 Great. And it looks like we are live. Hi, I'm Dazza Greenwood, a scientist at the MIT Media Lab and one of the co-chairs, and happy to be co-host of next week's Worldwide Web Consortium Blockchain Workshop to talk about prospects and possibilities for standards with a blockchain. And with me is co-chair, Daniel Buckner, who I wanted to introduce to maybe just provide a little bit of an update of where things are at now with the conference planning. And I know we had a program committee call last week, which unfortunately I wasn't able to join. And maybe could you maybe just bring people up to speed a little bit on where things are at with the schedule. And then soon we'll get to one of our program committee members and someone who will be presenting, I think, on one of the topics. And so I'll do that introduction in a moment. And Daniel, take it away. Yeah, so last week we talked a little bit about everyone being invited, a last call to make sure registrations were in. We also took a look at scoring the requests for speaking. So those were tabulated by you, Daza. And over the weekend, just yesterday, we were able to actually pair that list down. And I think we have a full ranked sort of list of the topics of interest. So I think that's going to help inform basically the layout of the talks. But those people, we said we had room for at least 20 to 25 minimum during the official hours of the workshop. And I'm sure that we can get pretty much everyone on the list if we started including off social time after the break at 5 PM the first night or whatever that is. We could accommodate that at some other location. So yeah, I think we made good progress there. And we have a clear sense of what we're going to be discussing. OK, great. And so speaking of what we're going to be discussing, I wanted to take the opportunity with this hangout to start to set the table a little bit with respect to the topics. And so as you said, there was ratings and rankings. And one of the topics that came out pretty strong, I think, was yours, Daniel. And then we're also going to hear about security in a moment. But could you get us started by just describing what it is that you've proposed that people reacted so well to with the ratings and how you could see this approach toward identity ripening eventually into potentially something that could be standardized by the W3C? What is the problem statement? And what is the approach to standardization or blockchain that you're proposing? Yeah, so I think as you stated, you could see through the rankings the proposal that I had, as well as other people, it really lines up around identity. And it really takes over those top few rankings. And I think what's important there is understanding why it's so important to W3. Because as a standard, it's very personal to the user. It's important that we hit on identity in the browser. Because it's a user agent. And what we're talking about is agency. And so what's really unique about the blockchain in this sense is that for the very first time, really effectively in history, we've had a distributed system that allows ownership of an identity, but then can also be the source of indices for those identities. And one source that you can look at and securely know that you're finding the right identity. You're finding the right person that matches that identity. And we just really haven't had that before in a decentralized user sovereign way. So I would say that when it comes to what do we standardize? Well, I don't think you actually have to have awareness of all these inner guts of every blockchain to do that. And I think folks like Blockstack have done a really good job of sort of taking care of that in an application layer that I would liken to an implementer's layer. Everyone may implement focusing an input slightly differently in code. But if the output is recognition of an identity that's tied to a public-private key that you look in one place for, you can have that other layer do the rest of the work for you. So I think that's the crux of what we'd like to see the body huddle around and understand as a possible standards opportunity. It really unlocks a ton of stuff for the other substandards that are within W3 that might touch on security, privacy, whole hosting. Got it. And it actually looks like we're joined by Marta. Is that right? Yeah, it's Marta. Hi, Marta. Could you introduce yourself, please? I'm from Blockstream. I've been working on the privacy of blockchain. And I'm the security architect in Blockstream working with Christopher Allen and working a bit on identity on blockchain and applications of blockchain other than Bitcoin. Great. And so I had a form for folks that wanted to talk about proposals or problem statements. And I knew that Daniel had something to say, and so did Shinichiro. Maybe I didn't check the form enough, or maybe you came in through a different channel. But I wanted to check, was there something that you wanted to propose by way of a prospective standard or problem statement as part of the Hangout? Or was it more you wanted maybe just a chance to discuss and feedback or something else? OK, so I would like to propose one thing about the security and trust. And so on the web-oriented blockchain standards, we should be aware of trust of each entity and node. The trust comes from the technologies or components. We used operational environment and operational policy of each node. And sharing this information about the trust among the blockchain-based web services is needed to establish trustable services over blockchain. At W3C, the possible standardization items are the ontologies, analysis framework, interfaces, some message format, and protocol. I think it needed both for nodes and client. And W3C needs collaboration with external experts on security and trust. It may include other security-related standardization organization, like