<i>Not what I asked. I asked if there was any evidence indicating that courts would reject Bitcoin timestamping despite being based on the same concepts, and in several ways superior to, the old-fashioned centralized timestampers. To which your answer is apparently simply &#x27;no&#x27;.</i><p>I don&#x27;t see how a distributed ledger can be compared, even  remotely, to a notary. The fact that both are based on digital signature is pretty irrelevant...<p>If things go far, the notary can be audited, can testify in court... It is completely old fashioned, quite possibly retarded, but courts like physical or legal entities vouching for stuff, and being accountable for it...<p>I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court? Because notary signed timestamp are used for many things from contracts to tax fillings all over the EU...<p><i>I know what I said.</i><p>So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments?