If someone wants more linearity and uniqueness guarantees from a timestamp, that isnt what OTS was designed for. Here is a protocol that was: https://www.commerceblock.com/mainstay/ On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 3:56 PM Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:48 AM Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of > Many via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> OTS needlessly adds the requirement that the user publicize their .ots >> files to everybody who will make use of the timestamp. > > > Publication is not a component of the OTS system. > > This does not provide the service you describe. It would be trivial to >> include enough cryptographic information in the original OP_RETURN, so >> as to obviate the need for publicizing the .ots file. >> > > (Why would it be needless to require everyone to publish OTS files but not > needless to require everyone to publish via OP_RETURN? In fact, now you > have blockchain users that don't ever use your OP_RETURN data.) > > >> If I send my .ots file to another party, a 4th party can replace it >> with their own, because there is no cryptographic pinning ensuring its >> contents. This changes the timestamp to one later, no longer proving >> the earliness of the data. >> > > You can't replace a timestamp in the OTS system; you can only make a new > timestamp. To use the earlier timestamp, you would have to use the earlier > timestamp. At any time it is allowed to make a new timestamp based on the > current clock. The use case for OTS is proving document existence as of a > certain time and that if you had doctored a file then said doctoring was no > later than the earliest timestamp that can be provided. > > I was just talking about this the other day actually... > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31640752 > > - Bryan > https://twitter.com/kanzure > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >