3 ms·

But publish it where, though? It has to be: - Publicly accessible. - Timestamped. - Immutable (or at least with edits marked as such). - Widely trusted (or

But publish it where, though? It has to be: - Publicly accessible. - Timestamped. - Immutable (or at least with edits marked as such). - Widely trusted (or too big to be bribed in small cases, e.g., Google). - And keep those features for many years. Twitter was surprisingly good at that in the past, but no more. Blockchains, as mentioned in other comments, give excellent immutability; but the field is such a minefield that I'd struggle to find a trustworthy blockchain explorer.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Take out a personal ad in a newspaper.
__jonas 3y ago
It's funny given the context of this case that this would be one of the rare times when using a blockchain would have actually been useful
0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Publish a document hash in the newspaper classifieds. Media should still be getting permanently archived by National Archive or Internet Archive.
fragmede 3y ago
Why would you trust only one Blockchain explorer? You'd trust the blockchain by using several explorers, and by confirming that they all agree on the same value, to assuage any fears you have about any one particular blockchain explorer lying to you. Write your own, even, if your level of confidence needs to be that high.
rstuart4133 3y ago
I'm repeating what I said above, but just send yourself an gmail with the hash in the Subject. Gmail will kindly timestamp it and provide a DKIM signature. Publish the mail headers gmail includes in the signature (which includes the timestamp and subject, but not the contents), the signature itself, and a link to hashed the document and you're done.
- mjg59 3y ago
  This is only true if Google never release old private keys for DKIM signatures, which various people have been campaigning for them to do in order to provide long-term deniability around DKIM-signed mails.
  - rstuart4133 3y ago
    > This is only true if Google never release old private keys for DKIM signatures, which various people have been campaigning for them to do in order to provide long-term deniability around DKIM-signed mails. I didn't know. Thanks for the heads up.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

Take out a personal ad in a newspaper.

__jonas 3y ago

It's funny given the context of this case that this would be one of the rare times when using a blockchain would have actually been useful

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago

Publish a document hash in the newspaper classifieds. Media should still be getting permanently archived by National Archive or Internet Archive.

fragmede 3y ago

Why would you trust only one Blockchain explorer? You'd trust the blockchain by using several explorers, and by confirming that they all agree on the same value, to assuage any fears you have about any one particular blockchain explorer lying to you. Write your own, even, if your level of confidence needs to be that high.

rstuart4133 3y ago

I'm repeating what I said above, but just send yourself an gmail with the hash in the Subject. Gmail will kindly timestamp it and provide a DKIM signature. Publish the mail headers gmail includes in the signature (which includes the timestamp and subject, but not the contents), the signature itself, and a link to hashed the document and you're done.

mjg59 3y ago
This is only true if Google never release old private keys for DKIM signatures, which various people have been campaigning for them to do in order to provide long-term deniability around DKIM-signed mails.
- rstuart4133 3y ago
  > This is only true if Google never release old private keys for DKIM signatures, which various people have been campaigning for them to do in order to provide long-term deniability around DKIM-signed mails. I didn't know. Thanks for the heads up.