Question is coming from Reddit, but I will repost it in the Forum as I believe it´s a really good one and didn´t get the attention it deserves.
" While learning more and more about the W3C DID initiative https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/ I was wondering if it this technical feasable to implement a Cardano-identity-resolver and if in general this would make any sense for this project? "
“DIDs can work with any DLT (distributed ledger technology) for which a DID method—a way of creating, reading, updating, and revoking a DID—has been specified.”
“To enable the full functionality of DIDs and DID Documents on a particular distributed ledger or network (called the target system), a DID method specification MUST specify how each of the following CRUD operations is performed by a client. Each operation MUST be specified to the level of detail necessary to build and test interoperable client implementations with the target system.”
For Hyperledger consortium / enterpise blockchain there is an implementation called Indy for DID:
DID looks like to develop itself as a near future standard, currently pending at W3C and OASIS.
Another great question. I believe the notion of a digital identity in Cardano has been spoken about in some of the various video clips I have watched but not in any detail that I am aware of. I am not as well versed as others here though.
Just scanned the DID specification draft… I think this is an important capability for the decentralized community at large. I would imagine this will be part of the architectural roadmap if its not already.
I think, to solve the privacy is one of the most importent concerns along w/ the governance and economics issues that need to be solved somehow. I was studying some of the privacy-related
(and the other twos either) ones (Cicada, RAdix, everest.net, uPort etc.), but none of them seem to be satisfactory.
Also, I can see some issue w/ DID either as it does not solve the most critical (IMO) issue:
How to bind an ID (or some PII data) to a real-world person securely in some decentralised and claimable fashion.
I watched it, but it’s un-understandable from ~38 to 50 mins. Is there any better quality of that
QA part of the recording?
Anyway, it does not seem to me solve the issue I have mentioned.
Also, this concept assumes that the issuer is trustworthy, which cannot be guaranteed (nor expected). For example, the issuer can decline a (later) claim (to punish the claimer for example because of her political view). There are several other use cases in which this design decision is not suitable.
As an example, the citizenship by birth sould never-ever be revoked at all, but a corrupt governemt (we still have a lot especially for those who really needs their privacy protected) could decline the claim.
Therefore, I would say that a better option could be to bind the citizenship to the owner initially somehow (therefore she/he has it in some claimable fashion despite when the issuer/authority does not want to disclose it) and not as claim from an authority/issuer.
But, I could have misunderstood Indy, so just started to read the Sovrin whitepaper and read some stuffs abt Indy either.