abacus76

In order for a blockchain to be decentralized and immutable one would need to have a large spectrum of participants involved in mining. If a single party is mining then his particular blockchain could be re-written by that single party or any other single party with greater mining power. Therefore we tend to believe that basing a stamping functionality on a broadly accepted token based blockchain (such as bitcoin or ethereum) is the only way to go.

Rolling a separate chain that would be immutable/trustless/decentralized would require several parties mining plus a token of value (creating the incentives for the mining as a block reward). Bitcoin's blockchain has bitcoin as such a token. In our own chain the token we would issue would be worthless. Therefore blockchain notary stamping is only immutable with well established valuable token backed cryptocurrencies (such as bitcoin in our case).

Indeed founder bios is a good idea, we will work on it.

you could prove that you certified the document by including your name and or signature within the document!

We decided to reduce to 0.99 euro from 1.49 euro. This should be small enough to be considered as a fair price.

Thanks! What would be a price you could consider as fair?

Could you indicate how much more expensive?

This would mean that one would eventually have to rely on the NYT which is a "centralized" source of information. According to the bitcoin experts the blockchain cannot be forged, especially if one's transaction is older than a few hours. If the bitcoin community are right about the above and if you think of the blockchain as a non-centrally-relied bulletin that anyone can write anything (as long as they pay the appropriate fees to the bitcoin miners) and that nobody can erase what was written in the past then there should be no need for relying on any other source of information such as the NYT. On the other hand your idea could be useful as a backup, in case something goes wrong in the blockchain technology!

Thanks.. The hash is the SHA256 of the document which is a standard procedure.

Actually if you try to stamp the same document it directs you to the appropriate verification

Thanks for your kind words, your valuable comments and very interesting suggestions! Will consider...

Thanks! Actually the transaction creates a zero unspent output (thus no transfer of sum is being carried out). Still we allow for 0.0002BTC for miner fees (which go to the miner's wallet). Miner fees plus paypal fees is the total cost for us per stamping. Of course there is also a cost for the server etc.

indeed this is one more excellent application of the whole idea. One difference we have is that we are using the OP_RETURN though.

Ownership of content could be supported in the sense that you publicly annouce its creation first (blockchain is public) with no other previous record of it anywhere. Of course if the content is not original work then it should be traceable in the past thus it would be completely pointless to stamp it on the blockchain.

As far as we know there is no legal precedent, nevertheless any IT expert wittness should be able to verify in front of a court that as things stand right now it is impossible to forge the blockchain time stamp.

actually you can't. But there is nothing to gain in doing so. This seem to work only if the content is original work