5 ms·

Notarizing documents sounds like it could actually benefit from blockchain technology. Have a set of Established Authorities who can grant notary status. They

Notarizing documents sounds like it could actually benefit from blockchain technology. Have a set of Established Authorities who can grant notary status. They give notary status to people according to their own set of requirements. The notaries can then add a record on the block chain saying roughly "I do notarization act X on document Y" (It'll be the equivalent of what they enter in their log books today and there will be some corresponding stamp that they'll stamp the physical document with, like they do today). They could now even notarize digital documents by including a hash of the digitized document in their record. Finally, the agency receiving the notarized document (digital or electronic) can easily go onto the blockchain and verify that the document was indeed notarized as claimed and that the notarization is not a forgery. Each agency that receives the notarized document could have their own subset of Established Authorities who's notaries they will accept. This means anyone could become an Established Authority, but individual agencies like the US Federal Government could publicly say "hey, our Authority Id is 'USRoxs'" but it'll be up to the receiving agencies like England's government to decide "We trust the system the US uses to validate it's notiaries, so we'll add 'USRoxs' to our list of accepted Established Authorities (along with 'TheEnglish' of course)"

onli 8y ago
Notarizing documents is a great example where some people think blockchain is a good use case, and it's never true. Where would be the advantage of the scheme you describe to the current system? There is none. The system already works: people are given power to validate documents by the authority. The authority stores that centrally. The validation is mostly collected centrally. All stuff you can do perfectly fine without needing to run replicated servers storing an evergrowing immutable blockchain sipping authority from the real authority. The current scheme allows things like secret notarization and revocation, stuff a blockchain is very bad at. > it'll be up to the receiving agencies like England's government to decide "We trust the system the US uses to validate it's notiaries, so we'll add 'USRoxs' to our list of accepted Established Authorities (along with 'TheEnglish' of course)" Countries already have systems in place to accept documents made in other countries. Works with official translators and stamps/seals of authenticity. In better and funny: Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI
- cbolton 8y ago
  Notary services are expensive, and some notaries are corrupt. I'm no fan of bitcoin, etc. OTOH this does seem like a good blockchain application, and the fact that it doesn't burn a stupid amount of electricity is nice too. I'm curious about secret notarization and revocation. Why is that particularly desirable? I guess it would be a poor fit for a blockchain indeed...
  - onli 8y ago
    Not my area, but think of things like a will. You being a billionaire maybe do not want to let your murderous family know that you made a new one writing them out of your will. > Notary services are expensive, and some notaries are corrupt A blockchain being the place where the act of bureaucracy ends up being stored changes nothing about that. > OTOH this does seem like a good blockchain application Exactly. It does at first, because it's about authoritatively storing information, and isn't this what a blockchain is good at? But then you think about how the system actually works and what the requirements are. A blockchain brings you immutable and decentralized storage of peer-validated information. None of these properties are of any value here. We just need a centralized storage that does not forget values by accident, which is basically every other solid information storing system. And most of those are a lot easier to run than a blockchain.
    - luhn 8y ago
      > A blockchain being the place where the act of bureaucracy ends up being stored changes nothing about that. This is where a lot of blockchain concepts seem to break down. In most systems at some point you need to trust the data entered in by humans. But how can the members of the system be sure they can trust other members? Maybe certification or auditing by a trusted third-party? Oh, we're right back to where we started.
    - topmonk 8y ago
      > think of things like a will. You being a billionaire maybe do not want to let your murderous family know that you made a new one writing them out of your will Hash the will. Store the signed hash on the blockchain. Then, no one knows what the hash represents until your lawyer reveals the will after you've died.
albertgoeswoof 8y ago
Any idiot can create a blockchain though, so which one do you trust? And you’re back to square one
vorpalhex 8y ago
As some one who usually hates on the blockchain, this actually sounds like a very reasonable use for it. It's a solid step up from the current system of embossed seals, the only potential pitfall it adds is some additional complexity (but I can very easily imagine platforms taking that on, ala DocuSign but for Notaries). My only concern is how this would fare out in an a court system that is constantly behind the times.
- ryan-c 8y ago
  The only thing using a blockchain is being used for there is timestamping. This can be done by multiple trusted third parties just fine.
Leace 8y ago
