Help a newbie; why is hashing not done once but twice during Bitcoin transaction

[kaggie]

Not at all. There is no point arguing for a change if that change serves no good purpose.

I could probably come up with many examples but how about this one. You could reduce energy consumption in proof of work and it would remain as secure as it is now. And as decentralized as it is now.

Without any details of how you would implement this, you cannot make any of these claims. I could just as easily say that timestamps will increase energy consumption and be less secure.

If you have a solution to this problem, then you should post it...

Why not? What mechanism exists in an automatic clock that can possibly dictate how I sign a bitcoin transaction?

No mechanism does. You have to layer that additional functionality on top of the atomic clock or alongside it. now I'm not going to sit here and say that solution is easy or I know what it is fully. but i do have an idea on it.

[1714921024]

1714921024

[1714921024]

1714921024

[1714921024]

1714921024

[1714921024]

1714921024

[1714921024]

1714921024

[1714921024]

1714921024

[larry_vw_1955]

If you have a solution to this problem, then you should post it...

Well I didn't say I had a solution but I had some ideas but I came across one that I think could work. It's called Cosmic Time Synchronization.

You can read about it if you're interested.

[NotATether]

Why not? What mechanism exists in an automatic clock that can possibly dictate how I sign a bitcoin transaction?

No mechanism does. You have to layer that additional functionality on top of the atomic clock or alongside it. now I'm not going to sit here and say that solution is easy or I know what it is fully. but i do have an idea on it.

One problem with timestamping a transaction *when its broadcasted* is that it won't be cryptographically protected by the signature. Therefore, it can be changed by anyone during transit and yet the tx still verifies correctly.

Besides, I could broadcast a tx multiple times in quick succession, would the timestamp of the broadcast be updated or a new one added to the end of the array. Would that really be necessary, keeping track of a timestamp that could be modified/updated infinitely, when the tx can only be signed/created once and thus can be used as the timestamp?

[larry_vw_1955]

One problem with timestamping a transaction *when its broadcasted* is that it won't be cryptographically protected by the signature. Therefore, it can be changed by anyone during transit and yet the tx still verifies correctly.

you timestamp it and then sign it. then the timestamp is part of the signature. that tells you when the transaction was created. then once it is broadcasted, it is timestamped again and then signed again by the network. that's one idea.

Besides, I could broadcast a tx multiple times in quick succession, would the timestamp of the broadcast be updated or a new one added to the end of the array. Would that really be necessary, keeping track of a timestamp that could be modified/updated infinitely, when the tx can only be signed/created once and thus can be used as the timestamp?

i think transactions with an earlier timestamp might get put into a block first. before later transactions. when you can timestamp things you can put them in the order they occurred. now obviously bitcoin can't do that but if something could then ordering things by when they occurred would eliminate the need for blocks. maybe?

[kaggie]

that tells you when the transaction was created. then once it is broadcasted

A transaction is not meaningful until it is broadcast.

The very simple flaw to your design would be to create a million non-broadcasted transactions, give them to a million people, and let the network update only with the last one. Even if the 999,999 others had an earlier timestamped transaction, that would mean nothing as soon after the one broadcasted transaction was involved in its next transactions -- unless you want to do a lot of extra accounting and reversing of later transactions. Transacting based on a timestamp alone rather than causality would cause a lot of pain, even if you did figure out how to have untamperable signing of it (which I believe is also completely impossible).

Even with your cosmic ray updating of timing, there is nothing that would stop a malicious actor from planning an extra radiative source that caused earlier synchronizations and triggers to enable earlier timestamps on their transactions.

[LoyceV]

the atomic clock timestamps your transaction

You're looking for a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. Bitcoin works fine without needing an atomic clock to sign a transaction.

[o_e_l_e_o]

you timestamp it and then sign it. then the timestamp is part of the signature. that tells you when the transaction was created.

Once again, it doesn't. You have no mechanism which can detect whether I signed a transaction right now with a date of 5 years ago, or whether I actually signed it 5 years ago and simply stored it until now. Any time between UTXO creation and right now is valid as far as the network is concerned, which makes the whole timestamp thing meaningless.

then once it is broadcasted, it is timestamped again and then signed again by the network.

