Comment by smarx007 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smarx007 | Hacker News Reader

As a user, I am very happy that W3C has overruled the objections. As a developer, it may a bit of a PITA, albeit a necessary one.

For Google, it makes sense for them to request at least some "standard" methods. If the number of DID methods is sufficiently large, Google won't be able to use their network effect to dominate any of them. Surprise, that's the aim of the spec.

For Mozilla, it makes sense to support a small set of DIDs, their resources are not infinite.

As a user, I want to use the DID method that works for ME. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BankID is used universally in Scandinavia and I would not see why would anyone use DID for identifiers of "real world" things if a govenrment-accepted mechanism cannot be used (eg "did:bankid:*") for signing those identifiers etc. Because I already use BankID for all important authn things in my daily life. In Estonia, ID cards are used for legally binding signatures since forever, I can totally see how they might want to use that to sign their DIDs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature_in_Estonia

Regarding Web 3.0 garbage in the registry: just ignore it, nobody is going to use it seriously. Those entries are just marketing by those projects. If it was up to me, I would split the registry into two sections: registries with significant stakeholder backing (BankID and the likes) and everyone else (so that you can ignore them).

> "As a user, I am very happy that W3C has overruled the objections. As a developer, it may a bit of a PITA, albeit a necessary one."

It's not immediately clear what DIDs are, what problems they're solving (and what value they're providing to the ecosystem), why they're better than other options in the same space, and how they'll function and scale years into the future. That's a legitimate cause for skepticism.

That the objections brought on by the two largest browser vendors are dismissed entirely, without further addressing the concerns stated, is unsettling.

Is that what that rambling was about after the two statements from Google/Moz?

I thought it was just someone crying about how the big browsers just didnt understand their brilliance.

Overruling them just makes you look stupid. They won't implement it. W3C pulls this bullshit all the time.

Fighting for relevance.

I can't find BankID in the list of methods, I suppose you are saying that it could be?

Some other interesting entries in this same vein, that are already in the DID registry, are Mastercard (https://idservice.com) and SecureKey (https://securekey.com).

What is the Web 3.0 garbage? I though DID needed some sort of blockchain like Bitcoin.

This is discussed in the intro of the spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#introduction. My understanding is that the DID method can use a "centralized" identity provider like the Mastercard Identity Service (https://github.com/Mastercard/did-methods/blob/master/id.md), which is presumably backed by some boring database, a decentralized-but-not-blockchain one like IPID which uses IPFS to store and lookup identities (https://did-ipid.github.io/ipid-did-method), or blockchain-specific ones like ENS.

> [Verifiable data registries] include distributed ledgers, decentralized file systems, databases of any kind, peer-to-peer networks, and other forms of trusted data storage.

The word "blockchain" is mentioned only once in the spec, and only in one of the 12 use cases.

The garbage part is that 9 of 10 (give or take) methods registered on https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/#did-methods are from crypto-hyper-cosmos-nonsense.

The reason is that serious organizations like MasterCard or BankID will only begin considering registering a method once the spec is a W3C Recommendation. At this stage, only insignificantly small or heavily invested parties registered a method on a draft standard (which is what a "proposed recommendation" roughly means).

Edit: nope, I was wrong, Mastercard has one https://github.com/Mastercard/did-methods/blob/master/id.md

The only decentralized one is the one that uses Bitcoin. No Bitcoin no real DID.

Decentralization matters.

Please don’t hijack the term decentralization to solely mean blockchain &co. What you are describing is a single system that uses technical means to decentralize (quite cleverly so).

The classical D. is achieved by not having a single system like Blockchain but instead having as many as you wish - anyone can install nginx on their server. This results in a multitude of systems achieved through policy means. The spec means decentralization in this way - Sweden can rely on some DID methods, UK on other, and you can use Bitcoin :)

You may argue that the latter is flawed but please don’t make it sound like the former is the only way.

All methods that don't rely on Bitcoin are not really decentralized.

All other systems can get decisions reversed and rules changed without much trouble. Try doing that in Bitcoin :)

Isn't BankID only used in Sweden? At least I have not heard that it is used in Norway, Finland or Denmark.

Having lived in both Sweden and Norway, I can say for sure that it's used in both places. I'm not sure though if I could've used my Swedish bankid to log into a Norwegian bank.

Finland has something similar: i can use my bank account to log in to places to see my medical info for example.

BankID is definitely a thing in Norway. Besides being used by banks here, I can use it to submit my taxes, view my prescriptions and lots of other things.

Sweden and Norway both use BankID and I believe they are compatible. Finland and Denmark have very similar systems.

Edit: Norway and Sweden both use a system called "BankID" that does the same thing in a compatible way, but they seem to be developed and managed by two separate companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com