> The notaries can then add a record on the block chain saying roughly "I do notarization act X on document Y" (It'll be the equivalent of what they enter in their log books today and there will be some corresponding stamp that they'll stamp the physical document with, like they do today). They could now even notarize digital documents by including a hash of the digitized document in their record. > Finally, the agency receiving the notarized document (digital or electronic) can easily go onto the blockchain and verify that the document was indeed notarized as claimed and that the notarization is not a forgery. Or, they could just sign it using their key using old school public key cryptography. If you want to check if a notary is real just use certificate chains, just like for TLS. What is unique to blockchain is trustless timestamping but timestamping services work very well in the X.509 world and are used for example for code signing (so that even if your certificate expires the signature is valid).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
detaro 8y ago
I'm not sure what the blockchain part is for? Digital signatures + if you want a public list Certificate-Transparency-style logs (alternatively potentially timestamping services) seems like they'd do the same?
- ZainRiz 8y ago
  This is a reasonable point. The main benefit of this approach is that it centralizes the whole process (meaning, gives it a single Api) without making any one entity dependent on another entity for business critical functionality. The issue with digital signatures is that if you're using it to verify physical goods then you have to have to store the digital signature somehow, either email it, print it out, etc and deliver it to the one who's accepting the notarized document. That person will still need to somehow get that signature, obtain the notary's public key, and verify the siganture. And if there are more than one agencies who's documents an organization accepts (think of embassies wanting notarized photocopies of passports from various countries) then that's a lot of systems you have to integrate with. This blockchain approach simplifies that without requiring all these embassies/organizations to use a service offered by a single company.
talltimtom 8y ago
Now class, please remember. You don’t need a decentralized ledger to store a record of a centralized entity. How many times do we have to go through this? Of cause you could make a blockchain based decentralized SaaS cloud service using Crispr to disrupt the established dogmas! You know to secure funding for your sure to become a unicorn startup.
lotyrin 8y ago
Bog standard blockchain antidote, feel free to steal and reuse as needed (or disregard as usual): If participants are willing trust some subset of other participants within the system for certain privileged tasks that are required by the design of this system, why would they not be willing to trust another subset of participant to operate data storage for the system? Note the potential that most any kind of datastore can underlie systems providing replication, operation of copies by multiple independent parties, consistency guarantees, availability through redundancy. What potential byzantine faults exist in the design of the system such that providing fault tolerance benefits the system? Can those be eliminated by a better design? Can the risks posed by faults be absorbed or mitigated by the administrative/business/legal infrastructure for the system (which probably will have to exist, regardless)? If byzantine fault tolerance is required, why is a ledger + immutable chain of history objects + Proof-of-* system the most suitable byzantine fault tolerance solution for the system, given inefficiencies (Cost of Proof-of-*, constraints on throughput), inconveniences (Immutability), and introduction of complexity which is auxiliary to the intended purpose of the system (a ledger of currency)? Do participants have insufficient incentive to participate in the system such that providing them a balance of a currency is required? Can the system be redesigned to better incentivize those participants? If the system provides little incentive to participate in it from its primary purposes, is there any utility in creating the system at all? Does attracting participation from participants uninterested in the primary and ancillary functions of the system to speculate in the value of an auxillary currency pose a benefit to or liability upon the system? If participants are motivated primarily due to the fashionableness of blockchain technology, do they realize it's not 2017 anymore, what will happen to the system when they catch up and get bored? Is there a way to use an "AI" instead?
- ZainRiz 8y ago
  The benefit of the model I proposed is that from the perspective of the agency receiving a notarized document, they only have to make a single API call to validate any notarized document. Their system becomes much easier to validate and trust. Otherwise, they'll have to have one system for US, one system for England, one for India, etc.
  - 8y ago
SolarNet 8y ago
If you mean "blockchain technology" to mean cryptographic ledgers than yes. If you mean blockchain technology as defined by the original bitcoin paper, then why? What use does the system gain by allowing anyone to participate anonymously (e.g. money). Blockchains solve specific problems. Cryptographic ledgers, like we already use for things like CAs, are the better choice almost always. Certainly they could be made more like blockchains in their openness, transparency, and participation. But going full blockchain isn't required. However some people have been using "blockchain technology" to include the ideas of cryptographic ledgers, so I want to be clear.
- EvangelicalPig 8y ago
  Certificate Transparency implements similar aspects to what be considered a "blockchain" (to money hungry VC people), and it's a similar use case to being a notary.
module0000 8y ago
This is also possible with SSL. The state/government being the CA, and you being a signed entity. Public crypto fits this mold really, really, well.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  I'm starting to feel like I'm shilling Estonian eID (I'm not, just a regular citizen), but I think that system is the very least a cool proof of concept (if not a state of the art example) how public crypto can be used to sign and encrypt.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Don't you have to trust the state then?

