In recent years, the term “blockchain notarization” has become very popular. Some operators present blockchain as the only answer to digital forgery, even suggesting that it will become mandatory for all documents in the future.

However, this narrative mixes true elements, half-truths, and legally unfounded claims. In this article, we clarify the distinction between legitimate blockchain use and promises that risk creating false expectations for businesses, professionals, and law firms.

1. What Blockchain Actually Does When It “Notarizes” a Document

From a technical standpoint, most blockchain notarization systems are limited to:

• calculating the cryptographic hash of the document;
• writing this hash in a blockchain transaction;
• using the transaction timestamp as certain proof of the document’s existence date.

Fundamental point: document integrity derives from the hash itself, not from the registry where it is stored. The hash is a cryptographic function that produces a unique digital fingerprint: if the file is modified even by a single bit, the hash changes completely. This property is mathematical and independent of the technology used to store the hash (blockchain, database, qualified timestamp, or simple text file).

Blockchain adds:

• immutability of registration (technical difficulty of retroactive alteration);
• public transparency (verifiability by anyone);
• decentralization (no single point of control).

These are real advantages, but they only address part of the evidentiary problem.

2. The European Regulatory Framework: Who Does What

Blockchain is undoubtedly effective for traceability and public hash anchoring, and represents an excellent tool when it comes to data transparency and immutability. However, on the certification level with evidentiary value, the European regulatory framework introduces some important technical distinctions.

Summary: evidentiary value in the European context is exclusively governed by eIDAS. GDPR and NIS2 regulate complementary aspects (privacy, security) but cannot replace or supplement eIDAS requirements for legal certification.

3. Where the Confusion Arises: “Blockchain = Guaranteed Legal Value”

Confusion arises when moving from the technical to the legal level. Various communications suggest that:

• blockchain automatically guarantees the legal value of the document;
• those who don’t use blockchain are non-compliant;
• there is a path in Europe toward mandatory blockchain notarization;
• GDPR or NIS2 “strengthen” blockchain’s legal value.

None of these claims is supported by the European regulatory framework.

In the EU, the reference for evidentiary value is exclusively the eIDAS Regulation, which recognizes qualified legal value only for services such as qualified signature and qualified timestamp, provided by accredited entities (QTSP – Qualified Trust Service Provider).

Blockchain itself:

• is not a qualified trust service;
• does not enjoy any automatic legal presumption;
• can be used as technical evidence, but will be evaluated freely by the judge.

4. The Real Case: What Actually Happens in Court

Imagine a real scenario: you present evidence based on blockchain notarization in court. The CTE (Court Technical Expert) will ask:

• Who generated the hash? With what verified identity?
• Where and when was the original file acquired?
• Who had access to the file before registration?
• Are there system logs that track the chain of custody?
• How do you guarantee that the registered hash corresponds to the original unaltered file?
• Which blockchain did you use? Is it still operational? Who maintains the nodes?

Blockchain answers only two questions:

1. “When was the hash registered” (transaction timestamp)
2. “The registered hash has not been modified” (blockchain immutability)

Everything else is missing.

Comparison: eIDAS Qualified Timestamp vs Blockchain

5. Qualified Timestamp and Blockchain Notarization: Technical Differences

5.1 eIDAS Qualified Timestamp

A qualified electronic timestamp:

• is issued by a QTSP accredited by national authorities or EU equivalent;
• has legal presumption of date and time (art. 41 eIDAS);
• does not depend on a proprietary platform;
• is verifiable by any CTE without blockchain knowledge;
• guarantees identification of the certifying party;
• complies with GDPR (modifiable/erasable on request).

In court, the date and integrity of the document are legally presumed correct. The burden of contrary proof falls on those who contest it.

5.2 Blockchain Notarization

Hash registration on blockchain:

• offers a public and immutable technical trace;
• can be considered technical evidence;
• does not enjoy automatic legal presumption;
• requires the CTE to understand specific blockchain technology;
• does not necessarily identify who registered the hash;
• can create GDPR compliance issues.

The judge evaluates it freely according to the principle of free conviction. It is not equivalent to a qualified timestamp.

6. The Myth of “Mandatory Adoption”

Another narrative claims that blockchain will become mandatory for all digital documents. There is no legal basis.

