RT @danheld: This is huge. A ton of enterprise infrastructures use Microsoft products which means they will be using Bitcoin’s blockchain for decentralized identify!
Great work @csuwildcat 👏 https://t.co/REU0JB5GPw
Decentralized ID "settled" to the bitcoin mainnet. that's a pretty interesting use case of Bitcoin as a settlement layer.
I wonder what some of the core devs think about this kind of thing. has anyone seen any tweets about this from them? https://t.co/zcpiWzl52f
thrilled that @microsoft is building its digital identity stack on the bitcoin network
blockchains have a feature fetish. no amount of features can replace a robust, secure computational network and an uncompromising commitment to immutability.
This is huge. A ton of enterprise infrastructures use Microsoft products which means they will be using Bitcoin’s blockchain for decentralized identify!
Great work @csuwildcat 👏 https://t.co/REU0JB5GPw
Please note though that almost any blockchain can support basic did functionality, the question is how well it actually is supported. It looks to me that ION adds a layer to abstract the complexity of of Bitcoin based DID implementation while providing transaction batching. Sidetree (underlying tech of ion) will be able for use on other platforms as well. The general approach Microsoft is taking is to support DID, regardless of the specific DID method (sovrin, Uport, Bitcoin etc)
The Ethereum based DID solution is actually Uport. I'm not sure if there's any option to layer an Ethereum sidetree, (guessing no), but I'm also not sure if it's necessary as DID transactions are mostly peer-to-peer (no blockchain) and can be validated for read operations.
Looks like they plan to store everyone's personal data in the "cloud" while encrypting it so only whoever they give the encryption key to can access it (in theory). I think they are suggesting the person will control the key. In practice I'd guess they will make it easy to allow access to corporations and such that will not be safe storage places.
Sounds pretty cool in theory, though. Especially if the Gov does not add a backdoor. Putting it on BTC later this year sounds like a questionable decision if it adds TX volume. Practicing on BTC while BCH gets it's hash power up is not a bad idea though.
No they're going with Bitcoin according to their [Github repo](https://github.com/decentralized-identity/ion).
>By leveraging the blockchain-agnostic Sidetree protocol, ION makes it possible to anchor tens of thousands of DID/PKI operations on a target chain (in ION's case, Bitcoin) using a single on-chain transaction
So I guess I see this as an off chain solution, similar to Lightning network? Thinking this is how it would work if I wanted to open an account on a social network (SN):
-I open a channel off chain and fund it - this provides a connection with the SN and allows the SN to access/display my content
-As long as I keep the channel open, my content is available to the SN.
-If I close the channel, my content can then no longer be accessed (e.g. it's encrypted)
Sounds to me like they'll be spamming up the bitcoin blockchain with unrelated info.
In any case, MS getting interested is only a threat.
They can go make their own blockchain. They don't need to co-opt an already successful product.
Of course, that's their M.O. This is not good for bitcoin.
>Sounds to me like they'll be spamming up the bitcoin blockchain with unrelated info.
Haven't read the article, but they can probably batch like appx daily a big commit and hash it, then save the hash to the blockchain
Basically just use bitcoin blockchain as a notary
You could even aim for some hash committment between hourly and 4 times daily and that'd probably be good enough
Interesting article. Discusses a use-case that I have seen mentioned occasionally but I think this is the first implementation I've seen laid out, and the fact that Microsoft is behind it is promising. The article then turns into a little bit of Facebook-bashing, which I always love to see. I also particularly enjoyed the comparison of crypto today to the first iterations of Microsoft Windows back in the 90's. No click summary below, emphasis mine.
Microsoft is launching the first decentralized infrastructure implementation by a major tech company that is built directly on the bitcoin blockchain.
The open source project, called Ion, deals with the underlying mechanics of how networks talk to each other. For example, if you log onto Airbnb using Facebook, a protocol deals with the software that sends the personal information from your social profile to that external service provider. In this case, Ion handles the decentralized identifiers, which control the ability to prove you own the keys to this data.
Indeed, Yorke Rhodes, a program manager on Microsoft’s blockchain engineering team, told CoinDesk that Microsoft’s team has been working for a year on a key signing and validation software that relies on public networks, like bitcoin or ethereum, yet can handle far greater throughput than the underlying blockchain itself.
Stepping back, the difference between a DID under the hood, versus current infrastructure, speaks to the heart of users owning their own content and access. In the example of Facebook and Airbnb, with a DID, Facebook might be able to shut down your social media account but could not revoke access to all the tools that relied on the Facebook ID to log in. Plus, all those personal photos on Facebook would belong to the user, the holder of the DID.
Yet Facebook, in particular, may not align with Microsoft’s approach.
“They’re going in a different direction that’s not as decentralized,” the source said of Facebook.
The Wall Street Journal and others have reported that Facebook is looking to build a stablecoin-based payments platform for the social network. Yet Allen said he hasn’t seen any effort from Facebook to support DID standards or community efforts such as W3C, which may create a rift with corporations like Microsoft that are making such standards a core pillar of their business model.
