• Welcome to forex.pm forex forum binary options trade. Please login or sign up.
 

Isn't timestamp server overkill?

Started by Bitcoin, Feb 28, 2022, 05:15 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bitcoin

Isn't timestamp server overkill?

I'm trying to fully grasp the third section of the whitepaper. Quoting (emphasis mine):



The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a
hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a
newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the
time, obviously, in order to get into the hash.
Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in
its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it.



I understand the double spending problem described in the previous section and how a timestamp server as described in this section solves it. I don't understand why timestamps are needed.


Let's presume that the timestamp server itself doesn't check for double spending[1]. In this case, in order for the payee to validate the transaction, they have to confirm that the coin hasn't been spent in any previous blocks[2]. Timestamps are irrelevant since the order is defined by the chain of hashes.


I considered the possibility that the author uses the word "timestamp" liberally to refer to a block, but the bold sentence in the quote suggests that it indeed refers to real-world time.


[1] If it does, then the payee doesn't have to care about the order of transactions.


[2] The term "block" hasn't been introduced at this point, but it does appear in the subsequent diagram.


Source: Isn't timestamp server overkill?