EU initiatives that include blockchain concern specific areas:

• food traceability (farm to fork);
• supply chain and logistics;
• audit of complex supply chains;
• distributed ledgers for public entities (experimental).

These projects use blockchain for transparency and traceability, not for evidentiary value in court.

There is no regulatory path that foresees:

• replacement of qualified eIDAS services with blockchain;
• mandatory blockchain notarization for legal documents;
• automatic recognition of blockchain as qualified trust service.

eIDAS 2.0 (in implementation phase) does not mention blockchain as a mandatory requirement, but further strengthens qualified trust services and introduces the European Digital Identity Wallet.

7. The Risky Promises of Blockchain Marketing

Messages such as:

• “only blockchain guarantees absolute authenticity”;
• “current systems are worthless”;
• “blockchain will soon be mandatory”;
• “blockchain is GDPR and NIS2 compliant, therefore has legal value”;
• “with AI, blockchain is necessarily required”.

are misleading because they:

• do not respect the eIDAS framework (sole reference for evidentiary value);
• confuse technical compliance (NIS2, GDPR) with evidentiary value (eIDAS);
• lead clients to believe in non-existent legal protections;
• ignore the need for true chain of custody and forensic metadata;
• exploit the urgency created by generative AI to sell inadequate solutions.

8. What Blockchain Does Not Solve

Even with flawless blockchain registration, these remain unresolved:

• Chain of custody: who created the file? Who managed it before registration? What steps did it go through?
• Subject identification: who registered the hash? With what verified identity? What legal liability?
• Access tracking: who viewed/modified the file after registration?
• Forensic metadata: file creation timestamp, EXIF metadata, system logs, geolocation.
• GDPR compliance: management of right to be forgotten, data portability, processing limitation.
• Legal interoperability: recognition in courts of other EU Member States.

This is why blockchain is a technical component, not complete proof.

9. The GDPR Paradox of “Immutable” Blockchain

One of blockchain’s most serious structural limitations is incompatibility with GDPR:

The Fallacious Argument: “We Only Register Hashes, Not Personal Data”

Many providers respond: “we only register hashes, not personal data, so we are GDPR compliant.”

This argument is legally weak because:

• If the hash is linkable to a person (e.g., hash of identification document, hash of financial transaction), it is still personal data according to GDPR definition (art. 4).
• Mere technical impossibility of erasure does not exempt from GDPR violation. Privacy authorities have already sanctioned “technologically deterministic” approaches that sacrifice fundamental rights.
• In case of legitimate erasure request under art. 17, the blockchain provider cannot comply: this is a concrete legal risk for those using the service.

eIDAS qualified timestamps do not have this problem: the timestamp is technically erasable upon data subject request, guaranteeing both evidentiary value and GDPR compliance.

10. Checklist for Evaluating Blockchain Services

Before choosing a blockchain notarization service, verify:

If clear answers to these questions are missing, the service is likely unsuitable for judicial use.

11. Questions That Blockchain Vendors Avoid

When blockchain services are proposed to you, ask these uncomfortable questions:

1. “Are you an accredited QTSP?”
   If no → no automatic legal presumption according to art. 41 eIDAS.
2. “Have you ever supported a client in litigation with blockchain evidence as the primary element?”
   Theory is one thing, procedural practice another. Ask for verifiable references.
3. “What happens if the blockchain you use is abandoned or attacked?”
   Many services use proprietary or little-used blockchains. Who guarantees accessibility in 10 years?
4. “How do you handle a GDPR data erasure request under art. 17?”
   Immutability is a regulatory problem, not a guarantee. If they don’t have a clear answer, you risk GDPR sanctions.
5. “Is your service recognized by eIDAS as equivalent to qualified timestamp?”
   If no, you’re buying a technical tool without automatic legal value.
6. “What is the cost to keep evidence accessible in 10 years? Is it contractually guaranteed?”
   Blockchains require active nodes, recurring costs, specialized expertise. A qualified timestamp has fixed and clear costs.
7. “Can I see the forensic documentation accompanying blockchain registration?”
   Chain of custody, metadata, system logs must be integral to the evidentiary package. If missing, blockchain alone is insufficient.