Rouven Heck, head of DID at ConsenSys and active member of the W3C, told CoinDesk that Facebook is noticeably absent from community discussions across the tech industry about DIDs.
And although Rhodes said he was not aware of any dealings with Facebook, there was clearly a misalignment between the two company’s goals for using blockchain technology.
“Facebook is the complete antithesis of consumer privacy,” he said. “Their business model is based on the fact they can monetize data about you.”
In contrast to the allegations that Facebook is taking a different direction with its project, both ConsenSys and Microsoft are opting to make open source initiatives core pillars of their respective business models.
“If we can create certain standards it will help the system to build up faster, and that’s good for all of us,” Heck said. “The different products we have are all useful across the space and not built into some proprietary niche.”
“You could have a service that is in the cloud hosted by Microsoft Azure, but is absolutely secure because everything in it is encrypted with your keys that you control and everything that run under your authority, even though it’s in the cloud,” Allen said.
In Rhodes’ opinion, current experiments with blockchain technology are comparable to Microsoft releasing Windows 95 in decades past, which helped boost mainstream internet usage through a consumer-oriented operating system.
I'm not sure what exact use case you are referring too, but DID's are indeed awesome. It's basically peer-to-peer identity transactions, so no more Identity providers and complete privacy. The work on it goes well beyond this Microsoft tool though.
Update: It looks like Ion (the system referenced above) is built on Bitcoin, but there is also a version of the system built on ETH called Element.
Could this in any way be used for either censorship or surveillance in the blockchain / cryptocurrency ecosystem? Although Google has been the worst at this chapter, large tech firms like Microsoft have had a history of creating repression tools for the government... including both that of America and more recently that of China.
Your question doesn't have a straight answer. While this doesn't attack the private/anonymous/pseudoanonymous nature of Bitcoin it does bring to light the double edged nature of decentralized chains. If someone gets DOXXED on Reddit the mods or admins can clean it up a bit. What happens if someone publishes all your private information to the blockchain? What if that someone is an advertising corporation?
It is equally as permissionless as Bitcoin itself, given all you need to participate in the L2 network is to create a Bitcoin transaction that is encoded in accordance with the deterministic protocol. There are no permissioning entities, additional consensus systems, validators, or centralized entities that decide who can use the protocol.
if that is the case it is somewhat exciting on the technology side, however, I am sceptical to what problem is this trying to solve?
afaik great number of people do not have any legal identity documentation (passport, ID,...) and therefore are excluded from variety of services.
how do they create a decentralized, legally binding identity solution if they are exposed to catching fire as a centralized corporation?
to me, this all sounds like a buzzword refresh for their Active Directory solution, far outside of potential disruptive impact a true identity solution would have.
Microsoft is actually who you want building this (disclaimer: I work for Microsoft but not in the blockchain team). Microsoft doesn’t have to profit off of this identity solution directly - they need a standardized DID protocol that they can then integrate with. For a large company, employee identities used at work belong to the company itself, and having Azure Active Directory (AAD) integration with DID will make this extremely accessible. Once Microsoft gets a company using AAD, they are far more likely to use other Microsoft products and drive meaningful revenue. This will also drive further usage of blockchain technology.
Of course, any company using Microsoft tooling to manage identities must trust that Microsoft can’t read the company-owned private keys and make transactions on their behalf, which is why contracts and audits exist.
As I understand it, it is similar to Tim Berners-Lee Solid, you can manage your own identities and data in use case with third partys? The advantage of Microsoft's solution is MS and Bitcoin already has a large user base in place.
> Chip the cattle, nothing good will come out of this.
That is one view point, but also consider that while we do have things like IDs, it might be good to have then secure, not easy to forge (e.g. taking a loan in your name, is a common thing that is done for example in Poland against random people and you have no real defense against it, often you end up paying for it).
What are you talking about? They have completely redone their model. FFS they are more open source than Google is right now. I'd argue MS is doing all the right things right now. Especially when it comes to software support in the .NET and .NET Core frameworks. They are even releasing a new terminal that is open source.
There's no "spam" on the blockchain. If people are willing to pay he fees, they're as entitled to it as anybody else. Demand for block space is high, which is why the fee market must exist. If transactions were effectively free, there would be an infinite demand to fill up blocks of unlimited size, making it impossible to remain distributed.
MS is doing right by sticking to Bitcoin. Altcoins are a waste of space and won't exist in 10 years.
ION is not a sidechain or peer consensus system - the L2 nodes do not require any additional consensus mechanism beyond the underlying Bitcoin blockchain for them to operate and independently apply their deterministic protocol rules.
Why? I can have a holding company that invests in millions of cardboard boxes, take it public, and the market decides its worth $1 trillion. Are you seriously arguing my hypothetical company is larger than Walmart?
I didnt say that. I said that Microsoft marketcap is way bigger and that its the only thing that matters.
Nobody gives a shit about revenue or assets, what currently matters is the perceived value and potential a company has.
Care to give any reason, at all, about why you're correct? Give me 1 good reason why market cap is a better measurement of a company's size than revenue - **especially** as it pertains to the effect of their involvement in crypto. You're the troll here.