Re:How companies use fake sites, backdated articles to censo...
by dubhrosa on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:03AM
(#18110348)
Agree that bitcoin blockchain is unnecessary, but isn't there some merit in the idea that all major publishers in a juristiction would opt-in to posting to a single chain? Given the potential legal cost savings it would seem to be at least somewhat feasible.
Re:How companies use fake sites, backdated articles to censo...
by cheeze on Monday October 01, 2018 @03:00AM
(#18110518)
Oh absolutely. But I don't know how much of a "blockchain" that really is depending on how you define it. When I think blockchain, I think miners/proof of work/etc.
Is a CT log a blockchain? Because really what we're talking about here is a signed ledger which may be decentralized but very well may be centralized as well.
Re:How companies use fake sites, backdated articles to censo...
by jcoffland on Monday October 01, 2018 @03:17AM
(#18110596)
> What makes the bitcoin blockchain good for this?
I can use it for decentralized time stamping right now.
What makes the bitcoin blockchain good for this? The bitcoin blockchain is good for posting transactions within the bitcoin network and kind of a shitty solution for "a generic blockchain"
Why a blockchain at all? Why not just a merkle tree? Surely there is somewhere better than the bitcoin blockchain for this. CT logging isn't done on the bitcoin blockchain for a reason.
So sure, you can prove that something wasn't created after the date of the transaction (assuming you're using a CS hashing function), but for this to work in this specific context, you'd need every publisher to be posting transactions to this log.
If I post an article and post a hash to $genericBlockchainWhichIsReallyJustAMerkleTree, what prevents someone from copying, backdating, and saying that I copied them? That they didn't post to the log as well?