HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
opentimestamps
nist-inject
Finance & Commerce2020–2024
opentimestamps / nist-inject

nist-inject

An injection of the NIST, ETH, LTC, and ZEC Random Beacons into Bitcoin

2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
22GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

An injection of the NIST, ETH, LTC, and ZEC Random Beacons into Bitcoin

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-01-06 21:45:37 UTC to 2024-09-30 17:43:34 UTC.

0122020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
FYI I have a project that has been running for a few years now that injects that NIST Randomness Beacons into the Bitcoin chain, along with a few other random beacons: https://github.com/opentimestamps/nist-inject Bitcoin itself is a good randomness beacon, depending on your requirements for timing. But injecting the NIST beacon into Bitcoin improves the security of various statements you can make about Bitcoin blocks, such as knowing that a particular block was created after a point in time. This is relevant to applications using Bitcoin for timestamping, as it prevents undetected back-dating of Bitcoin blocks. It's fair to say this is a real world use-case for the NIST Randomness Beacon. Though AFAIK no-one has ever had to actually use it in anger to validate a contested timestamp.
In NIST Interoperable Randomness Beacons
The easy thing to do is prove a message existed prior to some point in time. That's a timestamp, you can do that easily for free with my OpenTimestamps project, which uses Bitcoin for the timestamp proof: https://opentimestamps.org/ The way it works is pretty simple: your message is hashed with a series of cryptographically secure hash/append/prepend operations, leading to a Bitcoin block. Since they are one way hashes, your message must have existed prior to that Bitcoin block. The hard part is actually proving a message existed after some point in time. To do that, you need a random beacon: a large number (also known as a nonce) that we know was created at some point in time, and prior to that point in time, was impossible to predict. Newspaper headlines are a weak form of random beacon, as it's hard to predict the news in advance. Bitc
Read the rest
oin block hashes are even better, as the proof-of-work ensures that even trying to force a single bit of the block hash is extremely expensive. I also run a project to inject other random beacons into the Bitcoin blockchain, such as the NIST Random Beacon: https://github.com/opentimestamps/nist-inject But in the age of deep fakes, what does any of this actually prove? See, while a timestamp proof mathematically depends on your message, with a random beacon it's the opposite: your message needs to depend on the random beacon. For human meaningful messages that's not easy to achieve. A photo can be photoshopped, a video deepfaked, etc. The best you can do in general is try to make the random beacon time, and the timestamp, be as close together as possible to make it as difficult as possible to do a photoshop, deepfake, etc. But deepfakes are good enough these days that IMO that's dubious security. Probably the best approach here is to actually think about what exactly you are trying to achieve - are you kidnapping someone? proving you've recovered from the plague? launching a cryptocurrency? There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to this problem.
In Ask HN: What are some good methods to prove current time?

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.