On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 09:16:55PM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One
Victim of Many via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I worry that this form of "rfc timestamping" misleads its users into
> believing the timestamps of their documents are preserved. These kinds
> of user interaction issues can be very
> I do reiterate that it is blindingly easy to pin a public hash to the
> bitcoin blockchain that asserts the earliest publication of a document
> or collection of documents, and that this is desperately needed, to
> protect the accuracy of history when it is not safe.
The concern raised here
On 6/14/22, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:15:08PM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One
> Victim of Many via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I'm replying to Peter, skipping the other emails.
>>
>> I perceive all these emails as disruptive trolling, ignoring the
>> importance of real
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:15:08PM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One
Victim of Many via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm replying to Peter, skipping the other emails.
>
> I perceive all these emails as disruptive trolling, ignoring the
> importance of real timestamping, while handwaving about
I'm replying to Peter, skipping the other emails.
I perceive all these emails as disruptive trolling, ignoring the
importance of real timestamping, while handwaving about things that
are roughly false and harmful.
Since the start of cryptocurrency, Bitcoin has been used to write
timestamps that
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 08:45:43AM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One
Victim of Many via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > The basic service that a timestamp service provides is “this content (or at
> > least a digest of this content) existed at least as early as this
> > timestamp.” It says nothing
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 07:53:29AM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One
Victim of Many via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I was privately asked for more opinions. I am sharing them publicly below:
>
> It's always been clear that OTS proves longness of duration but not
> shortness. It doesn't demonstrate
If someone wants more linearity and uniqueness guarantees from a timestamp,
that isnt what OTS was designed for. Here is a protocol that was:
https://www.commerceblock.com/mainstay/
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 3:56 PM Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:48 AM Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of
Many via bitcoin-dev 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
hi r1m, i'll talk with you as long as it's fun to do so.
>> the reason i call this 'designed to be broken' is that it lets people
>> rewrite history to their stories by republishing other people's
>> documents under different contexts.
>
> The basic service that a timestamp service provides is
Good morning Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many,
> the reason i call this 'designed to be broken' is that it lets people
> rewrite history to their stories by republishing other people's
> documents under different contexts.
The basic service that a timestamp service provides is
hey various,
it's been obvious since its inception that opentimestamps is designed
to be broken.
if you have energy to normalise a better system, or support one of the
other better systems that already exists, that's wonderful.
i suspect the opentimestamps ecosystem is very experienced at
I was privately asked for more opinions. I am sharing them publicly below:
It's always been clear that OTS proves longness of duration but not
shortness. It doesn't demonstrate that an earlier work was not
published, because it hashes each document hash with private material
the author must
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 08:59:49AM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> Ok, got it. Won't waste anyone's time on terminology pedantism.
>
>
> The model that I proposed above is simply what *any* correct timestamping
> service must do. If OTS does not follow that model, then I suspect whatever
> OTS is,
14 matches
Mail list logo