If the provider avoids these questions or responds generically, look elsewhere.

12. Correct Approach: eIDAS Standards at the Center + Blockchain as Optional Additional Layer

Blockchain can make sense in specific scenarios:

• Complex supply chains with multiple actors and need for shared public traceability
• Documents requiring public verifiability without dependence on a single certifier
• Shared audit trails between independent entities (e.g., consortia, agri-food chains)
• Decentralized public registries (e.g., land registry, business registry, experimental phase)

But it must be an additional layer, not a replacement for eIDAS services.

Correct Architecture for Judicial Evidence

This way you have:

• ✅ Guaranteed legal value (eIDAS – level 1)
• ✅ Complete forensic defensibility (chain of custody – level 2)
• ✅ Public transparency and verifiability (blockchain – level 3, if necessary)

CertifyWebContent.com follows exactly this architecture:

1. eIDAS qualified timestamp as regulatory foundation
2. ISO 27037 certified forensic procedures for complete chain of custody
3. Blockchain integration possibility only when technically and legally appropriate

We don’t sell technology, we build evidence defensible in court.

13. Use Cases: When Blockchain Makes Sense (and When It Doesn’t)

✅ When Blockchain Is Appropriate

• Multi-actor supply chain traceability: public recording of supply chain steps (e.g., food origin, pharmaceutical tracking)
• Distributed public audit: when transparency verifiable by independent entities is needed without trusting a single certifier
• Non-repudiable public timestamp: proof of existence of an idea/patent at date X, verifiable by anyone
• Experimental public registries: land registry, business registry, academic certificates (pilot projects)

In these cases, blockchain should always be combined with eIDAS qualified timestamp if evidentiary value is also needed.

❌ When Blockchain Is NOT Appropriate

• Evidence for civil/criminal litigation: eIDAS qualified timestamp is required, not blockchain
• Natural person identity certification: GDPR requires erasability, blockchain is immutable
• Documents with sensitive data: even just the hash can be personal data if linkable
• Situations requiring clear legal liability: decentralization makes identifying the responsible party difficult
• When client requests “automatic legal value”: only eIDAS guarantees it

14. The Future: eIDAS 2.0 and Digital Identity Wallet

The eIDAS 2.0 Regulation (implementation phase until 2026) further strengthens qualified trust services and introduces the European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet).

What changes:

• ✅ European digital wallet for identity, documents, certificates
• ✅ Guaranteed interoperability between all Member States
• ✅ Certified qualified attributes (degree, driver’s license, professional certificates)
• ✅ Qualified electronic signature integrated in wallet
• ⚙️ Possible use of blockchain technologies for some public registries (experimental)

What does NOT change:

• ❌ Blockchain does not become mandatory
• ❌ Qualified trust services remain the reference for evidentiary value
• ❌ eIDAS 2.0 does not recognize blockchain as a qualified trust service per se

The future of European digital certification is based on open standards, interoperability, and regulated trust services, not on a single proprietary technology.

15. Conclusion: Beware of “Magic” Solutions

Generative artificial intelligence has made it possible to create perfect deepfakes, indistinguishable forged documents, counterfeit digital identities. The market’s reaction has been twofold:

• Responsible approach: strengthen eIDAS standards, integrate certified forensic procedures, train professionals, build complete chain of custody
• Opportunistic approach: sell blockchain as “universal panacea” exploiting urgency and fear, confusing technical compliance with evidentiary value

The truth is that there are no magic solutions. Blockchain is neither useless nor miraculous. It is a tool with specific use cases, but cannot replace:

• ✅ The eIDAS regulatory framework (sole reference for evidentiary value)
• ✅ Complete forensic chain of custody
• ✅ Certain identification of responsible parties
• ✅ GDPR and NIS2 compliance
• ✅ Certified and verifiable court procedures

If the answer is yes, you have done your professional duty. If no, no blockchain will save you.

Want to Build Truly Defensible Digital Evidence?

CertifyWebContent.com offers the only comprehensive approach compliant with European standards:

📞 Request a Free Consultation

Verify if your current certification procedures are truly compliant with European standards.
No-obligation consultation | Technical-regulatory analysis included | Assistance for professionals and businesses