3 ms·

Conceivably, anyone who uses his or her voice for spoken word or singing could, in theory, cryptographically sign each master copy of the recording, and therefo

Conceivably, anyone who uses his or her voice for spoken word or singing could, in theory, cryptographically sign each master copy of the recording, and therefore certify that they were present and active in its creation. Of course any post-processing would lose this attestation. So it's practically useless, I suppose. But it would be a first-line of defense in copyright cases, at least, by being able to say "I did indeed say that, and here's the signature." or "You can't prove that I said and signed that."

unlikelymordant 4y ago
Maybe a use case for NFTs hah.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  It's a use case for merkle trees. Since the mere existence of the hash at a reasonably well-attested time is sufficient, you don't need the rest. A handful of central roots of various trees is fine, morally equivalent to announcing things with an ad in the newspaper.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    Now that I think about it, it seems to be a great idea - a verifiable record that some digital artifacts have existed at certain times. Of course it wouldn't be able to "prove ownership" or "prove being original" or other stupid ideas tokenbros throw around, that's impossible. But it wouldn't be profitable for the tokenbros and actually all the distributed attribute is not a requirement. We can probably set up a centralised append only DB which will periodically publish it's own hashes to attest that it wasn't tampered. Probably a useful tool for our deep fake future, the only question is how to scale it, who can be trusted and relied upon to input hashes in the system.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      The idea predates bitcoin IIRC.
debatem1 4y ago
This is a thing I've started at pretty hard. Embedding a signal that survives basic postprocessing isn't that hard, but doing it in such a way that it stays well below the noise floor and survives extensive editing is not easy. If anyone is interested I could be convinced to put my work on GitHub, highly doubtful that it will go commercial unless I get a huge raft of free time.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  Are you saying that a cryptographic signature could survive postprocessing? Well, it may, but when you post-process a sound clip, that sound changes itself. I mean, imagine playing cutups with a dialogue track; that actor may or may not want to attest that the final result is theirs. That's the whole thing. If you cut out three words of dialogue, it is no longer cryptographically signed.

unlikelymordant 4y ago

Maybe a use case for NFTs hah.

andrewflnr 4y ago
It's a use case for merkle trees. Since the mere existence of the hash at a reasonably well-attested time is sufficient, you don't need the rest. A handful of central roots of various trees is fine, morally equivalent to announcing things with an ad in the newspaper.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  Now that I think about it, it seems to be a great idea - a verifiable record that some digital artifacts have existed at certain times. Of course it wouldn't be able to "prove ownership" or "prove being original" or other stupid ideas tokenbros throw around, that's impossible. But it wouldn't be profitable for the tokenbros and actually all the distributed attribute is not a requirement. We can probably set up a centralised append only DB which will periodically publish it's own hashes to attest that it wasn't tampered. Probably a useful tool for our deep fake future, the only question is how to scale it, who can be trusted and relied upon to input hashes in the system.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    The idea predates bitcoin IIRC.

debatem1 4y ago

This is a thing I've started at pretty hard. Embedding a signal that survives basic postprocessing isn't that hard, but doing it in such a way that it stays well below the noise floor and survives extensive editing is not easy. If anyone is interested I could be convinced to put my work on GitHub, highly doubtful that it will go commercial unless I get a huge raft of free time.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
Are you saying that a cryptographic signature could survive postprocessing? Well, it may, but when you post-process a sound clip, that sound changes itself. I mean, imagine playing cutups with a dialogue track; that actor may or may not want to attest that the final result is theirs. That's the whole thing. If you cut out three words of dialogue, it is no longer cryptographically signed.