Display of DDO if no OP_RETURN present

[kimdhamilton]

What should happen if no OP_RETURN is present?

At the moment, this can happen in 2 cases:

• Intent was to create a DID with no continuations
• No intent of creating a DID with a transaction

This ends up with weird cases if the signer did not intend to create a BTCR did:

• if OP_RETURN is present in the tx, it is listed as a DDO continuation
• either way, it's as if they are getting a btcr did "for free" without some special marker. This may be acceptable, but if so we should call out this interesting side effect.

This issue is two-fold:

• How to address in UI
• How to address in spec

The latter can be moved to the proper repo after we determine how to address.

[ChristopherA]

If there is no op_return, but a verifiable claim points to it and is signed with the same key, the presumption is that it is a for DID/DDO pair, and you can only use the deterministic DDO (e.g fragement /0). This can still be revoked and rotated, however, it can't be rotated without the new transaction revealing an op_return (which can still be relatively censorship resistant as in the IPFS case a ipfs hash is indistinquisable from other hashes and signatures put in op_returns. Only in the URL case might it possibly be censored (currently today almost no miners are censoring op_returns).

In some ways, an op_return-less transaction is a like pre-commit to a DID — you can start issuing verifiable claims. it is censorship resistant as it look totally like another transaction. You can decide later if you wish to rotate it to be able to add an additional fragment /1 to the DDO, and you can put your old owner key as a new issuer key, making all your prior verifiable claims still valid.

cc: @msporny @talltree @rxgrant

[kimdhamilton]

This issue was moved to WebOfTrustInfo/rwot5-boston#42