Andreas Walter

Andreas Walter

teefax@hubzilla.teefax.de

This channel has not added a profile description yet

Homepage:: https://teefax.de

Sat, 02 Nov 2019 23:29:23 +0100

Andreas Walter

teefax@hubzilla.teefax.de

Kennt jemand schon oder hat gar Erfahrungen mit Decentralized identifiers (DIDs)?
Wär das eine Ergänzung zu Hubzilla bzw. Zot?
Oder hab ich was verpasst und ist schon möglich?

Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0

Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier for verifiable, decentralized digital identity. These new identifiers are designed to enable the controller of a DID to prove control over it and to be implemented independently of any centralized registry, identity provider, or certificate authority. DIDs are URLs that relate a DID...

show all 4 comments

Sun, 03 Nov 2019 16:50:35 +0100

Andreas Walter

teefax@hubzilla.teefax.de

Fine. I think the basic idea ist quite good. So hopefully some "real developers" are going to extend the dev-team.

Sun, 03 Nov 2019 20:40:33 +0100

El Dorado

mike@z.macgirvin.com

If you look under the covers the current design uses blockchain. While this is one of the more sensible uses of blockchain, blockchain technology by definition has a scaling issue. The blockchain grows forever. The other flaw in the current mechanism is the use of LD-signatures, which was a horrible specification as the resulting signatures are unreliable and inefficient because they require centralised resources and cannot be encapsulated. These things aren't likely to change and could be very difficult to fix. They are probably OK for centralised services with unlimited resources but not so good for distributed services running on adhoc hardware. What we're doing here is trying to get rid of reliance on centralised services - so we have a basic ideological conflict with technology that naturally leads to futher centralisation.

Mon, 04 Nov 2019 10:44:21 +0100

Andreas Walter

teefax@hubzilla.teefax.de

Thanks for the insights.
I've read about an blockchain that cuts it's history some 40, 50 or whatever entrys in the past to prevent the uncontrolled growing. It was for use with internet of things. That implicits some reduce of security and makes it easyer to controll more than 50% of the chain elements. Might be that thinking in this direction will lead to an acceptable resolution. Other substitues of an original Blockchain might also be possible.
The point with the signatures I've not recognised yet. I'm not familar with them. If they need some centralised component it won't fit and has to be replaced.

The core idea of an distributed domain name system is still fascinating. Hope some guys (or girls!) will get it done.