4 ms·

Well the use of digital certificats for timestamping is explicitely covered in Directive 1999/93/EC [1]. I'll freely admit not being up to date on the situation

• gwern 11y ago
  > Well the use of digital certificats for timestamping is explicitely covered in Directive 1999/93/EC [1]. Not what I asked. I asked if there was any evidence indicating that courts would reject Bitcoin timestamping despite being based on the same concepts, and in several ways superior to, the old-fashioned centralized timestampers. To which your answer is apparently simply 'no'. > looks like planning to defend yourself in court to me... I know what I said.
  • brohee 11y ago
    Not what I asked. I asked if there was any evidence indicating that courts would reject Bitcoin timestamping despite being based on the same concepts, and in several ways superior to, the old-fashioned centralized timestampers. To which your answer is apparently simply 'no'. I don't see how a distributed ledger can be compared, even remotely, to a notary. The fact that both are based on digital signature is pretty irrelevant... If things go far, the notary can be audited, can testify in court... It is completely old fashioned, quite possibly retarded, but courts like physical or legal entities vouching for stuff, and being accountable for it... I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court? Because notary signed timestamp are used for many things from contracts to tax fillings all over the EU... I know what I said. So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments?
    • gwern 11y ago
      > I don't see how a distributed ledger can be compared, even remotely, to a notary. You're right. A distributed ledger is much securer and more reliable, far less vulnerable to any form of coercion or corruption, and so the comparison is kind of silly. > I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court? Since it is based on the same basic principles but in a much superior fashion, I, and everyone using Bitcoin-based timestamps, am comfortable in believing there's a excellent chance the courts will not be unaccountably incompetent and reject them, until such time as shown otherwise. If you can't provide any specific concrete reason they would reject Bitcoin timestamps other than 'it has not been yet been tested in court', then there's nothing further to discuss. > So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments? That is not an answer I'm allowed to give now. (And in any case, you have shown yourself sufficiently unpleasant and arrogant I wouldn't answer it anyway.)
      • brohee 11y ago
        Since it is based on the same basic principles but in a much superior fashion, I, and everyone using Bitcoin-based timestamps, am comfortable in believing there's a excellent chance the courts will not be unaccountably incompetent and reject them I wish I shared your optimism, but as of now, I'd take tested in court over untested in court in most cases. That is not an answer I'm allowed to give now. (And in any case, you have shown yourself sufficiently unpleasant and arrogant I wouldn't answer it anyway.) I'm sorry I came out that way, I was just very surprised you didn't even talk of the technology behind what amount to the vast majority of cryptographic timestamping activity (e.g. bills, contract are routinely cryptographically timestamped in Europe).
        • gwern 11y ago
          > I'm sorry I came out that way Protip: don't tell someone what they think when they clearly and intentionally wrote the opposite; don't ask for things they are clearly intentionally withholding; and don't criticize without even bothering to understand what the advantages might be of a method.