plc

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:28 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >  FYI: both bluesky and nostr now have did methods, each with millions of
>> users, interoperable using w3c standards.
>>
> It means different systems can talk to each other using the same data
> model and vocabulary, like how ActivityPub lets diverse servers
> interoperate.
>

Technically true!...but needs a massive caveat: in practice the "same data
model and vocabulary" here are tiny subsets of data. did:nostr has
id/handle, keys, servers (relays), profile info, and in the maximalist
case, follows. (Which is exciting!) Bluesky did:plc and did:web have much
less, just id/handle, keys, and server (PDS).

In both cases, the vast majority of the *data* on each network - followers,
posts, likes, reposts, and Bluesky profiles and follows - are not in the
DID docs. Which is ok! DID docs don't need to do everything or contain all
data to support interop. We can be realistic about how much DIDs alone get
us, and still appreciate them as a useful improvement.

(did:activitypub is still obviously speculative at this point, but the
proposals I've seen are roughly evenly split between Webfinger-based, which
would be a very minimalist approach similar to Bluesky's, and AS2 actor
based, which would be much more of the complete profile, but still nothing
beyond that.)



>
>>
>> >  We could possibly spin up a simple ActivityPub method, along the lines
>> of did:web so something like did:ap or did:activitypub
>>
>> How would this did:activitypub differ from did:web, or https:?
>>
>
> https:
> Just a URL. No DID semantics.
>
> did:web:
> Generic DID: needs a did.json hosted at the domain.
>
> did:activitypub:
> Specialized DID: no did.json needed, just reuses the existing ActivityPub
> Actor JSON (public key, inbox/outbox) as the DID document.
>
> Difference: did:activitypub is zero-config for Fediverse accounts.
>
>


-- 
https://snarfed.org/