Psuedonymity not anonymity. Will fix Issue #111 #119
Conversation
Note, also updates main text for collecting payments for work conducted anonymously but left title in tact.
|
I think this needs more work before it's ready to merge.
The relationship between anonymity and pseudonymity in a DID use-case
should not assume that readers share a common definition of the terms.
Comment
#102 (comment)
frames the issue of a relationship between anonymity and pseudonymity in
terms of governance or a "break the glass" cost. Another framing might be
in terms of Zero Knowledge Proofs issued in a governance context. Notaries
and mediators are other terms we have discussed that relate to this.
…On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:29 PM Phil Archer ***@***.***> wrote:
Note, also updates main text for collecting payments for work conducted
anonymously but left title in tact.
------------------------------
Preview
<https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/did-use-cases/pull/119.html> |
Diff
<https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/did-use-cases/119/9993275...9ba557e.html>
------------------------------
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#119
Commit Summary
- Psuedonymity not anonymity. Will fix Issue #111
File Changes
- *M* index.html
<https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/pull/119/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051>
(6)
Patch Links:
- https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/pull/119.patch
- https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/pull/119.diff
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#119>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABB4YOWHRFHS3W65CQS4JTSN4JD5ANCNFSM4TH5LGOA>
.
|
|
Thank you @agropper. I'm outside my knowledge here so I defer to you and others of course. Personally, I was happy with anonymous. For the use case in question, each actor in the chain needs to know that other actors are authorized to have/have had/to take custody of a shipment. Information about Who they are is often not needed. It's about proving the chain, not who was in the chain. From my POV, therefore 'anonymous' is a perfectly acceptable term. I'm also anxious to avoid detailed solutineering in the UCR. @jandrieu - over to you to resolve this one. |
|
@agropper We aren't trying to define psuedonymous or anonymous here, we just want to use the most appropriate term. While I agree many will not know what pseudonymous means, we do, and IMO, we should use the right term. |
|
Joe and I have discussed this and are minded to accept this change. @agropper, please raise a new issue or reopen the PR if you are unhappy with this action. |
Note, also updates main text for collecting payments for work conducted anonymously but left title in tact.
Preview | Diff