On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:48 AM Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> OTS needlessly adds the requirement that the user publicize their .ots > files to everybody who will make use of the timestamp. Publication is not a component of the OTS system. This does not provide the service you describe. It would be trivial to > include enough cryptographic information in the original OP_RETURN, so > as to obviate the need for publicizing the .ots file. > (Why would it be needless to require everyone to publish OTS files but not needless to require everyone to publish via OP_RETURN? In fact, now you have blockchain users that don't ever use your OP_RETURN data.) > If I send my .ots file to another party, a 4th party can replace it > with their own, because there is no cryptographic pinning ensuring its > contents. This changes the timestamp to one later, no longer proving > the earliness of the data. > You can't replace a timestamp in the OTS system; you can only make a new timestamp. To use the earlier timestamp, you would have to use the earlier timestamp. At any time it is allowed to make a new timestamp based on the current clock. The use case for OTS is proving document existence as of a certain time and that if you had doctored a file then said doctoring was no later than the earliest timestamp that can be provided. I was just talking about this the other day actually... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31640752 - Bryan https://twitter.com/kanzure
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
