Wouldn't the blockchain be a better place to be sending people to do things like this?
The advantage of using bank transfers is it is much easier to explain to a judge/jury.
Bitcoin is public and automatable, so it could be better for some applications where courts aren't involved -- but where would you need to categorically prove priority but not have a court at least potentially involved?
This seems like a really weak argument.. There are all types of things judges don't understand outright but can be made to be understood. The chance of a priority being granted to a hash embedded to a bank transfer and not a block-chain embedded one is essentially zero (all things being equal). Since it is both cheaper and more robust, a super-secure blockchain like bitcoin is clearly superior to a bank transfer.
Do banks have to maintain the "Comments" by law?