According to Hangzhou Daily News, on Sept. 18, the Hangzhou Internet Court officially announced the operation of its judicial blockchain technology, making the court the first of its kind to use blockchain for dispute settlement.
The judicial blockchain enhances credibility across all court procedures of generating, storing, distributing, and using electronic data. The blockchain consists of a three-layer structure outlined below.
First, the program allows users to record and enter the entire process of operation behavior, such as online submission of electronic contracts, rights protection procedures, service details, and other electronic evidence, directly into the blockchain.
Next, since a blockchain is composed of a cryptographically linked chain of data, its very nature provides trusted services for real-name authentication, electronic signature, time stamping, data deposits and so on.
The third is the judicial alliance layer, which uses the blockchain technology to connect the notary office, the CA/RA organization, the judicial appraisal center, and the court chain altogether, forming a powerful chain system where each unit becomes a chain node.
According to reports, the solid architecture of the blockchain system can effectively solve problems regarding storage, dissemination and use of electronic data on the Internet, especially when the problem links to credibility issues.
What is worth noting is that the Supreme People’s Court recently confirmed for the first time that electronic evidence accessed through blockchain can be accepted as valid evidence under conditions of authenticity.
Difficulties in providing solid proofs have been a serious concern in Internet court proceedings, since the time of creation of electronic data, in many cases, cannot be confirmed or validated. Blockchain’s mandatory time stamp on the generation of each data block effectively resolves this problem by ensuring untampered data credibility. These data can then be accessed by related judicial organizations and lawyers when making impartial judgments.