Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitstamped

bitstamped.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Bitstamped

#41

Post by legutierr »

mike_hearn wrote: post #38
gioele wrote: post #35

If I have to pay, then why shouldn't I adopt a RFC 3161 or X9.95 timestamp service? Some jurisdictions recognize them as notary-equivalent certified timestamps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping

If what you want is legal protection then indeed there is no reason. Signatures vended by timestamping authorities are good enough for all uses I can think of unless you absolutely need decentralisation, in which case paying $10 to this company defeats the point. To get this service for free, just print your document to PDF, grab the free Adobe Reader, go to settings, signatures, click "Configure timestamping", then…

I find it interesting that you believe that it would be easier to convince a judge that some random centralized "authority" is trustworthy than it would be to explain how a hash written to the blockchain guarantees that that the timestamp is valid.

The technology used by such an authority would be just as complicated and difficult to explain as the blockchain approach to timestamping. What you're counting on is that the judge would give more weight to legal representations made by an otherwise unverified "neutral" private entity than she would to a detailed explanation of the blockchain.

What is it that explains how the blockchain--which doesn't require trust--would loose out to a private entity simply because bitcoin tech is complicated, and because a representative of that time-stamping authority would be able to sit in court and say "trust us, we have no stake in the outcome of this decision"?

A lack of trust is supposed to be the primary benefit of the block chain, but it seems that in your view in this case it is more of a liability.

Re: Bitstamped

#42

Post by inkfactory »

mike_hearn wrote: post #38
gioele wrote: post #35

If I have to pay, then why shouldn't I adopt a RFC 3161 or X9.95 timestamp service? Some jurisdictions recognize them as notary-equivalent certified timestamps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping

If what you want is legal protection then indeed there is no reason. Signatures vended by timestamping authorities are good enough for all uses I can think of unless you absolutely need decentralisation, in which case paying $10 to this company defeats the point. To get this service for free, just print your document to PDF, grab the free Adobe Reader, go to settings, signatures, click "Configure timestamping", then…

But this method might be too complicated for most users.

The benefit of Bitstamped is the simplicity of uploading the file and getting a QR code to insert in a document so anyone reading it can scan it to satisfy themselves of the date it was created.

The file that gets Bitstamped could be anything - for example I could doodle my new algorithm on a napkin along with the words "designed by Me" and get it Bitstamped before I finish lunch, later, I add the QR code to my business plan (for example) to link the ideas therein with the napkin photo.

Re: Bitstamped

#43

Post by fiatjaf »

josephagoss wrote: post #34

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression most nodes are now opting not to store any "OP_RETURN" transaction. I once thought about storing information into the Bitcoin blockchain for another use case, but found out that very few nodes would actually store it.

This is not storing information. You'll just send some BTC to some address. The address is the information.

Re: Bitstamped

#45

Post by joeyspn »

Geee wrote: post #12

Huh, I thought someone got "bitstamped" - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goxed

I thought the same! My first impression reading the title of this submission was: is now bitstamp acting like gox?

Re: Bitstamped

#46

Post by zingermc »

machrider wrote: post #13
verroq wrote: post #5

1. Make a SHA1 hash of your document 2. Convert the hash to a BTC address 3. Send 0.0001 BTC to the address you made 4. There you saved yourself $9.99

Practically speaking, couldn't I just tweet the SHA1 hash and let Twitter be my trusted timestamp authority? Assuming I don't work for Twitter, it's unlikely I'm able to modify the timestamp on a tweet. (The blockchain has a lot more confidence due to its distributed nature, but in the minds of say, a jury of your peers, I bet it actually appears shadier than Twitter.)

For a more permanent timestamp, just post your hash in a newspaper's classified ads.

Re: Bitstamped

#47

Post by mike_hearn »

legutierr wrote: post #41
mike_hearn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you want is legal protection then indeed there is no reason. Signatures vended by timestamping authorities are good enough for all uses I can think of unless you absolutely need decentralisation, in which case paying $10 to this company defeats the point. To get this service for free, just print your document to PDF, grab the free Adobe Reader, go to settings, signatures, click "Configure timestamping", then…

I find it interesting that you believe that it would be easier to convince a judge that some random centralized "authority" is trustworthy than it would be to explain how a hash written to the blockchain guarantees that that the timestamp is valid. The technology used by such an authority would be just as complicated and difficult to explain as the blockchain approach to timestamping. What you're counting on is that…

You're right, a judge is not going to want to master the details of the technology, which is why trying to explain it would just yield confusion and annoyance.

Ultimately it matters when there's a dispute over the integrity of the timestamp. Even if in theory a judge could verify a block chain timestamp for themselves, they won't ever do this, they'd just say "go find an expert witness you can both agree on" and then the judge would assume the neutrality of the expert witness based on their credentials. You always end up back at the neutral third party no matter what, whether it's a TSA or someone who is interpreting the block chain.

That's not to say block chains are useless for timestamping, far from it. But for the specific case of timestamping traditional documents in case of a civil legal dispute, you may as well use the fast, instant, widely used, well integrated and free option instead of paying a $10 fee to use Bitcoin.

Re: Bitstamped

#48

Post by kordless »

servowire wrote: post #29
inkfactory wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're still working on a pricing structure - it will likely be an annual or quarterly subscription, with a small fee to get each document Bitstamped.

Here's an idea: Put the files in encrypted containers on a Torrent network. Or use maidsafe.net or storj.io

I wish people would stop suggesting 'using' solutions that aren't yet launched.

Re: Bitstamped

#49

Post by maaku »

There are better ways to do this. You shouldn't be pushing this kind of data into an OP_RETURN output where you are burdening the entire network to store, retransmit, and validate that information from now until the heat death of the universe.

No, put your data into a Merkle hash tree, and do a single 32-byte commitment as frequently as you need to. You can even work with your competitors on a common format and have no more than one commitment per block.

Re: Bitstamped

#50

Post by maaku »

verroq wrote: post #5

1. Make a SHA1 hash of your document 2. Convert the hash to a BTC address 3. Send 0.0001 BTC to the address you made 4. There you saved yourself $9.99

This is a horrible idea. DO NOT DO THIS. You are making the bitcoin network worse if you do.
Post reply on HN