But I have thought through the problem
and I've made concrete proposals to nostr
It's merely a set of signed structured claims and a set of signed structured certifications of those claims
and since every event is signed and is unique then we can not worry about the signatures and just use events to create structured claims and certifications of those claims
Can you articulate why you think DIDs and VCs are a bad solution in technical terms?
I articulated precisely what was needed for a pki infrastructure. can you articulate in technical terms how DIDs and VCs satisfy that and only that?
indeed the embedding of proofs just makes dids broken, imo
The whole system is based on a premise of identity that isn't necessary for anyone in this ecosystem
The entire system was authored without actually thinking about what people needed or wanted and instead it was authored with a series of intents instead of coming from industry coming from protocol designers
The proper way to build a protocol is to observe what's happening in the wild in the chaos of something like an NOSTR and then look what most people are doing and codify it so that new people coming on board can be compatible
in nostr anyone can publish a structured event with some public claims
anyone can respond to that event with public structured assertions of those claims
the absurd notions of privacy in the did system and the insistance on using xml reflects everything wrong with the w3c
YES!
- the data types are inhertied from XML (xsd)
- there is no first class JSON form
- so-called unregistered terms require a hack
- everything is a Set so arrays can have dups
- arrays are incredibly complex to do
- nested json is hard
- blank nodes in nested json are harder
- circular nested references is an intractable problem
- you inherit a strange language type model form RDF/XML
- you inherit strange datatypes
- the matching of the canoncial form isnt guaranteed
- the so-called Did Document has the wrong range
- it has http dependencies
- it has dependencies on w3.org
- it has dependencies on w3id.org
- w3id.org is a federation nothing to do with w3.org
- it has a problem with httprange14
- relative links are a mess, this will end up being the biggest problem
- it has over 100 methods, how will you support it
- it is largely gate kept by alt coiners
- it is still missing schnorr signatures after 4 years
This is just a 5 minute brain dump, I could probably double that list
I believe you have made this fallacious argument about it being dependent on W3C.org before, and I refuted it then.
Not going to argue with you, I'm gonna fix it for you! BUT show me your canonical form then!
also, the so-called privacy layer is a waste of time
all claims should be public claims about the provenance of public keys
all certificates are also public
