RFC 3161 trusted timestamping vs. blockchain timestamping.
Both bind a document’s hash to a time. The difference is who you have to trust — a signed authority, or a public ledger nobody controls.
RFC 3161 in brief
RFC 3161 defines the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP). You send the hash of your data to a Timestamping Authority (TSA); it returns a timestamp token signing your hash together with the current time. It is mature, widely supported (PDF signatures, code signing, archival), and standardized. Its trust model is centralized: a verifier must trust the TSA’s signature and certificate chain, and the token’s long-term validity depends on that authority and its keys remaining trustworthy and available.
Blockchain timestamping in brief
Blockchain timestamping records the hash on a public chain. The block’s own timestamp — produced by the network’s consensus, not a single signer — binds the hash in time. OpenTimestamps does this efficiently on Bitcoin; notaros also anchors to Base for a fast, queryable smart-contract record. There is no authority to trust or outlive: verification reads the public ledger directly.
| RFC 3161 (TSA) | Blockchain (notaros) | |
|---|---|---|
| Time source | A trusted authority’s clock | Public blockchain consensus |
| Who you trust | The TSA + its cert chain | No single party |
| Verify without the issuer | Needs the TSA’s certs valid | Read the chain directly |
| Long-term durability | Tied to TSA key lifetime | As durable as Bitcoin/Base |
| Ecosystem support | Broad (PDF, code signing) | Growing |
When to use which
Choose RFC 3161 when a workflow or regulation specifically expects a TSA token — many document-signing and archival stacks do. Choose blockchain timestamping when you want a proof that is independently verifiable forever, with no authority to trust or maintain. notaros focuses on the latter and pairs a Bitcoin (OpenTimestamps) anchor with a Base smart-contract anchor. Developers can integrate via the API.