That reminds me something like the OpenTimestamps project:
An irrefutable cryptographic timestamp is just that, irrefutable.
Sometimes courts make mistakes, but you can’t expect any useful precedent over something like this.
Also, because of lack of expertise courts may simply not want to deal with this kind of proof and thus not acknowledge it.
Courts lack expertise on almost every subject, I don’t think this logic can actually hold up.
Opentimestamps cannot be bruteforced, and there are no keys that could leak.
Bruteforcing would require for you to permanently take over the entire bitcoin network.
In math, sure, but he specifically asked about a court of law. Irrefutable in math doesn't mean admissible in court. Then there's the 1, 6, 12, or however many random people that decide the case; they likely need the math explained to them, and two sides get turns convincing them the other is wrong.
> Irrefutable in math doesn't mean admissible in court
What is that even supposed to mean? Why would (relevant) math not be admissible in court? Do you even know what these words mean?
If cryptographic timestamps are relevant and not against the rules of evidence, obviously they are admissible.
The defence successfully argued that MD5 was not totally reliable -- even though the chance of it being faked was absolutely tiny.
The real irony was that without the MD5, the photos would probably have been accepted just on the police assertion of chain of custody.
(I've been looking for this news story but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment)
[edit- found it] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/08/the_md5_defen...
In fact the MD5 was known to be vulnerable - maybe. But it's still the case that adding MD5 made it less trustworthy!