CFRG in ILDA, and a group of security experts like Mozilla Foundation. So the possible discussion topics as which organizations are appropriate and how to establish reasons and invited experts. And so W3C also needs communication with external research communities. And we should also discuss on joint work with web quick, web application security, and web authentication. These are the existing activities in W3C. Yeah, I actually agree with that. So I think that's what we talk about identity. It really does hit on all those things. And internally at Microsoft, I know there was a bit of there was a tumultuous period where people were trying to understand how this fit into a lot of work that was long-standing, like FIDO and web authentication. And so at first it looked like, oh, this thing was going to come in and somehow disrupt everything that was going on when really I think a lot of those specs can benefit here. Because all we're introducing is the idea that there's this place that has the source of truth of identity tokens. And then they link to identities however they choose. And as long as we can inform the browser where to look and how to receive that data, it can then plug into existing standards, like the web auth standard, FIDO flows, a lot of those are, web auth is pretty generic. It can be modded to accommodate this. And then things like FIDO are more almost flows. So I don't think any of those go away. It was interesting, I'll point out we talked to a company case which makes form factors for key security in the Bitcoin space and for authentication, stuff like that. They have this interesting new form factor that they're gonna be putting out pretty soon, this fall sometime. And we started talking about off flows with them and what we could do with this identity layer. And when you pair their form factor with a system like this, we started getting into all sorts of new territory where someone could walk up to an untrusted computer with a browser and they could essentially use this form factor and just touch a machine and instantly be asked if they'd like to log in as a guest session for Twitter if they're like on a Twitter website. They don't type any passwords, it's implicit that they're logging in time-bounded. Like all these interesting things become possible and that has to feed into security standards at some point. Good, and so I'm wondering, what do you think would be the, what would be the most fruitful aspects of security that we could begin to get our minds around at the workshop? And so some of this is a little bit complicated by the fact that we're dealing with a fast evolving kind of early stage technology with blockchain generally in the new market. And so I wonder what would be the best level of abstraction and sort of approach to size and scope security as part of a potential standards conversation in view of the moving pieces? Okay, so my opinion in that, so as you said that the technology itself is so rapidly growing, going and so I think that the current technology is not much enough from the security perspective. But so I, so from the W3C perspective we can discuss about how to share the information about security or vulnerability and how we can convince the trust of the services. Yeah, one really specific way to do that. So when we talk about these identities, right? Just imagine that you have an identifier, let's say Dan.id and I can look that up in a central place and I can say, okay, it's out there, it's decentralized but I have this in to see. So Dan.id, here's the profile that goes along with that. Here's the identity data that's public. If I get an attestation on that profile like two identities, myself and Daza we've come together and we've attested to something and I present that to a website with that attestation which is essentially just a signed piece of data that has been signed by our two private keys. It would be nice if the browser, in a standards way with like one function, I could go retrieve one of those attestations, run it through the function say, was this actually signed by these two identities that it's claiming? And I put in maybe the string Daza.id and Dan.id and the browser's then able to resolve with some of the things that might be in WebCrypto already, yes, this is in fact attested by these parties. That would be like a really specific thing that we could add. And just on picking up on that, I noticed Shinichiro that you had identified CP and CPSs from the IETF as one possible example of how the sharing of information- Okay, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you know that CP or CPS is a trust framework for certificate authority, but so we can start considering about the trust framework for blockchain. So I think that identity program is a good example and so certificate authority program is a good example and we can start the discussion from that. Yes, and thank you. I wanted to highlight, I thought that was great. You know, I'm glad that we're having an opportunity to share some ideas before we actually get there cold for me anyway about thinking about what could be standardized on blockchain. It's a new question. It's not had a lot of treatment before and you really gave me something to think about from the IETF certificate policy and certificate practice statement. For those of you who are, should be thankful you're uninitiated into that somewhat arcane set of PKI standards and what it is fundamentally as just highlighted is a way to, in a standard way, describe some business but mostly legal and technical aspects of how a certification authority is like minting a certificate and enrolling people and what crypto it's using, how it would be revocation list and things like that. That would be the type of stuff that we'd have to communicate for what Daniel's suggesting, which is eventually someone had to revoke or kind of migrate to a new key due to