Re: Open Timestamps

Hi Wayne,

The point of the article
<https://cointelegraph.com/news/timestamp-hacking-debunking-the-myth-of-precision-timestamps>
is
to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the certain claims from the Chainpoint
whitepaper.

For instance that a blockchain "*provides proof that some data existed at a
specific time <https://tierion.com/chainpoint>". *

Sincerely,

Matthew


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Wayne Vaughan <wayne@tierion.com> wrote:

> Matthew,
>
> You bring up a good point. Bitcoin is not a precise clock.
>
> With Chainpoint, we purposefully avoid using timestamping as part of our
> vocabulary.  We consider Chainpoint a proof protocol. You are proving that
> your data is cryptographically linked to a set of external sources.  If one
> of those external sources provides a reliable source of time, then you can
> use the proof as a timestamp.  The key constraint to recognize is that you
> inherit time from the anchor sources.
>
> A hash calendar <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_calendar> can get
> time precision down to a few seconds.  The tradeoff is that you have to
> trust the hash calendar until anchoring process completes and you generate
> your final proof.  There are schemes to reduce the amount of trust
> required, but they come at a cost.
>
> You can also include a timestamp from a trusted source
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping> in your target hash.
> It's highly unlikely that bitcoin miners and the administrator of your
> trusted timestamp server would be able to collude to modify the timestamp
> and the blockchain.
>
> As Peter previously pointed out, an anchor into Bitcoin isn't 99.9999%
> guaranteed until several confirmations.
>
> By anchoring into multiple sources using multiple methods, you reduce the
> risk that any single source will be compromised.  You can also cross check
> anchor sources.  This was a key change to Chainpoint 2.0.  It comes at a
> cost.  Multiple anchor sources complicates the verification process.
> That's why we made them optional.
>
> Wayne
> ----------
>
> [image: Tierion] <http://tierion.com/>
>
> Wayne Vaughan / CEO wayne@tierion.com / 860.836.8633
>
> Tierion http://tierion.com
>
> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/waynevaughan> [image: Linkedin]
> <https://linkedin.com/in/wayne> [image: skype]
> <https://htmlsig.com/skype?username=w.vaughan>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, S. Matthew English <
> s.matthew.english@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> here's an article I wrote recently about timestamping in bitcoin:
>>
>> https://cointelegraph.com/news/timestamp-hacking-debunking-t
>> he-myth-of-precision-timestamps
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:51:52AM +0000, Mountie Lee wrote:
>>> > if you put the topic of yours to github issue (
>>> > https://github.com/w3c/blockchain/issues)
>>> > then peoples will be able to identify discussion status more easily and
>>> > easy to participate.
>>>
>>> Oh, add it similar to this topic?
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c/blockchain/issues/14
>>>
>>> --
>>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>>
>>
>>
>