Other Software > Developer's Corner

Service: Proof of Existence

<< < (2/4) > >>

mouser:
Okay, so it's not about just proving that it exists, but that it DID exist at some point in the past. But still... How is that useful? Maybe for copyright/patent claims?
--- End quote ---

exactly.  the idea is important -- patent claims and similar things rely on the idea of proving you were working on something at a certain date.
it should be noted that things like patent law can be arbitrarily irrational when it comes to what kinds of evidence is admitted as "proof" of prior work -- it may be that they would decide such a service is untrustworthy while i written notebook with dates on the pages is -- so you can't assume such a service would help you -- but it's better than nothing for people who need to establish the existence of certain work product before a given date.

Renegade:
Here it's not the service that you need to trust. The service is just that - a service.

The trust issue is about the blockchain. There's enough literature and enough security material written about the blockchain and the technology behind it to conclude with absolute certainty that the document for the hash existed at the time the hash was entered into the blockchain.

I recently posted in the Bitcoin thread a link to a blog post that walks through the mathematics underlying blockchain security. It's extremely well written and highly accessible to anyone with a little bit of understanding of mathematics.

https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=32392.msg366595#msg366595

I think it would be extremely difficult for a judge to rule against a hash entered into the blockchain being admitted as evidence. He would in effect be saying that logic, mathematics, and science have no place in court.

Here's a graphic to help illustrate the kinds of numbers that we're talking about because they are so big that they simply cannot be imagined. i.e. 2^256

Service: Proof of Existence

To throw out blockchain evidence, a judge would in effect be saying, "Yes, it is possible that someone forged a 1 in 2^256 probability with the forgery exactly matching what we are talking about here today."

Now the thing is that if you were able to forge a hash, the original source would be gobbledy-gook, and not a coherent document. So the probability again skyrockets beyond comprehension.

mouser:
I think it would be extremely difficult for a judge to rule against a hash entered into the blockchain being admitted as evidence.
To throw out blockchain evidence, a judge would in effect be saying, "Yes, it is possible that someone forged a 1 in 2^256 probability with the forgery exactly matching what we are talking about here today."
--- End quote ---


unfortunately that's not how the law works.  a judge won't look at that evidence and say "i conclude its insecure", he will simply say "there is no established standard for such evidence and thus i will not consider it." actually if you got to a court you might be able to bring in expert witnesses -- but it will never get that far.  the real question is whether a PATENT examiner would use it.  i spent a brief amount of time reading patent law when someone tried to bully me out of software that i had developed and distributed before their software was a twinkle in their eye, and while they did no succeed, i learned that the patent examiner frequently will not look at evidence other than material PUBLISHED in a journal/magazine/newspaper.  the patent law is an ass.

bottom line is -- you cannot use logic to figure out what evidence would be sufficient proof.  and the BEST way to establish you were working on something at some date is to have it published somewhere reputable.  however, using a service like this would still be valuable and could be used to dissuade disreputable people from ever getting to the point where they would try to take you to court -- and in our legal system thats the way you win.

Renegade:
unfortunately that's not how the law works malfunctions.-mouser (October 15, 2014, 08:48 PM)
--- End quote ---

FTFY. :)

But seriously... yeah... I know. There is no hope.

But still, my point stands in what the judge would effectively be saying.



"Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence~! ;D"

Sad and depressing...

mwb1100:
Even if it might not be acceptable in a legal proceeding today, things like this are important stepping stones to getting to that point.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page