compromise. No one principled people that have added attributes to their old public key could find a way to agree that here's the new public key associated with a reek key, private key of this person but how they do that is still up in the air I think in terms of commercial practices and standard approaches and so I could imagine beginning to think about how to communicate things like migrations and transition points and life cycle events would make a lot of sense and it certainly has a security, a heavy security dimension because that's one of the places that when there's a transition where things can be most vulnerable after all. So I see by the way that we've been joined by our erstwhile chair and convener Doug of the WA3C and I just wanted to say welcome and also ask you if you, Daniel did the service at a high level just saying that we're beginning to hone topics and format issues but was there any other announcements or updates that you could share or anything else about the workshop? Please do, you're welcome. Okay, that's great. So just to actually just to briefly talk about what you, or to touch on what you guys were just talking about, rather. A lot of what you were saying is blockchain related stuff but in terms of whether that's something that would be of interest or would be relevant to WA3C standards which of course are only a subset of web standards and internet standards. I think finding the intersection there, finding out what would need to be done from the web side, from the client side web, client side aspect, that's really where I'm hoping the sweet spot is for the workshop itself and for anything good to do with WA3C going forward. It could be that there's lots of forums to discuss these things but if we're going to be talking about standardization in general it needs to include more than WA3C and so that might be something we try to do going forward is to find out which piece is fit where and how to coordinate between those different organizations or projects in order to make sure that the different pieces are interoperable. Yeah, one of the interesting things that I always had a question on, maybe Doug knows this, the intersection between semantic data structures and validation of those structures, so I know that in some places in the web there is loose validation of certain data structures that you form in HTML or other micro formats and I'm curious with this blockchain identity stuff that we're going after, the folks in Microsoft now understand that probably the largest piece of this whole puzzle is actually getting everyone to speak the same language when it comes to your identity. I can describe a couch object in one way but if I describe it in one way and everyone else has 100 different ways of describing it it's not gonna be able to be shown in a browser but we're in an agent very well and predictably. So I'm curious about how that works, like do we have data format verification standards currently like a section for that or? Well, so that's a complicated question and there's a lot of different pieces to what you mean by validation. There is something called JSON-LD which is part of the sort of I guess the semantic web stack, more of the modern aspect of the semantic web stack and that's, there's some coordination is the wrong word but there's some overlaps between that and what schema.org is doing for example and so depending on how we want to mark things up and how we want to interchange things there's lots of different ways of going about this but one of the things that W3C does is that we focus on testing so we have defined formats in the past and we focus on basically regression testing and automated testing for those resources to make sure that people are following along or at schema. There's also, what we're using actually for validation of these things is a variation on JSON schema. So probably any interchange message would be in JSON and optionally in JSON-LD that's not required but some people would like that and then in terms of validation you could look at it from a point of view of tests, you could look at it from a point of view of specifications to make sure that people are on the same page about what are the useful parts of a schema and of a data format and how to coordinate with others on that and then there's also things like services that we could stand up like a validator just like people can validate their HTML you could validate your schema, you could validate the output from your API or from your implementation and see where it's predictable and where it's not and I agree, interoperability, predictability is actually a really big aspect of interoperability and so we can coordinate on a lot of different aspects. The data area is actually sort of a different part of W3C than I've normally worked in and there's different organizations within or not organizations, there's different focuses within W3C and there's the data part and then there's a client-side web part and those two don't overlap very much but it might be that blockchain could benefit from some aspects of both of those. Going back to Daz's original question, I apologize for the discretion. By the end of the day today, I will have I think the final list for the attendees. When I say final, there's an asterisk next to that because there will be people who don't show, there will be people even though they verified, there will be people who show up thinking that they verified that we never heard from. There will be maybe even people who show up at the last minute and say, oh, I heard about this workshop, can we come in? So the ultimate list will be in the workshop report that we produce after the workshop. But by the end of the day today, I'm hoping to have the final schedule or at least some form of the final schedule up and I think the most notable thing is that in our discussions about the schedule, we decided that