onli 8y ago

Notarizing documents is a great example where some people think blockchain is a good use case, and it's never true. Where would be the advantage of the scheme you describe to the current system? There is none. The system already works: people are given power to validate documents by the authority. The authority stores that centrally. The validation is mostly collected centrally. All stuff you can do perfectly fine without needing to run replicated servers storing an evergrowing immutable blockchain sipping authority from the real authority. The current scheme allows things like secret notarization and revocation, stuff a blockchain is very bad at. > it'll be up to the receiving agencies like England's government to decide "We trust the system the US uses to validate it's notiaries, so we'll add 'USRoxs' to our list of accepted Established Authorities (along with 'TheEnglish' of course)" Countries already have systems in place to accept documents made in other countries. Works with official translators and stamps/seals of authenticity. In better and funny: Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI

cbolton 8y ago
Notary services are expensive, and some notaries are corrupt. I'm no fan of bitcoin, etc. OTOH this does seem like a good blockchain application, and the fact that it doesn't burn a stupid amount of electricity is nice too. I'm curious about secret notarization and revocation. Why is that particularly desirable? I guess it would be a poor fit for a blockchain indeed...
- onli 8y ago
  Not my area, but think of things like a will. You being a billionaire maybe do not want to let your murderous family know that you made a new one writing them out of your will. > Notary services are expensive, and some notaries are corrupt A blockchain being the place where the act of bureaucracy ends up being stored changes nothing about that. > OTOH this does seem like a good blockchain application Exactly. It does at first, because it's about authoritatively storing information, and isn't this what a blockchain is good at? But then you think about how the system actually works and what the requirements are. A blockchain brings you immutable and decentralized storage of peer-validated information. None of these properties are of any value here. We just need a centralized storage that does not forget values by accident, which is basically every other solid information storing system. And most of those are a lot easier to run than a blockchain.
  - luhn 8y ago
    > A blockchain being the place where the act of bureaucracy ends up being stored changes nothing about that. This is where a lot of blockchain concepts seem to break down. In most systems at some point you need to trust the data entered in by humans. But how can the members of the system be sure they can trust other members? Maybe certification or auditing by a trusted third-party? Oh, we're right back to where we started.
  - topmonk 8y ago
    > think of things like a will. You being a billionaire maybe do not want to let your murderous family know that you made a new one writing them out of your will Hash the will. Store the signed hash on the blockchain. Then, no one knows what the hash represents until your lawyer reveals the will after you've died.

albertgoeswoof 8y ago

Any idiot can create a blockchain though, so which one do you trust? And you’re back to square one

vorpalhex 8y ago

As some one who usually hates on the blockchain, this actually sounds like a very reasonable use for it. It's a solid step up from the current system of embossed seals, the only potential pitfall it adds is some additional complexity (but I can very easily imagine platforms taking that on, ala DocuSign but for Notaries). My only concern is how this would fare out in an a court system that is constantly behind the times.

ryan-c 8y ago
The only thing using a blockchain is being used for there is timestamping. This can be done by multiple trusted third parties just fine.

Leace 8y ago

> The notaries can then add a record on the block chain saying roughly "I do notarization act X on document Y" (It'll be the equivalent of what they enter in their log books today and there will be some corresponding stamp that they'll stamp the physical document with, like they do today). They could now even notarize digital documents by including a hash of the digitized document in their record. > Finally, the agency receiving the notarized document (digital or electronic) can easily go onto the blockchain and verify that the document was indeed notarized as claimed and that the notarization is not a forgery. Or, they could just sign it using their key using old school public key cryptography. If you want to check if a notary is real just use certificate chains, just like for TLS. What is unique to blockchain is trustless timestamping but timestamping services work very well in the X.509 world and are used for example for code signing (so that even if your certificate expires the signature is valid).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

detaro 8y ago

I'm not sure what the blockchain part is for? Digital signatures + if you want a public list Certificate-Transparency-style logs (alternatively potentially timestamping services) seems like they'd do the same?

