MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YhAwr7+9mGJAe2/p@petertodd.org>
 <CAD5xwhj1kaJf+QCcf1MOtaAec-xTTr2M9LkJPCu2Ej0L9_3iPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YlmGv6WbDeDqGJKX@petertodd.org>
 <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>
In-Reply-To: <CALL-=e4xA_SVfZp=nLgWRRPon3-6Ke0TE2J0qQrNFGQd7FOsqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 08:55:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBawRdyj-f8mdP4gTC=6P3XuXP9iC6YLpOFeiN36-Fkqrkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many" <gmkarl@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000030724005e168c48e"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Why OpenTimestamps does not "linearize" its
	transactions
Precedence: list

--00000000000030724005e168c48e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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

--00000000000030724005e168c48e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:48 AM Undiscuss=
ed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto=
:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20=
4,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
OTS needlessly adds the requirement that the user publicize their .ots<br>
files to everybody who will make use of the timestamp.</blockquote><div>=C2=
=A0</div><div>Publication is not a component of the OTS system.</div><div><=
br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
This does not provide the service you describe. It would be trivial to<br>
include enough cryptographic information in the original OP_RETURN, so<br>
as to obviate the need for publicizing the .ots file.<br></blockquote><div>=
<br>(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&#39;t ever use your OP_RETURN data.)<br>=C2=
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8e=
x;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">If I send my .ot=
s file to another party, a 4th party can replace it<br>
with their own, because there is no cryptographic pinning ensuring its<br>
contents. This changes the timestamp to one later, no longer proving<br>
the earliness of the data.<br></blockquote><div><br>You can&#39;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 tim=
e 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 i=
f you had doctored a file then said doctoring was no later than the earlies=
t timestamp that can be provided.<br><br>I was just talking about this the =
other day actually...<br><a href=3D"https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3D=
31640752">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3D31640752</a><br><br></div>=
</div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">- Bryan<b=
r><a href=3D"https://twitter.com/kanzure" target=3D"_blank">https://twitter=
.com/kanzure</a></div></div></div>

--00000000000030724005e168c48e--