identity and provenance are two key underlying ideas that are gonna be touched on in a lot of different aspects of blockchain. And so we're gonna try to put those on day one. So we get those out of the way so that any other things that would touch on those, we don't have to defer those conversations. We can already have had the conversations about the ideas of identity and provenance and that will serve as a backdrop for the rest of the day. In terms of structure, here's what we plan. We're gonna have a keynote by Arvin from Princeton and he is an expert in these areas and I am very much looking forward to his discussion or his talk. And we're gonna have a little bit of W3C things, some things around how the workshop itself is scheduled and also about the backdrop of existing technologies that W3C is gonna be working on. And then we're gonna go into lightning talks and the basic structure is a set of lightning talks on a general topic and then a set of breakouts where people explore those individual topics. So different tables will be talking about different things. And so and then after we discuss those, those are gonna be facilitated by the individual organizers of that topic and then we're going to have, hopefully we're also gonna have a scribe for each of those things as well. A scribe is just somebody to take notes and then we'll come back to the plenary session after each breakout and people will report back on the results of the workshop, sorry, of their breakout. And then we'll rinse and repeat, we'll just keep doing that same structure. On the second day, we're going to have a summary around three o'clock, we're gonna start wrapping things up around three o'clock and or 2.33 o'clock, we're gonna start having summaries of the zeitgeist of the whole workshop. And then after 3.30, we're gonna have more of an open session, just general, just open talk. I know some people have to leave before that time to get back to Europe in time, but there'll be some of us left behind and we're gonna formally end at 3.30 but we're gonna have a loose discussion so from 4.30 to from 3.30 till 5.30. That's the sort of the structure of the workshop. And Blockstream is actually very generous and they're providing a graphic facilitator and so the graphic scribe rather and so this person is gonna be listening to all the plenary sessions and making diagrams and other things to help us sort of come to a shared understanding, other images to help us come to a shared understanding of what we are, what we're trying to do and what we have talked about and then those things will be part of the workshop report as well. We'll sort of integrate those images and to let people get a sense better of what it was like to be at the workshop and sort of the thought process that went into things. Great, thank you. I hope that wasn't... No, that was very good. I just wanted to recognize Shinichiro. First of all, thank you for contributing the ideas and joining us and I'm aware that you're timing out now about 3.30 Eastern time and that you need to go. So I just wanted to recognize that you, whatever, didn't lose your signal or kind of get bored, but if I understand you're leaving and also to genuinely say we're great for the contributions, the thoughtful contribution you made. It's certainly gonna help me as I get ready for the workshop to start to have a chance to digest and think through what we'll talk about. So I look forward to seeing you back at the lab next week. Thank you. See you next week. Bye-bye. Great. Okay, and I believe that Marta would like to say a few words too on an idea. And let me just check to see Marta if you can hear us. Right now you're great on you. And is this good timing? Do you want to? Yeah, I'll try being quite brief. Actually on Prince Edward Island right now and like in the middle of nowhere. So my internet might be pretty flaky. So bear with me if you can't hear me. This is an idea that I've been discussing with both Doug and some other people. It connects to identity. It connects to a bunch of other things. Basically the thing that I'm very tempted with or a thing that I've realized is that something that has not been possible before introduction of blockchain technology. Is tracking back to your private data when you go online. Once you go online today, you completely lose control of your private data. It's, you just submit forms, they disappear, it can no longer, you can claim ownership of your data. With blockchain however, it would be possible to somehow call or watermark data and say this speech I have shared with this third party and blockchain technology and the hash function and you know, addresses and all of that. We could track which information or like which copy or which version of my data has been connected or shared with whom and which version has been possibly abused online. So to give you an example, if I share the same information about my account with Google, with Amazon and with Facebook and then Amazon, Google and Facebook share this information at Vertism company A, B and C and company B abuses this information. I can go, well it was Amazon that sold my information to the company B and company abused that information so I can hold accountable Amazon for like, you know, transacting with an untrusted company. Although it was the same information, the version of it is watermark in a way and this is something that I think is extremely tempting. I'm not sure how, you know, put it in technical terms but I think a standard around that when using blockchain for that is something extremely interesting and kind of brainstorming around during the workshop of how to put it in good technical terms is very good. Also it gives incentive to the big players, the companies because now they don't have the responsibility of taking care of the data because they can transact based on accessing the data. So they don't have to feel