4 ms·

I still like it as "proof of existence", proofing that you where in possession of a certain information at some point in time. (by publishing the hash on the bl

I still like it as "proof of existence", proofing that you where in possession of a certain information at some point in time. (by publishing the hash on the blockchain). I think this is already relevant for court cases.

elsjaako 7y ago
But couldn't this also be done by publishing the hash in a few newspapers, for example? I imagine for a court case this would be better. One less thing to explain. I think for a court case you would have to prove that the block chain is a historical record, not just some data you and your friends made up.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- anotheryou 7y ago
  Why not both :) ? I think the free service of https://originstamp.com/ https://originstamp.com/ publish a daily bulk-hash in a german newspaper. (they call it "root-hash") I couldn't find the info on their website anymore, but on the branded portal of the newspaper itself: https://blockchain.suedkurier.de/ https://blockchain.suedkurier.de/ (german)
PeterisP 7y ago
This use case, especially for legal proof in court cases, has been solved by digital signatures with timestamps - essentially, you hash the document; and a third party issues a digitally signed certificate that they verified that hash at this specific day and time). The technical infrastructure and legal process for that existed before Bitcoin was invented and the blockchain boom, I recall doing some work on these things back in 2002 or around that time. It does rely on having some trusted authority making (signing) that timestamp, but for the legal system that's not a problem, probably the other way around - having a digitally signed document with a timestamp from some official provider will be trivially accepted by the court, but any custom solution that somehow places data on some public blockchain will require an extensive and possibly expensive process to get acknowledged.
- anotheryou 7y ago
  Well than this at least makes it decentralized and cheap (though of course that central entity could provide that as well in theory...)
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    Yes, it makes it decentralized, but so what? The whole point of this discussion asked by the OP above is to question why (and IF) decentralization is an advantage - what practical benefits does it achieve for this particular use case? Decentralization is a trade-off; it almost always incurs an efficiency cost compared to an equivalent centralized solution, so the question is if it brings some specific benefits that justify the drawbacks. Regarding costs, as I mentioned above, the verification in court (which is the whole point of this service) would be much more expensive for the decentralized scenario and the timestamping services are trivially cheap already, so if we look purely at costs then decentralization does not provide any advantage.
    - anotheryou 7y ago
      I agree. > timestamping services are trivially cheap already what does it cost, where can I do it right now?
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Have the Internet Archive archive a document and it’s hash. Courts have accepted Internet Archive snapshots as evidence. More costly services would be something like DocuSign.
        BrandoElFollito 7y ago
        How can I have the Internet Archive archive a specific file (pointed to by an URL - one for the document, one for its hash)?
        7y ago
biddlesby 7y ago
Has a blockchain hash ever been successfully used as a piece of evidence in a real court case?
- anotheryou 7y ago
  Honestly not that I know. Though I could neither find a case for where it was attempted and failed. China explicitly allows for it though: https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2163487/china-accepts-blockchain-verification-evidence-courtroom https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2163487/china-accepts-bloc...

elsjaako 7y ago

But couldn't this also be done by publishing the hash in a few newspapers, for example? I imagine for a court case this would be better. One less thing to explain. I think for a court case you would have to prove that the block chain is a historical record, not just some data you and your friends made up.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anotheryou 7y ago
Why not both :) ? I think the free service of https://originstamp.com/ https://originstamp.com/ publish a daily bulk-hash in a german newspaper. (they call it "root-hash") I couldn't find the info on their website anymore, but on the branded portal of the newspaper itself: https://blockchain.suedkurier.de/ https://blockchain.suedkurier.de/ (german)

PeterisP 7y ago

This use case, especially for legal proof in court cases, has been solved by digital signatures with timestamps - essentially, you hash the document; and a third party issues a digitally signed certificate that they verified that hash at this specific day and time). The technical infrastructure and legal process for that existed before Bitcoin was invented and the blockchain boom, I recall doing some work on these things back in 2002 or around that time. It does rely on having some trusted authority making (signing) that timestamp, but for the legal system that's not a problem, probably the other way around - having a digitally signed document with a timestamp from some official provider will be trivially accepted by the court, but any custom solution that somehow places data on some public blockchain will require an extensive and possibly expensive process to get acknowledged.

anotheryou 7y ago
Well than this at least makes it decentralized and cheap (though of course that central entity could provide that as well in theory...)
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Yes, it makes it decentralized, but so what? The whole point of this discussion asked by the OP above is to question why (and IF) decentralization is an advantage - what practical benefits does it achieve for this particular use case? Decentralization is a trade-off; it almost always incurs an efficiency cost compared to an equivalent centralized solution, so the question is if it brings some specific benefits that justify the drawbacks. Regarding costs, as I mentioned above, the verification in court (which is the whole point of this service) would be much more expensive for the decentralized scenario and the timestamping services are trivially cheap already, so if we look purely at costs then decentralization does not provide any advantage.
  - anotheryou 7y ago
    I agree. > timestamping services are trivially cheap already what does it cost, where can I do it right now?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Have the Internet Archive archive a document and it’s hash. Courts have accepted Internet Archive snapshots as evidence. More costly services would be something like DocuSign.
      - BrandoElFollito 7y ago
        How can I have the Internet Archive archive a specific file (pointed to by an URL - one for the document, one for its hash)?
        7y ago

biddlesby 7y ago

Has a blockchain hash ever been successfully used as a piece of evidence in a real court case?

anotheryou 7y ago
Honestly not that I know. Though I could neither find a case for where it was attempted and failed. China explicitly allows for it though: https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2163487/china-accepts-blockchain-verification-evidence-courtroom https://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2163487/china-accepts-bloc...