ZainRiz 8y ago
This is a reasonable point. The main benefit of this approach is that it centralizes the whole process (meaning, gives it a single Api) without making any one entity dependent on another entity for business critical functionality. The issue with digital signatures is that if you're using it to verify physical goods then you have to have to store the digital signature somehow, either email it, print it out, etc and deliver it to the one who's accepting the notarized document. That person will still need to somehow get that signature, obtain the notary's public key, and verify the siganture. And if there are more than one agencies who's documents an organization accepts (think of embassies wanting notarized photocopies of passports from various countries) then that's a lot of systems you have to integrate with. This blockchain approach simplifies that without requiring all these embassies/organizations to use a service offered by a single company.

talltimtom 8y ago

Now class, please remember. You don’t need a decentralized ledger to store a record of a centralized entity. How many times do we have to go through this? Of cause you could make a blockchain based decentralized SaaS cloud service using Crispr to disrupt the established dogmas! You know to secure funding for your sure to become a unicorn startup.

lotyrin 8y ago

Bog standard blockchain antidote, feel free to steal and reuse as needed (or disregard as usual): If participants are willing trust some subset of other participants within the system for certain privileged tasks that are required by the design of this system, why would they not be willing to trust another subset of participant to operate data storage for the system? Note the potential that most any kind of datastore can underlie systems providing replication, operation of copies by multiple independent parties, consistency guarantees, availability through redundancy. What potential byzantine faults exist in the design of the system such that providing fault tolerance benefits the system? Can those be eliminated by a better design? Can the risks posed by faults be absorbed or mitigated by the administrative/business/legal infrastructure for the system (which probably will have to exist, regardless)? If byzantine fault tolerance is required, why is a ledger + immutable chain of history objects + Proof-of-* system the most suitable byzantine fault tolerance solution for the system, given inefficiencies (Cost of Proof-of-*, constraints on throughput), inconveniences (Immutability), and introduction of complexity which is auxiliary to the intended purpose of the system (a ledger of currency)? Do participants have insufficient incentive to participate in the system such that providing them a balance of a currency is required? Can the system be redesigned to better incentivize those participants? If the system provides little incentive to participate in it from its primary purposes, is there any utility in creating the system at all? Does attracting participation from participants uninterested in the primary and ancillary functions of the system to speculate in the value of an auxillary currency pose a benefit to or liability upon the system? If participants are motivated primarily due to the fashionableness of blockchain technology, do they realize it's not 2017 anymore, what will happen to the system when they catch up and get bored? Is there a way to use an "AI" instead?

ZainRiz 8y ago
The benefit of the model I proposed is that from the perspective of the agency receiving a notarized document, they only have to make a single API call to validate any notarized document. Their system becomes much easier to validate and trust. Otherwise, they'll have to have one system for US, one system for England, one for India, etc.
- 8y ago

SolarNet 8y ago

If you mean "blockchain technology" to mean cryptographic ledgers than yes. If you mean blockchain technology as defined by the original bitcoin paper, then why? What use does the system gain by allowing anyone to participate anonymously (e.g. money). Blockchains solve specific problems. Cryptographic ledgers, like we already use for things like CAs, are the better choice almost always. Certainly they could be made more like blockchains in their openness, transparency, and participation. But going full blockchain isn't required. However some people have been using "blockchain technology" to include the ideas of cryptographic ledgers, so I want to be clear.

EvangelicalPig 8y ago
Certificate Transparency implements similar aspects to what be considered a "blockchain" (to money hungry VC people), and it's a similar use case to being a notary.

module0000 8y ago

This is also possible with SSL. The state/government being the CA, and you being a signed entity. Public crypto fits this mold really, really, well.

dcbadacd 8y ago
I'm starting to feel like I'm shilling Estonian eID (I'm not, just a regular citizen), but I think that system is the very least a cool proof of concept (if not a state of the art example) how public crypto can be used to sign and encrypt.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Don't you have to trust the state then?