The Rules Of Blockchain Evidence In The United States And Their Enlightenment

The blockchain technology,which is characterized by distributed data storage,point-to-point transmission,consensus mechanism and encryption algorithm,makes the phenomenon of low admissibility of electronic evidence due to its vulnerability to tampering improved.Therefore,the change of evidence law in the era of blockchain is an inevitable trend.In the federal level,the United States has not yet made special provisions on the rules of blockchain evidence,and many states have started the legislative process to include blockchain in the category of electronic records,among which Vermont formally introduced blockchain into the field of evidence law,and separately stipulated blockchain evidence rules.The rules of blockchain evidence in the United States are mainly embodied in hearsay evidence rules,authentication rules and presumption rules.Although it is controversial whether the blockchain record constitutes hearsay,it does not affect its self-authentication according to the regulations,and the United States prefers technical self-certification rather than state notarization.Blockchain technology is not a defect-free technology,in order to maximize the effectiveness of blockchain technology,China should introduce more rigorous rules of evidence.This article consists of the following six chapters:Chapter 1: Legal orientation of blockchain evidence in the United States.In the early stages of Internet development,the United States ensured that electronic signatures and records had the same legal effect as physical signatures and records through the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.In recent years,some states in the United States have incorporated records kept on blockchains into the scope of the above electronic records through amendments,but the definitions of blockchain vary from state to state.Among them,Vermont makes special provisions on blockchain evidence separately and adopts a broader definition,thus avoiding controversy about the invariance of blockchain.Although blockchain evidence has entered the Federal Court's field of view,the existing cases have not discussed the blockchain evidence rules much,and the federal legislative level has not formally responded to the blockchain.Chapter 2: Blockchain evidence and hearsay rules in the United States.The decision in the Lizarraga-Tirado case,heard by the federal court,clarifies the position that machine statements are not hearsay.The impact of the judgment on the blockchain evidence rules depends on the interpretation of the concepts of machine statement and blockchain evidence.If the court considers that the blockchain evidence is closer to the data stored by the computer than to the data generated by the computer,the next step should be to consider whether the blockchain evidence meets the exception to the hearsay rules.Thus,even if the blockchain evidence constitutes hearsay,it can also comply with the rules of hearsay evidence exceptions,that is the record of regularly conducted activity,which is determined by legislation in Vermont.Chapter 3: Blockchain evidence and authentication in the United States.For reasons of necessity and economy,the Federal Rules of Evidence provide self-authentication,that is,not requiring reliable external evidence as a prerequisite for admissibility.Blockchain evidence may be subject to self-authentication provisions for the record of regularly conducted activity or self-authentication provisions for electronic evidence.In addition,the Vermont has separate rules for blockchain records.Chapter 4: Blockchain evidence and the best evidence rule in the United States.Although the Federal Rules of Evidence in principle require the provision of originals of written documents,recorded products,and images,in most cases the provider of evidence is allowed to present copies rather than originals.The blockchain decentralized storage pattern obscures the boundaries between the original and the copy,so the best evidence rule has little room for application.Chapter 5: Blockchain evidence and the presumption rules in the United States.The Federal Rules of Evidence generally generalize the provisions of presumption,while Vermont makes special provisions on the rules of blockchain evidence presumption,including the specific content of presumption,such as the authenticity,the time,the recorder,the form and so on,also including the presumption of proof responsibility and applicable conditions.The act of Vermont focuses on introducing blockchain validated data into the field of evidence law,so the legislative text does not mention smart contracts.Chapter 6: The inspiration and reference of American blockchain evidence rules.In June 2018,the Hangzhou Court of the Internet heard a case over the rights and interests of Internet communication,which was the first time for Chinese courts to adopt blockchain certificates to determine the relevant tort facts.From the point of view of this case,this paper analyzes the rules of blockchain evidence in China and its defects,that is,the existing rules of blockchain evidence in China have limited jurisdiction and content,and some provisions may have different interpretations.In addition,the most important difference between China and the United States is that China has not yet formed the rule of evidence applied to all blockchain evidence,and currently stays at the level of evidence rules of blockchain storage,so the probative value of blockchain evidence depends on notarization endorsement.On this basis,this paper explores the reference of American blockchain evidence rules to China,and analyzes the recent trend of evidence rules in China.