Conversation
ddesiderio
left a comment
ddesiderio
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for getting this CHIP started to define the standard for DID1. I've added a few preliminary discussion points related to the spec for your review. Related to my previous CHIP request I have also asked a few questions around metadata and respective schema which would be great to solve before DID1 release.
Looking forward to seeing some more detail on the RPCs once this gets fleshed out a bit further 😄
CHIPs/chip-0004.md
Outdated
| * For recovery, each DID should contain a hash of a list of trusted DIDs. If recovery is not a desired feature, then a placeholder may be used instead | ||
| * The trusted DID list may contain an unbounded number of entries | ||
| * DIDs must support transaction fees upon transferal | ||
| * DIDs should not contain any personally identifiable data |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For DIDs to have real-world usability they will need to have some way to link to PII info at some level. I agree with the suggestion of avoiding writing any PII data directly on chain (if at all possible), but DIDs will need some other way (external metadata links, etc.) to have ties to PII info. Consider also the KYC case which will likely require 3rd parties to "stamp" a DID with some sort of verified info, keeping KYC info off-chain somewhere linked to the DID.
|
I noticed that the Profile I got from my spanking new Chia 1.4.0 client uses the format "did:chia:xxxxxxx" - is it a good idea for testnet dID to look the same as mainnet dID? Had this thought while reviewing DIF sidetree specification: https://identity.foundation/sidetree/spec/#did-uri-composition |
Signed-off-by: danieljperry <d.perry@chia.net>
Signed-off-by: danieljperry <d.perry@chia.net>
Signed-off-by: danieljperry <d.perry@chia.net>
Signed-off-by: danieljperry <d.perry@chia.net>
|
This CHIP is now Final. Further changes (other than errata) are no longer allowed. |
9 participants
No description provided.