You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
@aljoscha %31l7NnXcqLVztw0R2O0hnRjaX92xZ1H7ACEBpzTkab4=.sha256
Re: %L9m5nHRqp

@Dominic

that is incorrect. To prove that the earlier message already existed, you just have to show that the later message signs the hash of that message, or the hash of something containing the hash, or the hash of something containing the hash of something... etc recursively.

With all respect, did you even bother reading this thread before proclaiming that we didn't think about this? This post gives a counterexample to your claim.

Join Scuttlebutt now