Topic: [2016-01-09]CCN-Blockchain Receipts: Admissible As Evidence Or ‘Hearsay’? (Read 323 times)
January 09, 2016, 03:53:26 AM
I don't know about you, so what do you think I should think?
January 09, 2016, 03:44:35 AM
I don't understand what patentability of blockchain-based receipt systems has to do with admissibility as evidence. 
I doubt if any court will dismiss blockchain as hearsay, when we all know it is tamper proof.
I doubt if any court will dismiss blockchain as hearsay, when we all know it is tamper proof.
It just means that they want proprietary owned software, where they can have accountability if something goes wrong. At this stage, with the "floating" of the ownership of
the technology... nobody can be held responsible. If Microsoft cause a major f$%# with someone, they can hold someone responsible and they can take them to court. This
is the jewel in Blockchain... It's not owned by a single entity or a group... We are the Blockchain.
January 09, 2016, 12:39:26 AM
I don't understand what patentability of blockchain-based receipt systems has to do with admissibility as evidence.
I doubt if any court will dismiss blockchain as hearsay, when we all know it is tamper proof.
I doubt if any court will dismiss blockchain as hearsay, when we all know it is tamper proof.
January 08, 2016, 07:46:28 PM
One of the benefits of the blockchain is the verification it provides for many types of activities. The rapid settlement of financial transactions is driving the growth of block-chain-based fintech solutions. But blockchain records as legal evidence may not be something that can be taken for granted.
James Ching, a contributor to law.com, recently wrote that one key component of the Digital Asset plan (and its competitors) is the fact that the patentability of blockchain-based receipt systems, in particular, the “consensus algorithm,” is in doubt.
Why It Matters
Ching noted that the key to a commercial receipting system’s profitability lies not in proprietary software systems but on the admissibility of the receipt in litigation. He writes that if the receipt is not evidence of a transaction for litigation purposes, it is virtually useless.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/blockchain-receipts-admissible-evidence-hearsay/
James Ching, a contributor to law.com, recently wrote that one key component of the Digital Asset plan (and its competitors) is the fact that the patentability of blockchain-based receipt systems, in particular, the “consensus algorithm,” is in doubt.
Why It Matters
Ching noted that the key to a commercial receipting system’s profitability lies not in proprietary software systems but on the admissibility of the receipt in litigation. He writes that if the receipt is not evidence of a transaction for litigation purposes, it is virtually useless.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/blockchain-receipts-admissible-evidence-hearsay/
Jump to: