Author: Jeremy Rubin 2022-04-17 20:57:28
Published on: 2022-04-17T20:57:28+00:00
In this conversation, Jeremy Rubin and Peter Todd discuss the Open Time Stamps (OTS) protocol and its potential issues. Todd argues that the "lots of people" appeal to authority is an invalid argument, and Rubin acknowledges his confusion on how OTS can support Replace-by-Fee (RBF) for updating to larger commitments without a re-committing scheme. He suggests that having an actual spec for OTS would aid in resolving the issue. Rubin also proposes that if there is something that sponsors does that could make an OTS-like service work better, then they should change what OTS is rather than committing themselves to a worse design in service of some unstated design goals. Todd explains that the technical spec of OTS is python-opentimestamps and that the explanatory docs are linked on opentimestamps.org under the "How It Works" section. Todd clarifies that OpenTimestamps proofs do not have the concept of transactions and that the proof format proves that data existed prior to a merkle root of a particular Bitcoin block. Rubin suggests a model with attempted and confirmed commitments and 'rewinds' after a confirm to make the next commit contain the prior attempts that did not make it, while Todd argues that none of this has anything to do with how OpenTimestamps works. Finally, Todd states that he remains of the opinion that if fee accounts are ever implemented, it should be opt-in.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T03:54:06.676909+00:00