Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-06-14 📝 Original message:hi r1m, i'll talk with you ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-06-14
📝 Original message: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 “this content (or at
> least a digest of this content) existed at least as early as this
> timestamp.” It says nothing about how long before the timestamp the content
OTS needlessly adds the requirement that the user publicize their .ots
files to everybody who will make use of the timestamp.
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.
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.
>> I would not be surprised if OTS also fails to add tx history
>> containing its hashes to associated wallets, letting them be lost in
>> chain forks.
> for me. Are there wallets that you’ve seen that incorporate OTS? I’d love to
I mean the cryptographic wallets that hold the funds spent in etching
the hash to the chain.
📝 Original message: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 “this content (or at
> least a digest of this content) existed at least as early as this
> timestamp.” It says nothing about how long before the timestamp the content
OTS needlessly adds the requirement that the user publicize their .ots
files to everybody who will make use of the timestamp.
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.
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.
>> I would not be surprised if OTS also fails to add tx history
>> containing its hashes to associated wallets, letting them be lost in
>> chain forks.
> for me. Are there wallets that you’ve seen that incorporate OTS? I’d love to
I mean the cryptographic wallets that hold the funds spent in etching
the hash to the chain.