[monson]

> you'd be unwise to think that your cryptographic signatures are going to help much

It was you who suggested simple cryptographic signatures in your initial reply to the parent comment. I was only pointing out that securely signing a message with a timestamp requires a cryptographic entity known as a "Trusted Third Party". Please see the first link in my original comment.

> That would be the judiciary. If they -- the people with the guns and the resources of the state -- become corrupted, you'd be unwise to think that your cryptographic signatures are going to help much.

If there was verifiable proof on a globally distributed blockchain that evidence had been tampered with by a judiciary member of a democratic country, I find it very hard to believe they would get away with it in the long term.

[peteretep]

> I was only pointing out that

No, you were pointing it out and then saying that the flaw of this system was that the judiciary could be corrupted.

> If there was verifiable proof on a globally distributed blockchain that evidence had been tampered with by a judiciary member of a democratic country

Putting aside the many many political and practical ways in which this fantasy will stay firmly a fantasy, why does this need a blockchain instead of simply a published list of documents, if this is globally distributed?