Re:A16Z is re-registering as a financial advisor, renouncing...
by peteretep on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @04:56AM
(#19561854)
> I was only pointing out that
No, you were pointing it out and then saying that the flaw of this system was that the judiciary could be corrupted.
> If there was verifiable proof on a globally distributed blockchain that evidence had been tampered with by a judiciary member of a democratic country
Putting aside the many many political and practical ways in which this fantasy will stay firmly a fantasy, why does this need a blockchain instead of simply a published list of documents, if this is globally distributed?
It was you who suggested simple cryptographic signatures in your initial reply to the parent comment. I was only pointing out that securely signing a message with a timestamp requires a cryptographic entity known as a "Trusted Third Party". Please see the first link in my original comment.
> That would be the judiciary. If they -- the people with the guns and the resources of the state -- become corrupted, you'd be unwise to think that your cryptographic signatures are going to help much.
If there was verifiable proof on a globally distributed blockchain that evidence had been tampered with by a judiciary member of a democratic country, I find it very hard to believe they would get away with it in the long term.