gbl08ma.com
A very experimental PLC implementation which uses BFT consensus for decentralization
More README adjustments
+5
-3
README.md
+5
-3
README.md
···
31
31
32
32
#### Isn't did:web the answer to decentralizing identities?
33
33
34
-
did:web is certainly a valid option for participating in ATProto without depending on the plc.directory. However, did:plc was developed precisely because did:web presented usability and scalability limitations in the context of ATProto. did:web probably "isn't for everyone;" it presents trade-offs too. We believe that the choice for decentralized identifier methods should not be between "dependent on DNS but independent from [single organization]" and "self-authenticating but dependent on [organization]." A decentralized identifier for one's (social) identity/ies feels like something that is too fundamental to be heavily dependent on what is essentially a different form of identifier (a DNS name), particularly when DNS at the internet level is ultimately controlled by the root zone administrators, or in more practical terms, the administrators of each TLD (which very much feels like a "pick your poison" type of scenario).
34
+
[did:web](https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-method-web/) is certainly a valid option for participating in ATProto without depending on the plc.directory. However, did:plc was developed precisely because did:web presented usability and scalability limitations in the context of ATProto. did:web probably "isn't for everyone;" for example, its use for identifiers controlled by individuals who wish to remain private has been [discouraged](https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-method-web/issues/16). A decentralized identifier for one's (social) identity/ies feels like something that is too fundamental to be heavily dependent on what is essentially a different form of identifier (a DNS name), particularly when DNS at the internet level is ultimately controlled by the root zone administrators, or in more practical terms, the administrators of each TLD (which very much feels like a "pick your poison" type of scenario).
35
35
36
36
There is also the more practical argument that, between did:web and did:plc, the latter is the one that has millions of active users - regardless of whether we like this situation or the path that led to it. It would certainly be nice if all of those identities could be preserved in a decentralized way, without the identities themselves changing to a different method.
37
37
38
-
We are aware that did:web will keep evolving, and it could even get to a point where it no longer strictly depends on DNS, for example. However, this is not a battle where there can only be one winner.
39
-
did:plc definitely has its merits, and to further improve its chance of long-term success, ideally even beyond ATProto, we believe that sooner or later a concrete path to the decentralization of the PLC must be developed. We are trying to work on precisely that.
38
+
We are aware that, when it comes to DID methods in general and not just those "blessed" for use in ATProto, options exist besides did:plc and did:web, including [did:webvh](https://identity.foundation/didwebvh/v1.0/), which greatly reduces the dependency on DNS when compared to did:web, and [did:fid](https://github.com/cboscolo/farcaster-did), which [purposefully](https://bsky.app/profile/boscolo.co/post/3mdeknx3pfk2g) builds on top of cryptocurrency networks, something didplcbft intentionally avoids.
39
+
40
+
**The field of decentralized identifiers is not a battle where there can only be one winner.** We certainly don't think didplcbft is the only path to the decentralization of the identifiers used in ATProto, or the best one.
41
+
On its own, did:plc definitely has its merits, and to further improve its chance of long-term success, ideally even beyond ATProto, we believe that sooner or later a concrete path to the decentralization of the PLC must be developed. We are trying to work on precisely that.
40
42
41
43
#### Wouldn't a blockchain-based approach be something that warrants its own DID method, rather than piggybacking on did:plc?
42
44