Post AFInfdi6Jdi74ml6Cu by midnightmagic@x0f.org
(DIR) More posts by midnightmagic@x0f.org
(DIR) Post #AEumI6EiF5OVALzmUK by jb55@bitcoinhackers.org
2021-12-30T01:57:05Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
follow me on https://nostr.com : fd3fdb0d0d8d6f9a7667b53211de8ae3c5246b79bdaf64ebac849d5148b5615fread about the nostr protocol here here:https://github.com/fiatjaf/nostr
(DIR) Post #AEvGgID8N0WzsZi2i0 by harding@hash.social
2021-12-30T07:37:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jb55 boosted this both because its cool and to remind me to try it.
(DIR) Post #AEvSTNDNeYEr5HQlYe by livestradamus@bitcoinhackers.org
2021-12-30T09:49:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@harding @jb55 I recall this from previous Twitter purge thought it most interesting and then lost what it was. Will test on nostr own instance and see if feasible running on my own
(DIR) Post #AEwjMFF8mlz0iEOtjU by honza@pokorny.ca
2021-12-31T00:33:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jb55 I love these little protocols and projects.
(DIR) Post #AFInfdi6Jdi74ml6Cu by midnightmagic@x0f.org
2022-01-10T08:09:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livestradamus @harding @jb55 It's non-repudiable. This will likely make it unattractive for "some" people.
(DIR) Post #AFInfeBAZYxkWwMJW4 by livestradamus@bitcoinhackers.org
2022-01-10T09:02:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@midnightmagic please explain @harding @jb55
(DIR) Post #AFInfeaL3z5zn08PkO by midnightmagic@x0f.org
2022-01-10T15:32:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@livestradamus @harding @jb55 There's no way to assert in the future you didn't say that thing. Even Signal doesn't do that.
(DIR) Post #AFInfeynb2f50rZwsC by harding@hash.social
2022-01-10T16:05:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@midnightmagic @livestradamus @jb55 yeah, but Signal is a chat app used for private communication, nostr is for public microblogging. Non-reputibility would be a liability for nostr.
(DIR) Post #AFIo7zGvk8Y83bZDvc by midnightmagic@x0f.org
2022-01-10T16:10:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@harding @livestradamus @jb55 :-/ Yeah I'm aware of that. Point is, even DKIM verifiability is a liability for using gmail. Publishing with a signature means you can never delete your drunk blog. It would be easy to post in a way which is repudiable—it is only a benefit to the readers, not the publisher.
(DIR) Post #AFIqFhQs9cb2xB1T9M by harding@hash.social
2022-01-10T16:34:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@midnightmagic @livestradamus @jb55 doesn't really matter anyway. As long as your posts are public, a bunch of people will post hash commitments to your posts to opentimestamps, creating a believable set of attestations. In that case, it's better for publishers to cut out the middlemen and bake non-reputibility into the protocol so there's no risk the timestampers will collude to damage to publisher's reputation.
(DIR) Post #AFIqP9CGIR6HfYh4jY by harding@hash.social
2022-01-10T16:36:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@midnightmagic @livestradamus @jb55 in short, cryptographic non-reputibiliity > implict trust in archive.org.
(DIR) Post #AFIqpOCB9cljiSATzM by midnightmagic@x0f.org
2022-01-10T16:41:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@harding @livestradamus @jb55 Hash commitments are "stuff I promise I witnessed, no really," and not "the person with control of this key definitely published this." It's not a good idea to publish in a way that your words could be used against you forever, because nobody is perfect, and sometimes Snowden doesn't want to leave evidence on his computer that he was the leaker.
(DIR) Post #AFIrDdp8hRzR8WxJsu by midnightmagic@x0f.org
2022-01-10T16:45:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@harding @livestradamus @jb55 No, this is wrong. This is only a benefit to the readers (including attackers.) This is just putting more risk on the publishers, which means ultra-high quality posts are going to avoid it. Publisher-desired no -repudiability can just post a signed message. With nostr they have no choice—nostr forces them to key manage themselves, which is an endless failure.
(DIR) Post #AFJ17WgHLL5AmsXAlU by harding@hash.social
2022-01-10T18:36:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@midnightmagic @livestradamus @jb55 I agree that's what hash commitments are, which is exactly the problem with them. If you don't build non-repudibility into the protocol, third-parties will create their own non-repuditiation systems on top of the protocol, and those third-party systems will be corruptible.I'd rather have a system where people are verifying my signature on my posts than a system where people are asking trusted third-parties to attest to the contents of my posts.
(DIR) Post #AG9lNwhDNUVXXwZqCW by midnightmagic@x0f.org
2022-02-05T05:19:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@harding @livestradamus @jb55 A huge amount of things that would otherwise have been said, won't be under a no-opt-in pure non-repudiable publishing infrastructure. That's fine that you're onboard with it: I personally know extremely high-signal individuals that won't use non-repudiable publishing and will just stay silent instead.