|
|
|
|
|
|
by hack1312
12 days ago
|
|
|
My understanding is that if I want to host AT Proto infra for my community and want to give people <usename>.<domain> account, I can either host a did:web for them which ties their account permanently to that domain, or they have to register with the centralized PLC to actually have all the benefits of a migratable DID, while tying themselves to a central authority. Ergo, did:web does not provide the same UX as did:plc and there’s currently no way (that I know of) to provide such UX to users without requiring them to register did:plc accounts |
|
|
To clarify, do you mean you want their domain handles to look like this, or do you want to make them all have `did:web` identities? These are two different questions. Domain handles would work either way (with `did:plc` or `did:web`).
Indeed, the choice between `did:plc` and `did:web` is precisely "would I rather host tie identity JSON document to an entry in a centralized open source publicly verifiable registry that is moving to be maintained as neutrally as possible, or would I rather choose to tie my identity JSON document to a domain". And that choice has to be done at the account creation because every DID, by design, is immutable.
What options are lacking in that choice? It feels like it has an option for a pragmatist and an option for a purist.
>Ergo, did:web does not provide the same UX as did:plc
I mean, that is the difference between them. `did:web` means "I don't want to depend on anyone except domain authorities; I'm fine with losing identity if I lose the domain". Choosing `did:plc` means "I'm okay with depending on a central registry and find the threat model around it acceptable; I never worry about losing a domain". Both options are available.