or they don't have to be held responsible or accountable for taking care of the data. They can just take pieces of information from the user and not take the data or the responsibility is much lower in that case because they can prove that this has been abused. Got it. Very innovative, thank you for sharing that. May I ask, oh, somebody just wrote, can I follow on that? Oh, it's done. Okay, great, the answer is yes and I'll just make one quick observation which is there was a company that collaborated with Crypto Research I had done at MIT like 15 years ago I think and I'll dig out their name for you but they had a patent on a kind of steganography that allowed for the sort of basically unique, like just hiding little messages and unique versions of things like books and photographs and movies and other media objects so that you could tell kind of like which version of it under which contract or distribution agreement or something was the one where there was potentially an issue with it being basically the kind of shenanigans that you're just talking about. Let me see if I can find that and I'll email it to you but I have to say it was very fruitful and one of the issues I thought with using steganography other than the technical issues of needing enough data to hide the messages in was really just having like some sort of public registry where you could publicly verify what the versions were just a bit easier as opposed to have to necessarily take people to court and the enforcement of that was not necessarily so easy. Perhaps blockchain could provide this sort of shared ledger where versioning of property, digital property could happen at scale and it could be more preventative dispute resolution or kind of enforcement, perhaps much more efficiently as a result of the new capabilities of this technology so very inventive ingenious idea there and I look forward to thinking more about that as we head towards the workshop and yet Doug, did you want to follow on? Yeah, there were just two other things that might not be immediately obvious in terms of implications from what Marta was saying and one of them is your social media interactions. The, a lot from marketing and I know this is something people hate to think about or talk about except people who are in marketing but being able to track the impressions that you have for your content as it makes its way through the web is actually a really interesting question and problem, information propagation and then re-aggregation of results is actually really interesting but for me and I think that's actually quite interesting, I'd like to see, I'm always fascinated to see where things that I've written pop up and I'd like to see if there's some way of making that easier for people to do. Yeah, we're actually, Doug, we're actually working on that exact thing with a partner right now. Very, very, making sure that the ad exchanges don't have too much of your data and being able to understand one individual impression object as it makes its way from the seller to the exchange to the purchaser and then to the eventual render so that we start getting a better handle on where all this stuff is going and who has it. Yeah, and along with that, the problem of free-booting. Somebody puts a video on YouTube and they actually make money off of ad impressions on YouTube and a lot of people make a living off of just, from creating content in a really ad hoc way and then somebody takes their video and cuts out the credits and puts it on Facebook and gets 10 times the number of impressions, you get 10 times the number of views impressions, I'm sorry. Gets 10 times the number of views but the person who made the content doesn't get compensated for that and honestly, that's just not fair. I'd love to see a way for people to be compensated more for their contributions because increasingly, we don't go through distributors for contributions, we, people manage it themselves and I think that's a really powerful possible model for how people make money in the future and going along with something like that, if people can make a living by doing those things, if the web can facilitate people making money in these ad hoc ways, there's actually less need for ads and for collecting privacy information because it's, because a website, you might pay a website directly. Now this isn't blockchain, this is sort of web payments stuff we're getting into but you might pay a tenth of a cent to a website rather than see the ads and then you don't have the ads, they get compensated but you don't have the ads on your phone, it doesn't eat your bandwidth up, it's not annoying but the really thing, the thing I think is the most interesting and possibly that might have the biggest impact from what Marta is saying, might have the biggest impact on the world is that scientists currently lock their data away because they're afraid of somebody using it and not giving them credit. So a lot of really important studies are not, the data is not available on the web because it is a credit-based, it's a merit-based system, science is, you get grants and other things based on the things that you've contributed and if somebody takes your research and reinterprets it in a different way, they may well lock you out of the credit, you made the data, you did all the hard work but they evaluated it or interpreted it a certain way and they get credit for that and the scientist might be afraid that they won't get the due credit and so if data were some, if there were a way of watermarking and marking data and social expectations around that, we could have a renaissance of release of data on the web which could revolutionize science. Yeah, I think one interesting thing there is and that could help is and I don't know for sure if this would be a solution but to look at homomorphic encryption and saying like if you encrypted a container that