"The network" isn't a single entity with the ability to sign anything. Either each node attaches their own timestamp, which leads us back to the argument before of which node and which timestamp is "correct", or you designate a single centralized entity to timestamp transactions, in which case you have just ruined the very nature of bitcoin.

i think transactions with an earlier timestamp might get put into a block first. before later transactions.

This could make double spending trivially easy.

[larry_vw_1955]

A transaction is not meaningful until it is broadcast.

i would beg to disagree. someone can sign something ahead of time and someone else could broadcast it at a later time for whatever reason. who are you or me to decide they don't have a good reason for doing that.

The very simple flaw to your design would be to create a million non-broadcasted transactions, give them to a million people, and let the network update only with the last one. Even if the 999,999 others had an earlier timestamped transaction, that would mean nothing as soon after the one broadcasted transaction was involved in its next transactions -- unless you want to do a lot of extra accounting and reversing of later transactions.

well, anyone that would do what you are suggesting is doing something wrong. way outside of the norm such that they are really trying to abusing the network.

Even with your cosmic ray updating of timing, there is nothing that would stop a malicious actor from planning an extra radiative source that caused earlier synchronizations and triggers to enable earlier timestamps on their transactions.

well if that technology was vulnerable to what you are suggesting then it wouldn't be a "thing". just imagine the havoc someone could wreak on such a system that replaced gps.

Once again, it doesn't. You have no mechanism which can detect whether I signed a transaction right now with a date of 5 years ago, or whether I actually signed it 5 years ago and simply stored it until now. Any time between UTXO creation and right now is valid as far as the network is concerned, which makes the whole timestamp thing meaningless.

there are mechanisms. but everything involves tradeoffs. for example, you could be required to broadcast the hash of your transaction at the time it was timestamped and signed. that hash would be incorporated into a merkle tree. then one day when you actually want to broadcast the transaction, it won't work unless the hash is part of that tree. there's more details than that but you get the idea. very simple.

you may object to having to broadcast the transaction hash but that's the price you get to pay for having your timestamp mean something. and you might have to pay a small fee.

[kaggie]

Even with your cosmic ray updating of timing, there is nothing that would stop a malicious actor from planning an extra radiative source that caused earlier synchronizations and triggers to enable earlier timestamps on their transactions.

well if that technology was vulnerable to what you are suggesting then it wouldn't be a "thing". just imagine the havoc someone could wreak on such a system that replaced gps.

It's not really a thing though, is it?
I can imagine the havoc from all of these flaws and am warning of that.

who are you or me to decide they don't have a good reason for doing that.

You.. have decided that it's possible that they don't have a good reason in your next paragraph because "they are really trying to abusing the network."

The very simple flaw to your design would be to create a million non-broadcasted transactions, give them to a million people, and let the network update only with the last one. Even if the 999,999 others had an earlier timestamped transaction, that would mean nothing as soon after the one broadcasted transaction was involved in its next transactions -- unless you want to do a lot of extra accounting and reversing of later transactions.

well, anyone that would do what you are suggesting is doing something wrong. way outside of the norm such that they are really trying to abusing the network.

Yes, and you have no way to stop or detect it. It also doesn't require a malicious actor for this to happen, but a bug in code or forgetful person, all of which are reasons to avoid relying on timestamps. Can you imagine the number of reversed later transactions? It sounds like a nightmare for all of the network.

This thread has convinced me to avoid any and all networks that rely on timestamping. There are far too many flaws. So much for me to completely avoid ever investing in Solana! It's been a useful reminder for why bitcoin has been implemented how it is, and why it should always refuse timestamping on transactions in the future.

[o_e_l_e_o]

way outside of the norm such that they are really trying to abusing the network.

And you trust everyone in the world not to abuse the network for their own benefit when your proposal would make it so easy to do?

you may object to having to broadcast the transaction hash but that's the price you get to pay for having your timestamp mean something. and you might have to pay a small fee.

