[Cryptography] Komitments

[Ber Saxon]

On 12/19/18 8:03 PM, Richard Outerbridge wrote:
>> On 2018-12-19 (353), at 13:54:01, Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote:
>>
>> In message <AM4PR0701MB2226D4711F9F99CED6FDC32CC4BE0 at AM4PR0701MB2226.eur
>> prd07.prod.outlook.com>, =?utf-8?B?T3NtYW4gS3V6dWN1IEhvc3RpbmcgV2ViIFRhc
>> 2FyxLFtIEdyYWZpaw==?= <bizbucaliyiz at hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>> Please excuse my ignorance if I say something that is not feasible as I am 
>>> fairly new to cryptography. However, I was thinking about a possible solution 
>>> such that;
>>>
>>> Bob’s message = Alice is an agent = a1
>>>
>>> Time of the message = 01.01.1991 01:01 = b1
>>>
>>> sha512(a1+b1) => result hash.
>>>
>>> Bob then shares that result hash with some other third party and after Alice’s 
>>> arrest, he shares the input data with third party and makes them verify the hash 
>>> so he can prove he was the person who found about Alice.
>> yes ... but the timestamp is meaningless
>>
> [ … ]
>
> Yeah, unauthenticated timestamps are legally meaningless, because they are
> so easily forged. At best an aide de memoire.  How, or whom, best to trust time?
>
> Always remember that the higher one goes, the slower time seems to become.
> __outer
>
>
"How, or whom, best to trust time"

A notarized letter with the hash will set you back about two dollars
most places. A few coin will publish your hash in the classifieds of a
paper of record. Even better is to record your hash in a public notice
at a county records office and get a certified copy. All of these
methods are defacto proof of time in all courts of record.

Most especially the county recorder's office or courthouse is the
original blockchain. The records therein are defacto compliant with the
rules of evidence in all jurisdictions. If you have certified filings
there it's an obstacle to those who challenge the time of entry.

Speaking to the inconvenience, recall the old saw, "... death and taxes ..."

--

Ber Saxon