How the Proof Is Created

When a user time-binds a file through TimeBinder:

1. The file is hashed locally on the user’s device using SHA-256. The file itself never leaves the device.
2. The resulting hash is combined with other users’ hashes into a Merkle tree. Only the tree’s root hash is recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain.
3. The transaction reference becomes permanent, secured by Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus and replicated across thousands of nodes globally.
4. The user receives a certificate containing all the data required to independently verify their file’s inclusion in the anchored Merkle root.

What the Certificate Proves

When produced as evidence, the certificate demonstrates that:

• The specific digital file existed no later than the time recorded in the referenced Bitcoin block.
• The proof was generated using an immutable, globally auditable system independent of TimeBinder itself.
• No one, including TimeBinder, can alter or backdate that proof without rewriting the Bitcoin blockchain, which is computationally and economically infeasible.

The certificate therefore establishes proof of existence and integrity, not authorship or ownership. Lawyers or parties should supplement it with contextual evidence of authorship or possession if those are in dispute. This process of blockchain evidence authentication creates tamper-proof proof of existence for any file, making it ideal for litigation, investigations, and digital forensics.

Admissibility in Legal Proceedings

Courts generally accept blockchain evidence authentication under existing rules for digital evidence, provided that authenticity and reliability can be demonstrated. The following points may assist lawyers in different jurisdictions:

Australia

Under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and its state equivalents, the certificate may be admitted as digital evidence if supported by an affidavit or expert statement explaining the process used. Section 146 allows courts to presume the reliability of electronic processes that produce consistent outcomes, such as SHA-256 hashing. A technical annex or statement from a qualified expert can be attached to confirm the hash verification process and Bitcoin timestamping mechanism.

United States

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the a certificate of blockchain evidence authentication may be accepted under Rule 901 as evidence that a document existed at a certain time. Expert testimony or a declaration describing the blockchain anchoring process may be included. Rule 902(13) allows for self-authentication of records generated by reliable electronic processes if accompanied by a certification from a qualified person describing the system.

European Union and United Kingdom

Blockchain-anchored certificates can be treated as electronic documents under the eIDAS Regulation and local rules of evidence. Their probative value depends on technical explanation and verification. An expert statement describing the hash verification and transaction reference on Bitcoin is generally sufficient to establish authenticity and chain of custody.

Other Jurisdictions

Most modern evidence rules focus on authenticity and reliability rather than format. Where necessary, a technical declaration from TimeBinder or an independent blockchain analyst can be used to confirm that the transaction and hash correspond to the claimed time and file, to prove blockchain evidence authentication.

Recommended Supporting Materials

To ensure smooth admission in court, parties producing a TimeBinder certificate should consider including:

• The original file that was time-bound, provided under confidentiality if needed.
• The TimeBinder Proof of Time Certificate.
• The raw Bitcoin transaction ID and block number (which can be viewed on any public blockchain explorer).
• A short affidavit or expert report describing:
  • How SHA-256 hashing works.
  • That the hash uniquely represents the file and cannot be reverse-engineered.
  • How Bitcoin’s timestamp and proof-of-work secure that hash against alteration.
  • How the verification can be reproduced independently using the file and transaction data.

It is also very important for legal practitioners to understand the technical basis of what a blockchain even is – here is a short introduction to the concept, noting that there is voluminous information on the bitcoin blockchain readily available all over the internet, given its very long history.

Verification Without TimeBinder Servers

Verification of TimeBinder’s ASAP TimeBinds does not depend on TimeBinder’s servers. Using the certificate alone, any party can:

1. Hash the file locally to obtain its SHA-256 digest.
2. Use the Merkle path data in the certificate to compute the Merkle root.
3. Confirm that the root matches the hash stored in the referenced Bitcoin transaction.
4. Check that the transaction is recorded in the public blockchain at or before the stated block time.

ASAP timebinds can be independently verified at any time in the future without relying on TimeBinder’s servers. While practical verification usually uses public blockchain explorers or APIs, the proof can always be confirmed directly from the Bitcoin blockchain itself, even decades later, using any copy of the ledger. This ensures the proof remains verifiable for as long as Bitcoin exists.

Important note on verification types: ASAP timebinds are fully self-contained — the Proof of Time Certificate includes everything needed for independent verification against Bitcoin. Pooled timebinds, which batch many users’ files together, do not include the Merkle path in the certificate. Verifying a pooled timebind requires accessing the TimeBinder.io servers, so TimeBinder recommends always using the ASAP TimeBind option to ensure future access to this evidence. Learn more about how TimeBinder verifies documents at this page.

Limits of What It Proves

• The certificate does not prove who created or authored the file.
• It does not prove that the file’s contents were true or accurate—only that they existed at the recorded time.
• It does not rely on any private database or central authority; its evidential strength comes from Bitcoin’s global immutability.

Why Courts Can Rely on It

The reliability of SHA-256 and the Bitcoin blockchain has been widely documented and tested across government, academic, and commercial sectors. The energy and computing power securing the Bitcoin network make retroactive modification of its history economically and physically infeasible. Every transaction is independently verifiable by any participant worldwide.

These properties make blockchain-anchored timestamps among the most durable forms of digital evidence currently available, particularly when accompanied by a clear, reproducible verification method and expert explanation.

Summary for Legal Practitioners

Courts increasingly recognise blockchain evidence authentication as a reliable way to confirm the integrity and timestamp of digital records.

• The Proof of Time Certificate shows a file existed before a provable date.
• The proof is independent, public, and permanent on Bitcoin.
• Verification can be reproduced by any party without TimeBinder.
• It meets most evidentiary standards for digital record authenticity when explained by a competent witness or expert.
• It strengthens chain of custody, authorship, and integrity arguments when combined with contextual evidence.