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

The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#51

Post by zaarn »

bittcto wrote: post #44
zaarn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need decentralization for a blockchain. All you need is 1) a reverse linked list of entries and 2) have the list be cryptographic in nature. Even git can be used for a blockchain since it uses a cryptographic hash for commits and can use GPG signing. Validation, consensus and decentralizations are additional properties that you can add on top that make it useful for certain use cases.

Because the term was coined by Nakamoto to describe the technology behind bitcoin. Decentralization, proof of work and other characteristics of bitcoin are intrinsic to making the system work. Otherwise you have an inefficient database that has no reason to exist. This is one of the problems with the generic use of “blockchain”. People think you just need Merkle roots including previous blocks, like you do, but that’…

>Otherwise you have an inefficient database that has no reason to exist.

That doesn't mean it isn't a blockchain. A inefficient or poor implementation of something is still an implementation of that thing.

>People think you just need Merkle roots including previous blocks, like you do, but that’s useless and pointless without the rest.

I'm well aware of the additional properties required to get it to behave like bitcoin or have cryptographic safety. But those are to my knowledge not a must-have for a blockchain nor defining characteristics.

As the name implies, it's a chain of blocks, the less obvious part is you link them with something cryptographic.

And just because Blockchain was first used and defined in Bitcoin doesn't mean the definition or methodology cannot be separated from Bitcoin, in fact, I consider it heavily separated from Bitcoin by now.

And again, just because they are factors in making Bitcoin work doesn't mean you need them to make a Blockchain.

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#52

Post by exikyut »

jwfxpr wrote: post #30
exikyut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I was hoping there was a way I could do so online. Mumbles something about equal opportunity open access and the bourgeois

New York Public Library, with a library card: https://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/08/22/how-to-search-nytimes Los Angeles Public Library, with a library card: https://www.lapl.org/new-york-times-digital (and you can apply for an e-card online for free: http://www.lapl.org/about-lapl/contact-us/e-card/e-card-regi... ) Kansas City Public Library, with a library card: https://www.kclibrary.org/blog/kc-unbound/how-read-back-i…

This is fair, but I don't know how much the National Library of Australia has, or whether access is free. Sorry I forgot to mention my location in my previous comment.

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#53

Post by losvedir »

Filligree wrote: post #42
sametmax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have decentralized production and validation of blocks, you don't have a block chain.

Why should it need to be decentralized? A blockchain is a chain of blocks. Tautological, but the words mean something; it isn't just a name. If you hash blocks that contain hashes of previous blocks, you have a blockchain. At most it might be argued that a centralized blockchain has no reason to exist, but I doubt that's true.

> A blockchain is a chain of blocks. Tautological, but the words mean something; it isn't just a name.

No, it doesn't work like that. "Blockchain" is understood to mean something and you can't decompose the compound word and say "well, here's a block. Oh, and here's a chain. I guess this is a block chain." Your description, e.g., applies to a Merkle tree [0], which git uses, and was published in 1979. But no one has ever or will ever call it a blockchain.

Is a Ford F-150 that's been lit on fire a firetruck? How much straw is in a strawberry?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#54

Post by sorokod »

lmilcin wrote: post #36

It is a hash of a block, but not a chain. For this to be a chain, it would have to be published multiple times, each time containing references to previous blocks under the published hash. Other than that I am pretty sure we can find many more examples. Hashing and publishing the hash is pretty popular way to prove timestamp of a secret without revealing the secret, yet. I did it myself a couple of times when I wante…

Other than that I am pretty sure we can find many more examples.

This statement could be made much more interesting and convincing if you provided some actual examples.

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#56

Post by gpvos »

jwfxpr wrote: post #24
andreofthecape wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The login page has ssl. https://enterprise.surety.com/MyAbsoluteProof/ChangeMyAccoun...

If the page that links to the login page hasn't proven it's secure, I shouldn't trust the links, and therefore shouldn't trust the destination. Hence why static landing pages need HTTPS just as much as login pages.

Fair enough, although you could check that the domain names are the same in this case.

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#57

Post by cbm-vic-20 »

prepend wrote: post #41
JWett wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, ex-CEO of Surety here. The article is not very technical so I can see where you might assume this is not a true blockchain. However, the hash value published in the Times was, in fact, dependent upon every single hash value for every digital "document" ever submitted to the Digital Notary Service. A Digital Notary client application would submit a hash value (which in the early days was a combination of MD5 and S…

Doesn’t this rely on Surety being trusted though? It seems technically possible for Surety to modify documents consistently in and out so the hashes are consistent, but not representative of the submitted documents. Especially back in the 90s when generating crypto hashes wasn’t as easy for users. So this is similar to notaries where the trust lies with a different party. The killer app, I think, that made blockchain…

A transparent bank safety deposit box, that everyone can see.

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#59

Post by scott_s »

losvedir wrote: post #53
Filligree wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it need to be decentralized? A blockchain is a chain of blocks. Tautological, but the words mean something; it isn't just a name. If you hash blocks that contain hashes of previous blocks, you have a blockchain. At most it might be argued that a centralized blockchain has no reason to exist, but I doubt that's true.

> A blockchain is a chain of blocks. Tautological, but the words mean something; it isn't just a name. No, it doesn't work like that. "Blockchain" is understood to mean something and you can't decompose the compound word and say "well, here's a block. Oh, and here's a chain. I guess this is a block chain." Your description, e.g., applies to a Merkle tree [0], which git uses, and was published in 1979. But no one has…

My go-to example for this is "putting a Hershey's bar in the microwave is not hot chocolate."

Re: The World’s Oldest Blockchain Has Been Hiding in the New York Times Since 1995

#60

Post by sjs382 »

sorokod wrote: post #54
lmilcin wrote: post #36

It is a hash of a block, but not a chain. For this to be a chain, it would have to be published multiple times, each time containing references to previous blocks under the published hash. Other than that I am pretty sure we can find many more examples. Hashing and publishing the hash is pretty popular way to prove timestamp of a secret without revealing the secret, yet. I did it myself a couple of times when I wante…

Other than that I am pretty sure we can find many more examples. This statement could be made much more interesting and convincing if you provided some actual examples.

It's fairly common (at least among the security community) to post a hash of a claim to Twitter, that they can reference in the future to prove that they had X information on Y date without disclosing the actual information until later.

For example, I could post the hash "9712f2488fa00fc5b11b657995ac10c9" to Twitter and then after the prediction comes to pass, I can reveal that the hash was for the phrase "Pittsburgh Steelers will Defeat New Orleans Saints 30-21 in Super Bowl LIII", proving that I had some knowledge or prediction that I didn't want to reveal at the time of the prediction.

Post reply on HN