5 ms·
His claim was: > You don't need a "blockchain" for timestamps. He didn't say anything about whether the timestamp services were centralized or not. So saying
by briatx 8y ago
His claim was:
> You don't need a "blockchain" for timestamps.
He didn't say anything about whether the timestamp services were centralized or not.
So saying "ha, but they're centralized!" is not a rebuttal.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoBut that's a disingenious argument. The main reason people claim that the blockchain is a good use for timestamps is that nobody can be bribed, or hacked, to change the results.
- yifanl 8y agoGiven that the blockchain does not solve for human error, the argument for true immutability is not necessary a strict positive.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoWell hey, I have and will go on record saying that the Blockchain isn't a panacea for everything - but if you do want to claim that you did X at time Y, a big blockchain is a pretty good way to register that claim. (Note that I didn't say prove that you ddi thing X at time Y...)
- admax88q 8y agoExcept in the case of the etherium fork.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoTrue, but that's less of a concern for timestamps, right? You can always point to the original pre-fork chain.