Unnecessary bloat for the blockchain to store a bunch of hashes which might never be referenced, makes pruned nodes impossible since they need to keep a record of all this bloat to cross check new transaction against, additional expense for everyone for no good reason, makes things like timelocked inheritance or Lightning channels where you repeatedly sign but don't broadcast transactions prohibitively expensive. What are the pros of timestamps again?

[larry_vw_1955]

It's not really a thing though, is it?

maybe not right now but i wouldn't bet against it becoming a thing sometime.

I can imagine the havoc from all of these flaws and am warning of that.

there's no flaw.

This thread has convinced me to avoid any and all networks that rely on timestamping. There are far too many flaws. So much for me to completely avoid ever investing in Solana!

yeah solana does go down sometimes. at least you know what to expect if you do plan to using it.

It's been a useful reminder for why bitcoin has been implemented how it is, and why it should always refuse timestamping on transactions in the future.

bitcoin should try and stay the way it is. i wouldn't want it to change too much. but i would like to see more innovations like solana. people that do things differently. nothing wrong with that.

What are the pros of timestamps again?

i guess not any according to everyone here. ok so i'm done on that topic.

[o_e_l_e_o]

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/149112/solanas-blockchain-clock-loses-track-of-time-now-running-30-minutes-behind

Oops!

[larry_vw_1955]

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/149112/solanas-blockchain-clock-loses-track-of-time-now-running-30-minutes-behind

Oops!

Sounds like a bug. Bitcoin has had bugs.

But I don't think solana was ever designed to produce timestamps that matched perfectly with real-world-time. To do that, it takes alot more than just what solana is doing.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Sounds like a bug. Bitcoin has had bugs.

Pretty big bug to affect the fundamental process by which it supposedly runs, though. (Not to mention this is simply the latest in a never ending stream of critical bugs for this particular shitcoin.)

Still, my point here is mostly to point out that implementing timestamps is not an easy, straight forward process. As you say:

To do that, it takes alot more than just what solana is doing.

Given that implementing timestamps properly (decentralized, trustless, tamper resistant, etc.) is both difficult and costly, then you need a very good reason to do it, especially when bitcoin works just fine without them.

[larry_vw_1955]

Sounds like a bug. Bitcoin has had bugs.

Pretty big bug to affect the fundamental process by which it supposedly runs, though. (Not to mention this is simply the latest in a never ending stream of critical bugs for this particular shitcoin.)

i just checked and solana is running a little over 2 hours behind real time on their timestamps.  

but that's still no reason to be calling it a "shitcoin". reserve that for something that isn't innovative and just copies other peoples code.

Still, my point here is mostly to point out that implementing timestamps is not an easy, straight forward process. As you say:

To do that, it takes alot more than just what solana is doing.

Given that implementing timestamps properly (decentralized, trustless, tamper resistant, etc.) is both difficult and costly, then you need a very good reason to do it, especially when bitcoin works just fine without them.

you need a very good reason for putting satellites in the sky multiple of them around the earth because that's costly. oh, gps. same type of idea. lets agree that bitcoin is fine without timestamps but that new tech always comes along and probably one day will improve upon bitcoin's (and solana's) timestamping capabilities. one day.

[BlackHatCoiner]

but that's still no reason to be calling it a "shitcoin". reserve that for something that isn't innovative and just copies other peoples code.

Let's see.

• "Solana is a fast, secure and censorship resistant blockchain", reminds me of something. 
• It isn't innovative. It uses another alibi, which is this meaningless Proof-of-History that is been discussed pages now, to bring more users to the crypto-space. In fact, PoH is their main aspect.
• It has 400 millisecond block times and claims to be able to process up to 710,000 transactions per second. We've seen this in the past; it's neither innovative nor sustainable for decentralization.
• It hypes up NFTs, which also reminds me of someone else' work.
• There has been a network outage which I find justified, since they'd spent most of their time designing the website and improving their social media accounts' growth.
• Solana doesn't have a hard cap. Instead, its supply increases based on this staking yield nonsense.
• There's a "Solana Foundation".

It's the definition of shitcoin.

[o_e_l_e_o]

but that's still no reason to be calling it a "shitcoin".

