Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Where is authorizedRevokingParties stored? #112

Open
nicksmd opened this issue Sep 11, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Where is authorizedRevokingParties stored? #112

nicksmd opened this issue Sep 11, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@nicksmd
Copy link

nicksmd commented Sep 11, 2018

the authorizedRevokingParties is mentioned in the blockcerts-revocation paper several times. Where is it stored to ensure that the revocation process is decentralized?

@jandrieu
Copy link
Contributor

@kimdhamilton This one is for you.

@ChristopherA
Copy link
Member

It depends on what kind of DID is used by the blockcert.

In the BTCR method for DIDs, if the unspent output (aka UTXO) of the destination address of the DID transaction is spent without use of a op_return output, the DID is considered to be revoked. This information is available on every bitcoin full-node in the world within a few minutes, and is confirmed in ~10 minutes. It is as decentralized as bitcoin is.

Other DID methods use different techniques for revocation.

@kimdhamilton kimdhamilton self-assigned this Oct 14, 2018
@kimdhamilton
Copy link
Contributor

In this paper, @joaosantos15 and I presented a solution where the set of authorized revokers are flexible and use case dependent. The authorized revokers are stored in the contract, so this assumes that at issuance time (and revocation contract creation time) these individuals are known.

The intent for Blockcerts scenarios is that the issuer or recipient would be able to revoke that recipient's credential by assertion uid (an open badges concept).

Note that this paper is pretty old so it's not using the Verifiable Credentials scheme or DIDs.

Furthermore, our approach has downsides which we mention in the paper, one of which is that it enables correlation. Future revisions would attempt to address this.

@kimdhamilton kimdhamilton removed their assignment Oct 14, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants