From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
lightning-dev <lightning-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Why OpenTimestamps does not "linearize" its transactions
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 07:12:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YqhtDoN784GG4Cx8@petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhhB+8n+9pWiSCtx3DAPnSwV_7xHnXZ14mEj9H93eWUNEw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5289 bytes --]
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 08:59:49AM -0700, Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> Ok, got it. Won't waste anyone's time on terminology pedantism.
>
>
> The model that I proposed above is simply what *any* correct timestamping
> service must do. If OTS does not follow that model, then I suspect whatever
> OTS is, is provably incorrect or, in this context, unreliable, even when
> servers and clients are honest.
Do you think RFC 3628 is "provably incorrect" too? It's just a standard for
Trusted Time-Stamping Authorities to issue timestamp proofs via digital
signatures, in the most straight forward manner of signing a message claiming
that some digest existed as of some time.
As the RFC says in the introduction:
The TSA's role is to time-stamp a datum to establish evidence indicating that a
datum existed before a particular time. This can then be used, for example, to
verify that a digital signature was applied to a message before the
corresponding certificate was revoked thus allowing a revoked public key
certificate to be used for verifying signatures created prior to the time of
revocation.
Simple and straight forward.
The problem here is starts with the fact that you're asking timestamp services
to do things that they're not claiming they do; a timestamp proof simply proves
that some message m existed prior to some time t. Nothing more.
Worse though, linearization is a busted approach.
> Unreliable might mean different things to
> different people, I'm happy to detail the types of unreliability issue that
> arise if you do not conform to the model I presented above (of which,
> linearizability is one way to address it, there are others that still
> implement epoch based recommitting that could be conceptually sound without
> requiring linearizability).
>
> Do you have any formal proof of what guarantees OTS provides against which
> threat model? This is likely difficult to produce without a formal model of
> what OTS is, but perhaps you can give your best shot at producing one and
> we can carry the conversation on productively from there.
So as you know, an OpenTimestamps proof consists of a series of commitment
operations that act on an initial message m, leading to a message known to have
been created at some point in time. Almost always a Bitcoin block header. But
other schemes like trusted timestamps are possible too.
A commitment operation (namely hashes + concatenation) simply needs the
property that for a given input message m, the output H(m) can't be predicted
without knowledge of m. In the case of concatenation, this property is achieved
trivially by the fact that the output includes m verbatim. Similarly, SHA1 is
still a valid commitment operation.
Behind the scenes the OTS infrastructure builds merkle trees of commitment
operations for scalability reasons. But none of those details are relevant to
the validity of OTS proofs - the OTS infrastructure could magically mine a
block per transaction with the digest in the coinbase, and from the client's
point of view, everything would work the same.
The important thing to recognize is that timestamp proof is simply a one-sided
bound on when a given message existed, proving a message existed _prior_ to
some point in time. For example:
$ ots verify hello-world.txt.ots
Assuming target filename is 'hello-world.txt'
Success! Bitcoin block 358391 attests existence as of 2015-05-28 EDT
Obviously, the message "Hello World!" existed prior to 2015 (Indeed, it's such
a short message it's brute-forcable. But for sake of example, we'll ignore
that).
Thus your claim re: linearization that:
> Having a chain of transactions would serve to linearize history of
> OTS commitments which would let you prove, given reorgs, that knowledge of
> commit A was before B a bit more robustly.
...misunderstands the problem. We care about proving statements about messages.
Not timestamp proofs. Building infrastructure to order timestamp proofs
themselves is pointless.
What you're alluding to is dual-sided bounds on when messages were created.
That's solved by random beacons: messages known to have been created *after* a
point in time, and unpredictable prior. A famous example of course being the
genesis block quote:
The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
Bitcoin block hashes make for a perfectly good random beacon for use-cases with
day to hour level precision. For higher precision, absolute time, there are
many trusted alternatives like the NIST random beacon, Roughtime, etc.
OpenTimestamps could offer a trustless _relative_ random beacon service by
making the per-second commitments a merkle mountain range, and publishing the
tip digests. In fact, that's how I came up with merkle mountain ranges in the
first place, and there's code from 2012 to do exactly that in depths of the git
repo. But that's such a niche use-case I decided against that approach for now;
I'll probably resurrect it in the future for trusted timestamps/clock sync.
Again, involving the transactions themselves in any of this random beacon stuff
is pointless.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-14 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-01 20:04 [bitcoin-dev] [Pre-BIP] Fee Accounts Jeremy
2022-01-18 16:12 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-18 17:43 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19 2:37 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-19 2:51 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19 4:53 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-19 7:32 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19 16:51 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-19 20:08 ` Jeremy
2022-01-20 5:23 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-02-10 6:58 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-10 8:08 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-18 23:50 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-19 0:38 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-19 9:39 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-19 17:20 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " darosior
2022-02-19 20:35 ` Peter Todd
2022-02-20 2:24 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-20 2:39 ` ZmnSCPxj
[not found] ` <590cf52920040c9cf7517b219624bbb5@willtech.com.au>
2022-02-20 14:24 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-20 16:29 ` Jeremy Rubin
[not found] ` <CAD5xwhgEeTETburW=OBgHNe_V1kk8o06TDQLiLgdfmP2AEVuPg@mail.gmail.com>
2022-02-20 16:34 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-02-20 16:45 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-20 16:29 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Jeremy Rubin
2022-04-10 19:32 ` Peter Todd
2022-04-11 13:18 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-04-15 14:52 ` Peter Todd
2022-04-17 20:57 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-04-28 12:15 ` Peter Todd
2022-05-02 15:59 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-06-14 11:12 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2022-06-14 11:39 ` [bitcoin-dev] Why OpenTimestamps does not "linearize" its transactions Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 11:53 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 12:28 ` rot13maxi
2022-06-14 12:45 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 13:55 ` Bryan Bishop
2022-06-14 15:06 ` digital vagabond
2022-06-14 15:34 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-14 17:15 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-14 20:33 ` Andrew Poelstra
2022-06-15 1:16 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-15 1:21 ` Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many
2022-06-19 11:04 ` Peter Todd
2022-06-14 15:22 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YqhtDoN784GG4Cx8@petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.l.rubin@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
--cc=lightning-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox