Legality of Blockchain Notarization?

[Abiky]

Timestamping documents on the Blockchain proves to be a great solution for anyone to prove their authenticity. From birth certificates, to legal documents, almost anything can be "notarized" on the Blockchain for proof of ownership. Now it's just a matter of time, before this becomes widely accepted in the mainstream world.

Since Bitcoin is known to be an immutable Blockchain network, any data that's thrown at it will virtually remain there forever. This would work wonders with notarization of documents that would eliminate the need for a middleman.

I'm starting to wonder if this would be recognized as "legal" in a court of law? I mean, if I timestamp a document on the Bitcoin blockchain to prove that I'm the owner of it, will a court accept such proof/evidence as legal? I'm having my doubts here since crypto and Blockchain tech, are still not widely recognized in the mainstream world.

What are your thoughts? Will notarized documents on the Blockchain be considered legal as evidence for a court of law? Or are we still too early to tell?

[Abiky]

Bump

[disconnectme]

It all depend on how the legal system evolve all over the world, I believe within the next 10 or more years there would be great change in the legal system, the old guys are going to make way for the new blood and they would implement their own system.

I just have a feeling using Bitcoin blockchain for this purpose would bloat the blocks, which would make more demand of the network, especially now that there is no real solution to the block size debate yet

[Harlot]

If a time stamp is enough in your case I think that it will be valid but you shouldn't mixed it up with notarized documents. In most countries I know a notarized document will only be valid if it is done by a lawyer in front of the two parties while having a witness by each one, if that is not fulfilled then the notarized document itself is invalid in the face of court. Also when we are talking about notarized documents we are mainly talking about legal documents here such as birth certificates, certificate of incorporation, and marriage contracts so really if this document you are talking about isn't a required document to be notarized then I would say a time stamp is valid. But if you just show a time stamp on a legal document alone I wouldn't say it will be enough for them at all if we are basing it purely with our laws.

[bttmember]

At this point of time i do not think they are accepted anywhere but definitely with more and more use of blockchain tech and crypto we will see a time when everything will be blockchain based so yes then eventually all governments and courts will accept blockchain based notaries maybe after relessing their own rules for such notaries to be accepted.

[Nalbo]

It comes down to legality. When we are talking about courts and judicial organs, they are an integral part of the state and they have been one of the most conservative field everywhere. There also comes the issue of authenticity and privacy. Both of them mostly act reciprocally. It would be difficult to keep a balance on them.

[Little Mouse]

I'm starting to wonder if this would be recognized as "legal" in a court of law?

I do not know about other countries but in China it had been allowed.Blockchain can be used to prove something. On the other hand, couple of coins have been launched targeting the notarization process.
https://www.coindesk.com/chinas-supreme-court-recognizes-blockchain-evidence-as-legally-binding

[Twinkledoe]

I'm starting to wonder if this would be recognized as "legal" in a court of law?

I do not know about other countries but in China it had been allowed.Blockchain can be used to prove something. On the other hand, couple of coins have been launched targeting the notarization process.
https://www.coindesk.com/chinas-supreme-court-recognizes-blockchain-evidence-as-legally-binding

I think this is already a good start. If China is already doing it, and if in the long run it is deemed effective. I guess, other countries will follow through. China's population is huge so if blockchain is already recognized in their court of law, the adoption is considerably big already. I think countries like Japan and Singapore will most likely follow this blockchain tech usage.

[Ifra24]

What are your thoughts? Will notarized documents on the Blockchain be considered legal as evidence for a court of law? Or are we still too early to tell?

I think it can, if the evidence is sufficient because the flow of crypto into money can be traced. Exchange has also used KYC for registration requirements on the exchange. In the United States Criminal Procedure Law, what is called forms of evidence are: real evidence, documentary evidence, testimonial evidence and judicial notice. In blokchain everything is recorded and can be made into a document.

[Pffrt]

What are your thoughts? Will notarized documents on the Blockchain be considered legal as evidence for a court of law? Or are we still too early to tell?

We are not too far from that, soon blockchain notarization will be accepted as legal evidence I think. You know blockchain is a fast growing technology and each every possible sphere will utilize it.
There's DeepVault by DeepOnion, they have developed a lot of things for blockchain notarization. Another project is signature chain, they also have the same interest.

[Tipstar]

The notarization would not be an issue when we'd be able to issue our documents in the blockchain itself. But for the trust of every parties involved, it should either be recommended by the international judiciary organizations or at least locally rectified by the individual governments.

[thiscomm]

I think it can be done to get legal permission from the state government. the proof is that China uses crypto to give paid to its workers. so with a legal acknowledgment from a company that is well-known in the country and they send the permit, it can be given by the government of the country concerned. in fact the data is needed to find responsibility for the use of social funds transferred or taxed for a transaction that we must provide to the state.

[Harlot]

It comes down to legality. When we are talking about courts and judicial organs, they are an integral part of the state and they have been one of the most conservative field everywhere. There also comes the issue of authenticity and privacy. Both of them mostly act reciprocally. It would be difficult to keep a balance on them.

Nope, it's not a matter of authenticity or privacy of the said document, it simply boils down to if the document is required to notarized or not. If that certain document is required to be notarized simple a time stamp won't be a proven alternative for it since it won't suffice anything. For notarized documents there is no known alternatives for it, not even a letter of authenticity or ownership can prove to the court that the document you have is enough not unless the document is notarized. In most cases laws are something that can be translated in different ways by various judges but I don't think they'll have a different interpretation of a "notarized document" requirement in the eyes of the law.

[Abiky]

If a time stamp is enough in your case I think that it will be valid but you shouldn't mixed it up with notarized documents. In most countries I know a notarized document will only be valid if it is done by a lawyer in front of the two parties while having a witness by each one, if that is not fulfilled then the notarized document itself is invalid in the face of court. Also when we are talking about notarized documents we are mainly talking about legal documents here such as birth certificates, certificate of incorporation, and marriage contracts so really if this document you are talking about isn't a required document to be notarized then I would say a time stamp is valid. But if you just show a time stamp on a legal document alone I wouldn't say it will be enough for them at all if we are basing it purely with our laws.

Thanks for the tip. It's not really a legal document, but rather a work/content I created myself. I'd want to have irrevocable proof of ownership using Blockchain technology for my own benefit. But I've been concerned about how governments will take Blockchain notarization seriously since it's still not mature enough for mainstream use. At least, the US has been quite friendly towards crypto/Blockchain tech which means that a court of law could legally recognize notarized documents on the Blockchain. There's no need to "upload" the file to the Blockchain itself, but just "notarize" its hash with an on-chain transaction.

The most suitable Blockchain network for on-chain notarization seems to be Bitcoin. That's because the same has been proven to be quite immutable over the years since its inception. With an immense hashrate protecting the entire chain, it's almost impossible for anyone to modify transactions on the Blockchain. As Bitcoin's core technology improves over time, we'll be able to see more use cases besides notarizing documents for proof of ownership. The legal status of Blockchains will largely depend on a government's stance on the crypto industry within the mainstream world. If a country is friendly towards crypto/Blockchain tech, you could expect acceptance for areas far beyond proof of ownership. Otherwise, they'll consider it illegal for use in every way. Just my thoughts

[CHENIEN]

in my opinion, I think this has happened in different countries like the US and China but not a majority because blockchain technology still goes through many processes to accelerate which is monitoring by the relation of the other countries. I agree that notarization is invalid if there is no involved one or more people in front of the lawyer as a witness for legalizing but I don't care about blockchain notarization because I've learn more something about digital currency and profitability.

[Pffrt]

I agree that notarization is invalid if there is no involved one or more people in front of the lawyer as a witness for legalizing

Not necessary. Why the word witness is coming here? Imagine I have written a book and have registered the file with blockchain notarization services like DeepVault. Now if someone else tries to copy my property as of him, he won't and no witness is needed because you, lawyer and everyone can verify the hash if it trues or not.

[Abiky]

Not necessary. Why the word witness is coming here? Imagine I have written a book and have registered the file with blockchain notarization services like DeepVault. Now if someone else tries to copy my property as of him, he won't and no witness is needed because you, lawyer and everyone can verify the hash if it trues or not.

Exactly. There's a saying that "don't trust, verify". Blockchain is a trustless system where anyone can simply verify the ledger for the transaction's authenticity without the need to trust a third-party. A hash is all you need to verify that a transaction took place within a specified timeframe. In this case, "notarizing" a document on the Blockchain produces a hash which serves as irrevocable proof that tells you're the owner of the same. It's not necessary to upload the entire document on-chain as it would cause "Blockchain bloating" more than anything else.

For the Bitcoin blockchain, we have a service called "Proof of Existence" which notarizes any document on-chain for proof of ownership. Since Bitcoin is immutable, there's no need to worry about losing the timestamped hash on the Blockchain. Things would've been worse if the underlying Blockchain network had a very low PoW hashrate. Notarizing documents on small blockchain networks may not be suitable enough to serve as "irrevocable" proof since it's much easier to perform a 51% attack on them (effectively compromising immutability). Of course, you'd pay higher fees on the BTC blockchain just to get your document notarized. But it's much more secure and reliable than other smaller blockchain networks in cyberspace.

It's also possible to "notarize" documents on the Ethereum blockchain using a service called "Stampery". DeepVault is also good, although the cryptocurrency (DeepOnion) is not well-known within the crypto space. I believe that I can use any blockchain that's secure enough for notarizing my documents as long as I have its hash and a witness (like a lawyer) that would give credibility to the same. Countries are starting to recognize crypto and Blockchain tech as legal, so I'm guessing that a notarized document on the Blockchain would be legally accepted by a court of law.