Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 20:33:01 +0000
From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: "Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <YqjwfUcgEMNpGV1U@camus>
References: <CAD5xwhgGgq30C7GniNh1_DobPe+P4NTJySUkDiBZBj=OjzO5KA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YmqFRlDIkfbyVIZ2@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhhB+8n+9pWiSCtx3DAPnSwV_7xHnXZ14mEj9H93eWUNEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqhtDoN784GG4Cx8@petertodd.org>
 <CALL-=e6ucj0RxM6=Lyrytb3MzQA2pOMwQqM_Gr9RDg3+5Lbudw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALL-=e4=t7YMxDsBrDvR0Bkhagn+x2XnzZMYuoA4C=VXp=R2KA@mail.gmail.com>
 <dy-RmZZGZlQCDyQ_YVeIBIgX4uDW4cfeVpcX5eyugsYoPNZqqjMKs3qoOX_ZidcCBU_3UTytRJMl08TbWQZ363T_E_WQVx_eYJWLzZWUyE8=@protonmail.com>
 <CALL-=e4xA_SVfZp=nLgWRRPon3-6Ke0TE2J0qQrNFGQd7FOsqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqiqjPternXI1AZ6@petertodd.org>
 <CALL-=e4=p9oQvAxm-dWTNwPOYb5D2kwdLjCtePpCnwNnL9bNVQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/hDOKUNJDsa5XQwv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALL-=e4=p9oQvAxm-dWTNwPOYb5D2kwdLjCtePpCnwNnL9bNVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why OpenTimestamps does not "linearize" its
 transactions
Precedence: list


--/hDOKUNJDsa5XQwv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:15:08PM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One V=
ictim of Many via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm replying to Peter, skipping the other emails.
>=20
> I perceive all these emails as disruptive trolling, ignoring the
> importance of real timestamping, while handwaving about things that
> are roughly false and harmful.
>=20
> Since the start of cryptocurrency, Bitcoin has been used to write
> timestamps that stay intact despite malicious action to arbitrary
> systems and records, showing the earliest on-chain publication of
> data. It seems misleading that OTS does not do that, when it is such a
> prominent system.
>

Please be cautious with tone and when assuming bad faith. I don't believe
that Peter is trolling. Also, as politely as I can, when something like
OTS whose model is dead-simple, well-documented, and has been running for
years providing significant value to many people, comes under attack for
being underspecified or failing to do what it says ... this is a
surprising claim, to say the least.


After talking to a few people offline, all of whom are baffled at this
entire conversation, I think the issue might come down to the way that
people interpret "timestamping".

If you believe that "timestamping" means providing a verifiable ordering
to events, then of course OTS does not accomplish this, nor has it ever
claimed to. If you think that "timestamping" means proving that some
data existed at a particular time, then this is exactly what OTS does.

Personally -- and I suspect this is true of Peter as well -- I have always
read the word as having the latter meaning, and it never occurred to me
until now that others might have a different interpretation.


I apologize for contributing to a thread that is getting a bit out of hand,
but I hope this can help the different parties see where the confusion is.




--=20
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
    -Justin Lewis-Webster


--/hDOKUNJDsa5XQwv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEkPnKPD7Je+ki35VexYjWPOQbl8EFAmKo8HsACgkQxYjWPOQb
l8EdmggAkrmp7TGMpd6y0AC+lqVG+xXATJmA5BPnjxkHem8Rk8JPMeH7tr8jNIGg
HRroQ7gqImZx6uwP2Qrh1bHpQUWULLCHx1kFrGJeux6cyzaOB/zohsegegHxIpcv
5I/Mo7No5QSPvVwzizUHSnJkZw9YpHWpgRllAuZH+syMLmKNh1D/P1dnQrE5IMeo
Vg1JQtbG343fL+MN++/VpY3RG2lzpIil2fRiebpeXqBU+Ha3xc7j6gxijZAUlNM2
6WDOiYH+GdFYfiXJcCidJ1s7kG5MjiiKJLiE0OBIM/T84JpI0AhLq9zup65m3NXA
BSS5zfqZs1AWEpIMPb5txzgFD+yeyg==
=q9s6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/hDOKUNJDsa5XQwv--