From 85d8c152e0ceb9061db02f1a3ae1741676d54c3ee2942043a5684f504fb678fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Johnson Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000 Subject: Fix typos --- content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md') diff --git a/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md b/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md index bc2830a..0947e74 100644 --- a/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md +++ b/content/entry/why-i-timestamped-my-journal.md @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ ots verify -d "$(git -C journal show-ref --hash signify-signature-10)" journal/s ## Critiquing My Last Timestamping Entry -Now I first had this idea back in November of 2021 and wrote an entry about it titled "[future-proof digital timestamping](/2021/11/13/future-proof-digital-timestamping/ "Future-Proof Digital Timestamping")". There are a number of issues with that entry and I could spend time nitpicking it, but it's primary deficiency is that the idea of timestamp chaining via successor ledgers is erroneous. +Now I first had this idea back in November of 2021 and wrote an entry about it titled "[future-proof digital timestamping](/2021/11/13/future-proof-digital-timestamping/ "Future-Proof Digital Timestamping")". There are a number of issues with that entry and I could spend time nitpicking it, but its primary deficiency is that the idea of timestamp chaining via successor ledgers is erroneous. Timestamp chaining could perhaps provide stronger assurance of the legitimacy of the timestamps (due to the successive blockchains having the largest amount of cumulative work), but the gains in assurance would only be very marginal at best, it's all predicated on Bitcoin having endless successors that also rely on energy-intensive proof-of-work, and there would have to be software supporting such a scheme. In my estimation, that's all highly unlikely. -- cgit v1.2.3