[motohagiography]

The energy argument seems like a disingenuous signal to dilute the discourse into a political one instead of examining the architectural merit. If the best argument they have against decentralization is that proof of work uses electricity, it's a red herring holding a dog whistle in front of a motte and baily while it asks whether anyone will think of the children.

[inter_netuser]

Google stands to lose a lot if DIDs take off. They'll stop at nothing.

[geofft]

Before the argument against blockchain methods is an argument against centralized methods such as "did:ccp", which seems to be an identity mechanism backed by Baidu accounts: https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#did-methods

If this were a Google conspiracy using Mozilla sock puppets, why would they bring that up as an objection, and ask to move the spec back to the discussion phase explicitly forbidding such mechanisms? It would be extremely straightforward for Çelik's handler at Google to ask him to remove that paragraph before publishing it.

(There are more centralized identity mechanisms there, including a proposal to use Microsoft GitHub. That spec doesn't even have the veneer of distributed ledger that Baidu's one does, and it was added by Transmute, one of the authors of the DID spec. How do we know Transmute isn't a Microsoft sock puppet, helping them "embrace, extend, and extinguish" this spec? It seems like Çelik's concerns are all reasonable and it would be entirely possible to make a DID spec that satisfied all of them - is the reason that we ended up with this DID spec that Microsoft and Google are deliberately producing a bad version?)

[inter_netuser]

mozilla conspiracy:

Mozilla referenced quite openly "Google sez PoW bad", idk if something this open is a conspiracy.

"Proof-of-work methods (e.g. blockchains) are harmful for sustainability (s12y). Also as noted by __Google__, the registry contains methods which rely upon proof-of-work which is wasteful. “Successful” proof-of-work systems ..."

Google simply wants to own the entire identity stack end to end, and they can, because they own Android. Same with Apple. Apple is canvassing various jurisdictions right now with their Digital ID, and demands internal govt discussions use a codename and that nobody mentions Apple by name, and also try to restrict who gets to know, gonna be one anti-open standard if they get their way. Google is likely doing the same, haven't been following this stuff too closely these days, but their ventures arm has made investments all over in identity in the last decade.

centralized objection:

The DID push from Microsoft hinges on their ability to route around the mobile platform control (because they don't have a mobile platform), so that they can even begin to compete with Apple/Google here. I'm sure Apple and Google just love the idea of being cut out and commoditized.

That's all this is about, Microsoft not having a mobile platform. so now MSFT is fighting for an open standard, which is hilarious. They don't care if it's centralized on some identity provider like github or whatever. If you dig deep enough all identity is centralized in the end on the most authoritative source of identity: government. "decentrablazed" is just a window dressing.

I concede that this doesn't explain Mozilla actions very clearly, but they are at this point a mostly irrelevant player in the identity market anyway, nobody except their 3% of marketshare cares what they think. Mozilla just renewed their deal with Google for 400mil, so it could very well be an executive decision that "DID very bad, no matter what", and how their standards architects have to contort themselves into pretzels on mailing lists and invent new catchy acronyms. The mozilla-google contract terms haven't been published even in the roughest approximation, make of that what you will.

[geofft]

Right, it's not a conspiracy. When there are multiple participants in a forum, and one participant has already raised a point that you agree with, saying "I agree with so-and-so's point about..." is the normal way to do things.

What would be a conspiracy - and a genuine problem - is if Mozilla were repeating Google's line because they were there to advocate for Google's beliefs instead of what they thought was best, i.e,. the group was stacked in Google's favor. But the evidence we have doesn't permit us to conclude that this is happening or even likely.

As a simple example, Mozilla and Google tend to reach the same conclusions about whether a new CA should be trusted or an old CA should be distrusted. But this isn't because one is telling the other what to do; it's because they have similar standards and expectations of CAs.

(It would also be weird, and perhaps a conspiracy and a problem, if Google were not a participant in the W3C and Mozilla felt that its role was to represent Google's thoughts instead of its own. But that's not what's happening here, either.)