4 ms·

Docusign[1] has been using blockchain for a while now because it solves technical problems for their use cases. [1] https://www.docusign.com/products/blockchai

Docusign[1] has been using blockchain for a while now because it solves technical problems for their use cases. [1] https://www.docusign.com/products/blockchain https://www.docusign.com/products/blockchain

eterm 5y ago
Did Docusign really have a problem that couldn't be solved by any other means of publishing the hash? Ultimately the hash comes from Docusign, so I'm not sure I can think of the problem case where someone doesn't trust Docusign to self publish that hash but does trust a hash that Docusign publishes to the blockchain.
- danuker 5y ago
  I'd argue a more popular blockchain than their in-house one would provide stronger proof. For example, a Bitcoin one: https://www.proofofexistence.com/ https://www.proofofexistence.com/
  - tectec 5y ago
    It looks like that is using 0.00025 BTC per transaction, which currently is $12 USD, that seems quite steep for a single document verification.
- bluesign 5y ago
  it is about timestamping basically nothing else. basically that cannot sign something in the past. Though you can do the same with sequence number, and publicly publishing all signed hashes.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Or cryptographically sign a statement with a timestamp.
- wizeman 5y ago
  Presumably, by publishing the hash on a public blockchain they are creating a trusted record of when the hash was published, which can be verified after the fact and which cannot be modified or removed, with planet-scale proof-of-work level of cryptographic assurance. If they published the hashes on, say, their webpage or some third party's webpage, nothing would prevent them (or the third party) from redacting or removing the hash after the fact, given sufficient motivation.
  - captn3m0 5y ago
    RFC 3161 does the same, without a blockchain (public or private).
    - jsutton 5y ago
      And how would you use RFC 3161 as a company that wants that use case?

eterm 5y ago

Did Docusign really have a problem that couldn't be solved by any other means of publishing the hash? Ultimately the hash comes from Docusign, so I'm not sure I can think of the problem case where someone doesn't trust Docusign to self publish that hash but does trust a hash that Docusign publishes to the blockchain.

danuker 5y ago
I'd argue a more popular blockchain than their in-house one would provide stronger proof. For example, a Bitcoin one: https://www.proofofexistence.com/ https://www.proofofexistence.com/
- tectec 5y ago
  It looks like that is using 0.00025 BTC per transaction, which currently is $12 USD, that seems quite steep for a single document verification.
bluesign 5y ago
it is about timestamping basically nothing else. basically that cannot sign something in the past. Though you can do the same with sequence number, and publicly publishing all signed hashes.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Or cryptographically sign a statement with a timestamp.
wizeman 5y ago
Presumably, by publishing the hash on a public blockchain they are creating a trusted record of when the hash was published, which can be verified after the fact and which cannot be modified or removed, with planet-scale proof-of-work level of cryptographic assurance. If they published the hashes on, say, their webpage or some third party's webpage, nothing would prevent them (or the third party) from redacting or removing the hash after the fact, given sufficient motivation.
- captn3m0 5y ago
  RFC 3161 does the same, without a blockchain (public or private).
  - jsutton 5y ago
    And how would you use RFC 3161 as a company that wants that use case?