I wish I shared your optimism, but as of now, I'd take tested in court over untested in court in most cases.
That is not an answer I'm allowed to give now. (And in any case, you have shown yourself sufficiently unpleasant and arrogant I wouldn't answer it anyway.)
I'm sorry I came out that way, I was just very surprised you didn't even talk of the technology behind what amount to the vast majority of cryptographic timestamping activity (e.g. bills, contract are routinely cryptographically timestamped in Europe).
Protip: don't tell someone what they think when they clearly and intentionally wrote the opposite; don't ask for things they are clearly intentionally withholding; and don't criticize without even bothering to understand what the advantages might be of a method.
You're right. A distributed ledger is much securer and more reliable, far less vulnerable to any form of coercion or corruption, and so the comparison is kind of silly.
> I could return the question to you, have a Bitcoin secured timestamp ever held up in court?
Since it is based on the same basic principles but in a much superior fashion, I, and everyone using Bitcoin-based timestamps, am comfortable in believing there's a excellent chance the courts will not be unaccountably incompetent and reject them, until such time as shown otherwise. If you can't provide any specific concrete reason they would reject Bitcoin timestamps other than 'it has not been yet been tested in court', then there's nothing further to discuss.
> So, if the purpose is not defending yourself in court, what is it? Winning Internet arguments?
That is not an answer I'm allowed to give now. (And in any case, you have shown yourself sufficiently unpleasant and arrogant I wouldn't answer it anyway.)