5 ms·
How is it unenforceable if DKIM offers cryptographic non-repudiation practically similar to embedding* the hash of the item§ in a public blockchain? * This is
by amingilani 6y ago
How is it unenforceable if DKIM offers cryptographic non-repudiation practically similar to embedding* the hash of the item§ in a public blockchain?
* This is an assumption
§ I understand that you may be embedding Merkle roots to keep costs low.
- njharman 6y agoFrom the wiki article YOU quoted (USA specific) > there is an absence of cases actually giving any value to the poor man's copyright.
- amingilani 6y agoYes, but that doesn't mean it can't be unenforceable. It simply means it hasn't passed the test of a court. However, isn't the same, from my limited research and knowledge, true for blockchain-based notarization?
- sebmellen 6y agohttps://cryptoadventure.org/blockchain-in-courts-a-look-into-blockchain-evidence-in-global-courts/ https://cryptoadventure.org/blockchain-in-courts-a-look-into... blockchain timestamping is pretty well tested. Edit: I would really appreciate it if the downvoters would at least attempt to have a discussion. The dogpiling tactic seems to be rather thoughtless.
- sebmellen 6y agoI would refer you to https://cryptoadventure.org/blockchain-in-courts-a-look-into-blockchain-evidence-in-global-courts/ https://cryptoadventure.org/blockchain-in-courts-a-look-into.... Poor man's copyright without cryptographic proof or an immutable time boundary is pretty much worthless.
- sebmellen 6y agoDKIM does not offer cryptographic proof-of-existence or proof-of-time, which a blockchain does. That's the only functional difference, but crucial for copyright law.