> 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 rela
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, ignor
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 s
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 “th
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 defend
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 separa
