3 ms·

Talking cryptographic timestamping and talking only about random brodude startups and not about established, working standard like RFC 3161/3628 and the many di

by brohee 11y ago

Talking cryptographic timestamping and talking only about random brodude startups and not about established, working standard like RFC 3161/3628 and the many digital notaries offering the service... Seriously?

gwern 11y ago
Are any of those digital notaries provably decentralized, secure, free, and scriptable in one or two lines?
- brohee 11y ago
  Decentralized no, but free and scriptable yes E.g. https://startssl.com/?app=25#61 https://startssl.com/?app=25#61 Decentralized not usable in a legal context in any jurisdiction I can think of, and why do you timestamp if not to cover your ass?
  - gwern 11y ago
    > Decentralized not usable in a legal context in any jurisdiction I can think of I haven't seen anyone writing on this topic who argues that a Bitcoin timestamp would not be usable anymore than your favored old-style notaries would be unusable. Can you point to any specific cases, or even something like a legal review, in which a Bitcoin timestamp is rejected as invalid? > why do you timestamp if not to cover your ass? There are many uses for timestamps. Legal ones are not even my particular use case.
    - brohee 11y ago
      Well the use of digital certificats for timestamping is explicitely covered in Directive 1999/93/EC [1]. I'll freely admit not being up to date on the situation on the other side of the Atlantic. While Bitcoins may start to get some recognition as an asset, I'd wage real money that no law anywhere explicitely recognize the blockchain as a legaly opposable timestamping authority. And your stated used case "Local archives are useful for personal purposes, but sometimes, in investigations that may be controversial, you want to be able to prove that the copy you downloaded was not modified and you need to timestamp it" looks like planning to defend yourself in court to me... [1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31999L0093 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:319... also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_Directiv...
      - gwern 11y ago
        > Well the use of digital certificats for timestamping is explicitely covered in Directive 1999/93/EC [1]. Not what I asked. I asked if there was any evidence indicating that courts would reject Bitcoin timestamping despite being based on the same concepts, and in several ways superior to, the old-fashioned centralized timestampers. To which your answer is apparently simply 'no'. > looks like planning to defend yourself in court to me... I know what I said.
        brohee 11y ago
        Not what I asked. I asked if there was any evidence indicating that courts would reject Bitcoin timestamping despite being based on the same concepts, and in several ways superior to, the old-fashioned centralized timestampers. To which your answer is apparently simply 'no'. I don't see how a distributed ledger can be compared, even remotely, to a notary. The fact that both are based on digital signature is pretty irrelevant... If things go far, the notary can be audited, can testify in court... It is completely old fashioned, quite possibly retarded, but courts like physical or legal entities vouching for stuff, and being accountable for it... I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court? Because notary signed timestamp are used for many things from contracts to tax fillings all over the EU... I know what I said. So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments?
        gwern 11y ago
        > I don't see how a distributed ledger can be compared, even remotely, to a notary. You're right. A distributed ledger is much securer and more reliable, far less vulnerable to any form of coercion or corruption, and so the comparison is kind of silly. > I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court? Since it is based on the same basic principles but in a much superior fashion, I, and everyone using Bitcoin-based timestamps, am comfortable in believing there's a excellent chance the courts will not be unaccountably incompetent and reject them, until such time as shown otherwise. If you can't provide any specific concrete reason they would reject Bitcoin timestamps other than 'it has not been yet been tested in court', then there's nothing further to discuss. > So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments? That is not an answer I'm allowed to give now. (And in any case, you have shown yourself sufficiently unpleasant and arrogant I wouldn't answer it anyway.)

by brohee 11y ago

gwern 11y ago

Are any of those digital notaries provably decentralized, secure, free, and scriptable in one or two lines?

brohee 11y ago
Decentralized no, but free and scriptable yes E.g. https://startssl.com/?app=25#61 https://startssl.com/?app=25#61 Decentralized not usable in a legal context in any jurisdiction I can think of, and why do you timestamp if not to cover your ass?
- gwern 11y ago
  > Decentralized not usable in a legal context in any jurisdiction I can think of I haven't seen anyone writing on this topic who argues that a Bitcoin timestamp would not be usable anymore than your favored old-style notaries would be unusable. Can you point to any specific cases, or even something like a legal review, in which a Bitcoin timestamp is rejected as invalid? > why do you timestamp if not to cover your ass? There are many uses for timestamps. Legal ones are not even my particular use case.
  - brohee 11y ago
    Well the use of digital certificats for timestamping is explicitely covered in Directive 1999/93/EC [1]. I'll freely admit not being up to date on the situation on the other side of the Atlantic. While Bitcoins may start to get some recognition as an asset, I'd wage real money that no law anywhere explicitely recognize the blockchain as a legaly opposable timestamping authority. And your stated used case "Local archives are useful for personal purposes, but sometimes, in investigations that may be controversial, you want to be able to prove that the copy you downloaded was not modified and you need to timestamp it" looks like planning to defend yourself in court to me... [1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31999L0093 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:319... also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_Directiv...
    - gwern 11y ago
      > Well the use of digital certificats for timestamping is explicitely covered in Directive 1999/93/EC [1]. Not what I asked. I asked if there was any evidence indicating that courts would reject Bitcoin timestamping despite being based on the same concepts, and in several ways superior to, the old-fashioned centralized timestampers. To which your answer is apparently simply 'no'. > looks like planning to defend yourself in court to me... I know what I said.
      - brohee 11y ago
        Not what I asked. I asked if there was any evidence indicating that courts would reject Bitcoin timestamping despite being based on the same concepts, and in several ways superior to, the old-fashioned centralized timestampers. To which your answer is apparently simply 'no'. I don't see how a distributed ledger can be compared, even remotely, to a notary. The fact that both are based on digital signature is pretty irrelevant... If things go far, the notary can be audited, can testify in court... It is completely old fashioned, quite possibly retarded, but courts like physical or legal entities vouching for stuff, and being accountable for it... I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court? Because notary signed timestamp are used for many things from contracts to tax fillings all over the EU... I know what I said. So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments?
        gwern 11y ago
        > I don't see how a distributed ledger can be compared, even remotely, to a notary. You're right. A distributed ledger is much securer and more reliable, far less vulnerable to any form of coercion or corruption, and so the comparison is kind of silly. > I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court? Since it is based on the same basic principles but in a much superior fashion, I, and everyone using Bitcoin-based timestamps, am comfortable in believing there's a excellent chance the courts will not be unaccountably incompetent and reject them, until such time as shown otherwise. If you can't provide any specific concrete reason they would reject Bitcoin timestamps other than 'it has not been yet been tested in court', then there's nothing further to discuss. > So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments? That is not an answer I'm allowed to give now. (And in any case, you have shown yourself sufficiently unpleasant and arrogant I wouldn't answer it anyway.)