Microstrategy's Orange Decentralized Identity (DID:BTC) project is basically DID:ION, but it stores changes to the DID Document JSON as an OP_RETURN in the blockchain itself instead of on IPFS.
There is a coding scheme to declare changes to existing JSONs and store them as new spend transactions. The DID:BTC:<address> references the creation event. To reassemble the complete document, follow all spends and apply each change to the DID Document as specified.
It's cool that it is decentralized, but this is like Ordinals. The use of the chain for every change can be quite data-heavy.
The funniest thing is Microstrategy demonstrating the use of DIDs to sign regular e-mails. Once you use DIDs to sign/verify, you can use any other DID method, including DID:NOSTR or DID:MYCOMPANY. They are all equally "decentralized". :)
What Saylor clearly doesn't understand is that DIDs are already decentralized by definition. Adding a blockchain method doesn't make it more decentralized. The user's choice of method is the decentralization feature (like choosing which relays you want to use).
Login to reply
Replies (7)
And once spam filters finally get fixed and the exploit patched, his DIDs die just like other Inscriptions.
Full spec:
did:btc Method Specification
The real issue is the binding to a legitimate actor who you can easily recognize. NIP-05 goes a long way toward solving the problem. Otherwise you are just another random npub or utxo.
I don't think he does. The way he describes the effects of the project is like the way Warren talks about Bitcoin: wrong words everywhere.
...and maybe that's why he's against funding devs...
You don't happen to own $MSTR do you?
Basically like our follow lists.
But Microstrategy is trying to make a case that everyone should trust (and pay for) their list for keys/DIDs.