From 05fa3051e12acddfe320912a93e1927bcf1b64f6df2a14589594144df3b9f3e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Johnson Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 00:00:00 +0000 Subject: Fix spelling errors --- content/entry/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'content/entry/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md') diff --git a/content/entry/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md b/content/entry/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md index 1fa4236..df6199f 100644 --- a/content/entry/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md +++ b/content/entry/future-proof-digital-timestamping.md @@ -22,11 +22,11 @@ I didn't want to use some centralized service to perform the timestamping becaus Then I found OpenTimestamps.[1] It's based on Bitcoin, which I don't like. I've encouraged people to avoid using proof-of-waste cryptocurrencies before.[2] I don't feel great about using software that relies on a planet-roasting cryptocurrency, but there's just no other way I know of to create trustless, decentralized, verifiable timestamps. -Also, OpenTimestamps has an extremely efficient design compared to other Bitcoin timestamping schemes. Thanks to OpenTimestamps' clever use of merkle trees[3], it can timestamp unlimited data using only 1 transaction. Other Bitcoin timestamping software uses 1 transaction per timestamp, an extremely wasteful, inefficient design. At least OpenTimestamps isn't that bad. +Also, OpenTimestamps has an extremely efficient design compared to other Bitcoin timestamping schemes. Thanks to OpenTimestamps' clever use of Merkle trees[3], it can timestamp unlimited data using only 1 transaction. Other Bitcoin timestamping software uses 1 transaction per timestamp, an extremely wasteful, inefficient design. At least OpenTimestamps isn't that bad. So anyway, I created a timestamped Git commit and tagged it timestamp-1[4]. I wrote the concatenated commit data of the timestamped commit to a file[5] in case you're interested to see what it looks like. The software works in a very elegant fashion. It even maintains compatibility with non-OpenTimestamps Git clients, so GnuPG can still verify the commit signature. -The base64-encoded timestamp appended to the commit data includes all the necessary hashes to build the merkle path from the tagged commit to the merkle root included in the Bitcoin transaction. Using './ots --git-extract ' on any file in the nicksphere-gmi repo present at the timestamped commit, you can extract an ots proof file which you can then verify with './ots --verify '. +The base64-encoded timestamp appended to the commit data includes all the necessary hashes to build the Merkle path from the tagged commit to the merkle root included in the Bitcoin transaction. Using './ots --git-extract ' on any file in the nicksphere-gmi repo present at the timestamped commit, you can extract an ots proof file which you can then verify with './ots --verify '. Thus future readers of my journal and historians will be able to verify that each entry was written by a human with no major external dependency other than the widely witnessed Bitcoin ledger. There are caveats to that, but luckily I thought up ways around all of them. @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ It doesn't even matter if all the underlying cryptographic primitives of the led # Conclusion This journal's timestamp is not yet future-proof because it still uses SHA-1. When Git supports SHA-2, I plan on creating a new timestamp. I don't think SHA-2 preimage resistance will be broken any time soon and I think distributed ledgers will still be popular for years to come. So if you want to create a trustless, future-proof, unforgeable digital timestamp, timestamp chaining seems like the way to go. -Future internet historians will have many methods of verifying when some digital media was created. They probably won't be limited to verifying timestamp chains. While timestamps offer the strongest assurance that media isn't synthetic, it's not like your digital work will necessarily be indistiguishable from synthetic media just because you didn't timestamp it. +Future internet historians will have many methods of verifying when some digital media was created. They probably won't be limited to verifying timestamp chains. While timestamps offer the strongest assurance that media isn't synthetic, it's not like your digital work will necessarily be indistinguishable from synthetic media just because you didn't timestamp it. I just decided to timestamp my journal to create that extra assurance that it's not synthetic. That was the primary reason. The synthetic internet might arrive in 10 years or 50 years. Since I have no way to know, it seemed best to create a verifiable timestamp now, before GPT-4 gets released. -- cgit v1.2.3