[Imnimo]

Maybe this question just reveals that I don't totally understand the underlying system here, but what stops the archaeologist from just unwrapping the sarcophagus off-chain? They don't get paid by the contract, but what if someone who is interested in my secret just pays them in cash?

[qqii]

The sarcophagus is Enc_arch(Enc_recip(data)) so unwrapping it off chain isn't useful to them.

The only case it would be useful is if they collude with the recipient. I'm not sure how this procotol disincentives this.

[Imnimo]

Right, I get that, but presumably I don't want the recipient to have it unless the switch goes off, or else I wouldn't be using this system - I'd have just given it to the recipient unencrypted.

[qqii]

That's why the archaeologists are supposed to be a disinterested third party, you essentially pay them (and they forfeit their collateral) to not unwrap it.

[fastball]

I think the archeologists need to agree to unwrap sarcophagus, so the logic is the same as any other blockchain – anyone with 51% control can do whatever they want, otherwise you need coordination between parties that are only incentivized to act "properly".

[Imnimo]

Oh, I didn't get that from the whitepaper. They seem to use 'archaeologist' singular a lot of the time when it's unclear if they actually mean plural. So is it like some sort of n-of-k encryption where you need a majority of the archaeologists' keys to unwrap the outer layer?

[snak]

I was wondering the same thing, there's nothing stopping the archaeologist from unwrap it it off-chain/offline/...?

Either we're missing something from the unwrapping process, or there's too much trust put into the archaeologist.