contained a video and to play it, it was a multi-signature contract essentially, just a regular Bitcoin transaction that would wrap it where you had to pay into it and it was tied to your blockchain identity, then the only way to essentially have that container play its content would be to pay in and have it come from your identity so that might be one way to go about doing that that would be interesting. It's hard because you always with documents you always suffer the problem of if someone even paid in and to view something I guess you could screenshot it which is not as fun if it's like a video because then you end up with probably, unless the person's really, really good in capturing the stream. But yeah, there's ways to do it I think that capture value for the 99% of people viewing it that will actually pay and do the right thing. So yeah, I think there's ways that it can work into blockchain. Yeah, and so just to deepen a little bit here, underlying your comment is a sense of identity and a sense of ownership, like together, right? The, it's important to know that the financial people who've really propelled much of the blockchain development thus far with the ledger, like traditional ledger uses have broken through from GAP generally accepted accounting principles right to contracts ownership and ownership rights and exchange rights and a few other legal concepts and something called FIBO of IPO which is being advanced through open management group and looked at very seriously as a structured format that is that maybe the type of primitive almost where you could put together between ownership, contract terms, property rights, identity, a very, very strong case for a web standard that could begin to put pieces together so that people can track their property and exchange it without being ripped off. And I just wanna ask you, Doug, in your next comment if you could speak to a little hack that I've done with some students which is we use archive.org for like almost everything now in our research projects. You talked about science and sharing. An example is every day or every week example for me is you're putting data sets and other reports and other research copies of it on archive.org so we can find it again. And I use the key value pairs that they just make available for metadata on everything that you upload to archive.org for everything basically so that we can find sort, filter, search, use the provenance depending on the funder, whatever it is that we need. Key value pairs are very flexible. What if there was a way to back up my science and back up my media maybe like containers along the lines that Daniel said onto a systems like archive.org and then what if there's standard metadata to describe an address on a blockchain and connect it back to either property type or a media object or resource somewhere. Could that be one of the ways that you could begin to put pieces together so that we've got locations where data can reside? I'm saying archive.org is an example of that on the web where I put my science and then some is maybe standard metadata where there's a way to understand you have to connect a blockchain address, a URL or something to where the data is I think and then also a more supple way to describe identity and ownership rights so that we can begin to get the change of provenance. If you could just think, you don't have to respond right now we can respond to the conference but I want to say that's what I was thinking a little bit as I heard both of you talking about this vision and it's a very real everyday problem right now for the sharing of results and not really being able to know, not just for attribution, most of our stuff is free but just to know who's working on what and just to be able to have buildable science. Anyway, I interdicted you Mr. Chairman, you have the floor. I think what you said is really interesting. Discoverability is an enormous problem on the web. Tracking where something came from, even like all of these things are big issues. As you said, identity, provenance, delegation, all of these things are larger issues and I want to say first off that I'm as guilty this as anybody. At the workshop, we want to actually be more focused on the concrete things that would enable these use cases. These use cases are fantastic. This is what we want to be able to achieve. This is probably not what we're going to go in depth on at the workshop itself. I hope what the workshop does. I mean, if we had a workshop on HTML and we talked about all the things you could use HTML for that would be a very disorganized conference. A long workshop. A long workshop. I don't want to put people off and think oh, this workshop is not going to be focused. Actually, we're going to be quite focused at the workshop about concretely what are the pieces that we need to enable these use cases and we were all getting excited and thinking oh, what could we do once we have this functionality? From a standards perspective, I'm most interested in making sure that we can enable people to be creative and to do these sorts of things on the web. And that's what we're really going to focus on at the workshop. Use cases are fantastic and they're aspirational and inspirational, but bringing it back down to is there a specific API? Is there a specific data format that we need to standardize? Is there some piece of functionality that's client-side in a browser, some sort of wallet thing? Or is there something that we built into a browser, for example, that would enable all these different use cases? That's the sort of focus that I want to have at the conference. And now, just to get a little more jump back on our use cases and I realize I've cognizant that we're coming up on the top of the hour. But one thing I want to note about sharing data is in talking to scientists, I found out that most data perhaps that's being shared is