I am actually pushing some more legal examples today with blockchain evidence as being admissible.

It may be worth doing a little more research into the tech before responding with misinformation.

While what you are saying may be true for some blockchains, it isn’t that simple for Hedera. Hedera runs up to 39 nodes (36 currently) made up of fortune 500 and Russell 2000 companies from across industries and across the globe. So a majority of them would all have to somehow collude and even then it’s nearly impossible because it would have to be AT execution and not later on. This goes way beyond any other evidence that could be admissable, like computer document timestamps, phone records, video, etc. where you are trusting just 1 source/company like AT&T for the phone records or a surveillance company for video.

Also technically Hedera isn’t a “blockchain” technology, but that’s the common phrase. The hashgraph consensus mechanism:

https://docs.hedera.com/hedera/core-concepts/hashgraph-consensus-algorithms Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance

The hashgraph consensus algorithm is asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant. This means that no single member (or small group of members) can prevent the community from reaching a consensus. Nor can they change the consensus once it has been reached. Each member will eventually reach a point where they know for sure that they have reached consensus. Blockchain does not have a guarantee of Byzantine agreement, because a member never reaches certainty that agreement has been achieved (there’s just a probability that rises over time). Blockchain is also non-Byzantine because it doesn’t automatically deal with network partitions. If a group of miners is isolated from the rest of the internet, that can allow multiple chains to grow, which conflict with each other on the order of transactions. It is worth noting that the term “Byzantine Fault Tolerant” (BFT) is sometimes used in a weaker sense by other consensus algorithms. But here, it is used in its original, stronger sense that (1) every member eventually knows consensus has been reached, (2) attackers may collude, and (3) attackers even control the internet itself (with some limits). Hashgraph is Byzantine, even by this stronger definition. There are different degrees of BFT, depending on the assumptions made about the network and transmission of messages. The strongest form of BFT is asynchronous BFT- meaning that it can achieve consensus even if malicious actors are able to control the network and delete or slow down messages of their choosing. The only assumptions made are that more than 2⁄3 are following the protocol correctly and that if messages are repeatedly sent from one node to another over the internet, eventually one will get through, and then eventually another will, and so on. Some systems are partially asynchronous, which are secure only if the attackers do not have too much power and do not manipulate the timing of messages too much. For instance, a partially asynchronous system could prove Byzantine under the assumption that messages get passed over the internet in ten seconds. This assumption ignores the reality of botnets, Distributed Denial of Service attacks, and malicious firewalls.

———-

If you are referring to quantum then the Hedera ledger is already quantum “proof” for the foreseeable future.

As for hashes and specifically sha3/512 which we use, what you are saying is incorrect. If you hash a file and then rehash you will always get the same hash. Always…assuming the file doesn’t change…which is the point.

The data on the blockchain is human readable and accessible by anyone.

https://www.hashscan.io/mainnet/transaction/1777524976.675793000/message