Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tengada1 37 days ago
Wait what?! For a protocol that incorporates the DID spec this is disappointing to discover. Unless I'm mistaken the DID spec allows provable hierarchical relationships between DID identities – why can't a child DID be created from our master signing identity that has the authority to CRUD on our behalf but still be provably distinct from our root identity?

Not even sure why the PDS would require our signing key that just seems very sloppy to me. As you can tell I know very little about atProto, and I did participate in the development of the DID standard and I am dismayed to see such an inelegant solution in such a promising protocol.
1 comments
tengada1 37 days ago
Oops upon closer reading of the article and the comments here i see that the atproto standard does apparently allow for the above, at least to some degree. If there is indeed hierarchical support for the DIDs then you should be able to disavow any child identity from a master identity and leave no public uncertainty (ie the true owner of the key hereby disavows the following sub keys)

So if the worst case scenario presented in this article took place where a PDS was falsifying information and pretending to be you, you could presumably somehow revoke the child key that you provided to the PDS. I'll have to look more closely at this

You could even publish a signed selective retraction (delete the fake posts or mark them as fake) with proof that you control the key 1 level above the key that posted them

link
kevinak 37 days ago
The point of the article is that 99.9% of users will not take custodial control of their identity - not that they can’t.
link
tengada1 37 days ago
Well it's a very well understood concept in cryptocurrency – you just keep your seed phrase somewhere like on a paper wallet. And if you're less paranoid then millions of people use some thing like MetaMask which there could be an equivalent of for identity management relevant to atProto– or maybe there is?
link