|
Top-level
@darius Hmm. In terms of a generic data format, sure, that spec seems fine but kind of boring. It doesn't say anything other than "here's a URI format", "here's a document format", and "you have to use a resolver (not specified here) to get from one to the other". The actual meat of the spec is over in https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#did-methods and the heavy association with proof-of-work cryptojunk really turns me off :( 4 comments
@darius Anyways, in the end, excluding the blockchain junk (I'm not gonna pay a cryptocurrency speculator in order to prove my own identity!), if the DID format does take off it's almost certainly going to be because a significant number of people get identities through a small number of big identity providers. :/  @darius yep, i suppose so the big problem i see with DID as it stands right now is that there's no generic protocol/resolver for these theoretical large identity providers to use - the current spec would probably have each provider end up creating their own incompatible DID method, and different resolvers would support different subsets of methods. It's a big mess. |
Gregory's Server
@darius The Tor DID spec actually looks pretty interesting tho: https://blockchaincommons.github.io/did-method-onion/ since it's self-validating (the DID uri is literally an Onion site url aka public key) and builds upon an existing decentralized registration system that does not require use of a blockchain.
And there's a web-based spec as well, which appears to use DNS for validation.