actually not on the web, not because they're concerned with it, with who's using it, but because of the sheer size of the data and the complexity of, well, and just the bandwidth that it would require. They actually physically mail hard drives, FedEx, they ship hard drives to one another with data because we're talking about things on the terabyte scale. And I'm sure that there probably are already and that in the future there will be high bandwidth, high throughput, real-time repositories, clouds for data that scientists use and in preparation for that technological infrastructure, having standards that help us describe and find that data and share that data in a meaningful way. When I say share, I mean, share the information about the data. Obviously you wouldn't want to put this data on the blockchain, right? You'd want to put some sort of pointer to this data, right? And on the blockchain, because the blockchain would quickly get way too big if you started putting real data on it. And a fingerprint. But, and a fingerprint, yes, all these things. And so this, these are all really interesting things and I think that there's a lot to talk about in the coming months after the workshop as well. And that's the last thing I want to say is if this workshop goes well, if people at the workshop feel like, hey, maybe there could be some web standards about this stuff. Rather, and if they think that it's timely to start those discussions, hopefully what we'll do is we'll form some sort of community group or use an existing community group at W3C perhaps or find other four elsewhere to keep these ideas going after the workshop and to keep this conversation going and to find what things are most fruitful and incubate those, get those to a state where we have general consensus and confidence in the functionality and the functionality, you know, confidence that we got the big parts right and then we could actually talk about bringing those to standards. And so that's part of the larger conversation that should happen after the workshop. The workshop itself is just to put the ideas on the table and just to come to, come to share an understanding about what might happen. And then in the months after that would be the time when we really drill into that. I'll only throw out a teaser to, you know, so people can see stuff in action. But so I've been working on a web extension using the new web extension standard stuff to run across, you know, all the browsers that support Edge, Chrome, Firefox. And right now we're gonna sub in the true peer-to-peer ability soon, but right now I'm using OneNames API but able to resolve in a browser tab when you put in like atdan.id or actually resolve against the blockchain identity and show you a profile, the profile is data essentially associated with that. So if it's a person object, it detects that schema and says, okay, I'm gonna show like a person page in Chrome page. Or it'll show like another Chrome template of, you know, an IoT devices device. It looks a little different. It's more modulated towards interacting with the device. And then we're gonna be swapping out that API for the actual peer-to-peer endpoints soon. So very quickly you'll be able to see what it would actually be like if you could look these identities up in the browser. And I should have that by the 28th, so I can go show people what that next layer of the onion might look like in practice. That's fantastic. That would be cool. That is fantastic. Well, so some of the themes that we kind of surfaced were identity again, expressing ownership and provenance, something that can assist with exchange, a fair value exchange at scale, including individuals. We talked about the need to be really looking toward APIs, formats, you know, kind of structures of data, which is a sweet spot for a W3C. And other themes as well as some innovative ideas and use cases that I hope will be helpful that we'll be talking more about. And so that is, there's a little bit of a whistle-wetter, I guess, as we get closer to the workshop. One thing I'd like to say is that with Doug's help, I have created a page on the workshop site. It's a forward slash feedback where you can see the ratings that Daniel referred to of the papers. And I just added in a form because we didn't get ratings from that many program committee members, from quite a few, and every paper was rated several times, but if you're on a program committee and you happen to hear of this, or if you check your email later today, it would be great to get even more of a show of like who thinks what is interesting as we get up to the workshop. So check out that feedback page. Just the, Doug, I mean, I'm reluctant to touch the workshop page itself, but if you think it's okay, maybe you could put a link to it to make it easier to find out. I will put a link to that on the page itself in the section on topics in position papers and expressions of interest. Awesome, and then who knows, maybe we can learn more about Marta's, I'm just gonna say ingenious idea. It's like peanut butter and chocolate, putting individual ownership of personal data together with the vast global capabilities of the blockchain for public verification. And then maybe, I don't know, Daniel, if we can get a sneak peek of your thing, whatever, bring it, so program committee members collaborate and share and communicate. I'd love to learn more as we lead up to the workshop, so I am sure other committee members as well can bring our best game and really be considering what your ideas are. Yeah, I'll get it out by Wednesday. I'll try and get it out by Tuesday, I'm sorry. Oh, excellent, okay, you heard it here. Tuesday, I'm gonna put that in the blockchain. So thanks very much, everybody. I look forward to seeing you in person at the MIT Media Lab next week. And until then, wishing you very well. So bye, bye now. Thank you. Bye all. Thanks. Bye.