DIDcomm: what happens when you let crypto folks into your web standards org (identity.foundation)
from self@awful.systems to buttcoin@awful.systems on 17 Dec 2023 23:03

we had a previous thread on this thing way back when TechTakes moved here, but it deserves a Buttcoin thread too. observe, for your enjoyment(???), an even worse derivative of the reputedly most worthless W3C standard. when you’ve got nothing of value to write about but you need a spec to be taken seriously so you write stuff like this:

The purpose of DIDComm Messaging is to provide a secure, private communication methodology built atop the decentralized design of DIDs.

It is the second half of this sentence, not the first, that makes DIDComm interesting. “Methodology” implies more than just a mechanism for individual messages, or even for a sequence of them. DIDComm Messaging defines how messages compose into the larger primitive of application-level protocols and workflows, while seamlessly retaining trust. “Built atop … DIDs” emphasizes DIDComm’s connection to the larger decentralized identity movement, with its many attendent virtues.

(that typo in the second paragraph of the spec has been there for at least 6 months, cause if anyone went back to proofread this crap they’d probably delete all of it out of embarrassment)

DIDcomm is what happens when crypto folks get invited to join your standards org, and it does to the spec writing process what crypto and AI did to whitepapers: it’s all extreme filler to mask the lack of an idea, built on top of a spec that famously specifies nothing


threaded - newest

self@awful.systems on 17 Dec 2023 23:07 next collapse

this is the output you get when your standards committee is just 27-year-old crypto grifters asking each other “but DID you comm?” and giggling

bitofhope@awful.systems on 20 Dec 2023 21:10 collapse

a spec that famously specifies nothing

I have read some specifications that get surprisingly close to this. You might think it’s the worst failure mode a spec can have but frankly there are some specs out there that would be improved by specifying nothing at all instead.

self@awful.systems on 20 Dec 2023 21:50 collapse

that’s a very accurate descriptor for DIDcomm! they may have had second thoughts and removed it from this version of the spec, but the last version I read had several sections dedicated to the specific colors and gradients for the icons compliant applications should use for their DIDcomm functionality. also I think there was an extensive pronunciation key for ordinary words, and I’d be shocked if the current version of the spec didn’t keep sidetracking itself to evangelize for unrelated cryptocurrency projects

bitofhope@awful.systems on 20 Dec 2023 22:02 collapse

Trying to get my product certified as standard compliant but I keep getting rejected because my accent makes me say a word in a wrong way

self@awful.systems on 20 Dec 2023 22:08 collapse

“is that… is your default avatar icon mauve?” furious scribbling in a tiny notebook

bitofhope@awful.systems on 20 Dec 2023 22:39 collapse

Oh, so when ISO does it everyone loves that but if we do it it’s suddenly cringe? Stop canceling my freedom of speech you SJW implementoid.

self@awful.systems on 20 Dec 2023 23:07 collapse

you claim to fight for workers rights and yet you don’t respect their right to be surprised by crush danger or a potential electrical hazard? did your soviet handlers tell you to make factories more boring so nobody would want to work there?