How about the fact that entire network has gone down for several hours on multiple different occasions, and that the devs have chosen to shut down the network for several hours on multiple other different occasions. It is centralized trash, and even then, it can't keep accurate timestamps.

you need a very good reason for putting satellites in the sky multiple of them around the earth because that's costly. oh, gps. same type of idea. lets agree that bitcoin is fine without timestamps but that new tech always comes along and probably one day will improve upon bitcoin's (and solana's) timestamping capabilities. one day.

And even the very first satellite every launched in to orbit, Sputnik 1, had a clear defined purpose and contained instruments to measure the composition of the ionosphere, Earth's magnetic fields, and so on. They didn't just fire a satellite in to space with no goal or reason, just as we shouldn't try to shoehorn timestamps in to bitcoin with no goal or reason in mind.

If some new tech comes along and makes decentralized, trustless timestamps not only possible but also safe, secure, cheap, and fast, then I'm certain someone will launch an altcoin based on that, and it might even do well. But we are nowhere near that yet.

[kaggie]

If some new tech comes along and makes decentralized, trustless timestamps not only possible but also safe, secure, cheap, and fast, then I'm certain someone will launch an altcoin based on that, and it might even do well. But we are nowhere near that yet.

This is genuinely an interesting question in how you would do that.

If you had perfect trustless timestamping, you could have a new independent banking method. But I can't conceive of how it would work without the timestamp eventually being tampered with. With any currently conceivable method, a trustless, decentralized timestamp is impossible.

Besides tampering with code, you could modify the time stamp through any number of methods:
add an extra network routing node between the miner and network to cause a latency delay
add extra physical wire between the clock and computing hardware, causing a the node to appear nanoseconds later in time, which could cause collisions
put one of the nodes in orbit, making other nodes appear to sign after the space node which could appear to be a femto-nanoseconds earlier in time due rapid orbiting

Delays in either direction for a network that relies solely on timestamping would eventually result in collisions and insolvable headaches.

You would need a new physics method, like quantum entangled communication that instantaneously communicated with nodes and wasn't hampered by distances in communicating messages, or time dilation from the speed of light for when nodes are put into space/orbit. Current relativity physics says this is impossible to get around. Making a node appear moments in the future or past doesn't matter much for your currencies that don't matter much, but it puts a limit on the ultimate value of your network. Once the value becomes great enough, then someone will break it. No store of value is immune to that process of attempts at being broken as the currency grows in value, but the difference is that bitcoin has withheld its own whereas things like Solana regularly go down. There's no need to introduce more potential flaws to a network especially one that you want to hold immense value.

[larry_vw_1955]

but that's still no reason to be calling it a "shitcoin".

How about the fact that entire network has gone down for several hours on multiple different occasions, and that the devs have chosen to shut down the network for several hours on multiple other different occasions. It is centralized trash, and even then, it can't keep accurate timestamps.

what do you think would happen if some bitcoin bug happened where someone minted 1000 bitcoin out of thin air? And kept doing it all day long? Bitcoin devs would shut down the network and roll it back to a particular checkpoint. And then restart the blockchain once they had fixed the bug. It might takes hours or it might take longer to do that though so the bitcoin network could be offline for that time period.

They didn't just fire a satellite in to space with no goal or reason, just as we shouldn't try to shoehorn timestamps in to bitcoin with no goal or reason in mind.

OK.
 

You would need a new physics method, like quantum entangled communication that instantaneously communicated with nodes and wasn't hampered by distances in communicating messages, or time dilation from the speed of light for when nodes are put into space/orbit.

I'm not sure you would need that. All you really need is some external time keeper. For example, here on earth we use the sun as a rough measure of time. You can go outside look up in the sky and estimate what time it is. If you had a very accurate instrument to measure the sun's position then you could estimate the time even more precisely. Now that's not going to get you down to a very precise level. maybe seconds not sure but cosmic time synchronization can get things down to a more precise level and it doesn't require quantum physics. it's a working technology. but kind of a new kid on the block.

[kaggie]

I'm not sure you would need that. All you really need is some external time keeper.

That external timekeeping source would be subject to the many manipulations that we've talked about, making it poor for global commerce.