Don’t need to involve a blockchain to make cryptographically provable authenticity. Just a digital signature.
The only thing a hash in a blockchain would add is proof the video existed at the time the hash was added to the blockchain. I can think of cases where that would be beneficial too, but it wouldn’t make sense to put a hash of every video on a public blockchain.
hyperhopper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Blockchain is the opposite of what you want for this problem, I’m not sure why people bring this up now. People need to take an introductory cryptography course before saying to use blockchain everywhere.
makeasnek@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Putting it on the blockchain ensures you can always go back and say “see, at this date/time, this key verified this file/hash”… If you know the key of the uploader (the white house), you can verify it was signed by that key. Guatemala used a similar scheme to verify votes in elections using Bitcoin. Could the precinct lie and put in the wrong vote count? Of course! But what it prevented was somebody saying “well actually the precinct reported a different number” since anybody could verify that on chain they didn’t. It also prevented the precinct themselves from changing the number in the future if they were put under some kind of pressure.
hyperhopper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
All of this could be done without blockchain. Once they sign a signature with their private key they can’t unsign it later. Once you attest something you cannot un-attest it.
Just make the public key known and sign things. Please stop shoehorning blockchain where it doesn’t belong, especially when you aren’t even giving any examples of things that blockchain is doing for you with 100000x the cost and complexity, that normal crypto from the 80s/90s cant do better.
Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 months ago
Trusted timestamping protocols and transparency logs exists and does that more efficiently