[notes] opentimestamps.org python client
- opentimestamps.org simply uploads its payload to an op return transaction - the python client looks nice; it can connect to either a local node or a remote server - it has a bunch of political boilerplate around hashing content. this boilerplate could be removed and it could be used a simple op_return client to notarise small data for public lookup the file hashing boilerplate entrypoint is in opentimestamps-client/otsclient/cmds.py lines 155-182 (off 616718cfdc5c235ea71374d6910235d77ec47fc0 ). It loops over each file, hashes, adds a nonce, and merkles the hashes. The resulting merkle tip could be replaced with any short content (likely of identical length) to notarise this content. I am not a cryptographer. I might propose either the first n/2 bytes of 2 different modern hashes preceded 1-4 bytes of topic-specific identifier, a common hash such as sha256, or something that can be searched for elsewhere, such as a cleartext commit hash, an infohash, or a url in a content-indexed network. Scrubbing the blockchain for similar strings could help find existing uses to join a larger community.
Apologies for using the word "political" here. I simply meant that I was frustrated that it is easier to find privacy-preserving tools than information-sharing tools. The proposed change is an attempt to make the change from privacy-preservation to information-sharing, in this one.
If you are concerned about privacy with timestamping and IPFS, for example, you can sign up via Tor Browser Bundle at pinata.cloud to create an account there and use as registration an email address from Bitmessage's mailchuck.com email address. Regards Stefan On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 8:01 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Apologies for using the word "political" here. I simply meant that I was frustrated that it is easier to find privacy-preserving tools than information-sharing tools. The proposed change is an attempt to make the change from privacy-preservation to information-sharing, in this one.
Sorry! Um: I was concerned about not wanting the timestamps to be private. But privacy advice is helpful! Is mailchuck.com working for you? It went down for me some years ago, haven't seen it since.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 9:40 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry! Um: I was concerned about not wanting the timestamps to be private. But privacy advice is helpful!
What I just described simply means that coderman or whoever maintains an archive has the option to do that anonymously, while all the created data is of course public.
Is mailchuck.com working for you? It went down for me some years ago, haven't seen it since.
I recently created an account and it was working for me, but I have not paid in BTC for that account, for sending messages. Regards Stefan
Is mailchuck.com working for you? It went down for me some years ago, haven't seen it since.
I recently created an account and it was working for me, but I have not paid in BTC for that account, for sending messages.
So you are not having this experience? This has been the past few years for me: $ curl -v https://mailchuck.com/ * Trying 85.25.152.9:443... * connect to 85.25.152.9 port 443 failed: Connection refused * Trying 85.114.135.102:443... * connect to 85.114.135.102 port 443 failed: Connection refused * Failed to connect to mailchuck.com port 443 after 287 ms: Connection refused * Closing connection 0 curl: (7) Failed to connect to mailchuck.com port 443 after 287 ms: Connection refused $ curl -v http://mailchuck.com/ * Trying 85.25.152.9:80... * connect to 85.25.152.9 port 80 failed: Connection refused * Trying 85.114.135.102:80... * connect to 85.114.135.102 port 80 failed: Connection refused * Failed to connect to mailchuck.com port 80 after 303 ms: Connection refused * Closing connection 0 curl: (7) Failed to connect to mailchuck.com port 80 after 303 ms: Connection refused
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:00:40 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
it is easier to find privacy-preserving tools than information-sharing tools.
is it? Also, this being the cpunks mailing list, 'privacy preserving' sounds like a priority.
The proposed change is an attempt to make the change from privacy-preservation to information-sharing, in this one.
the 'sharing' of SOME kind of information is obviously fine...as long as it is a weapon against govcorp. But 'sharing' of information per se, on the arpanet, is not a value. Except for people in professor turd's gang of course.
participants (3)
-
Karl -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Stefan Claas