OpenTimestamps vs. DocuSign / Adobe Sign — What's Different?
If you've ever "e-signed" a document with DocuSign, Adobe Sign, or HelloSign, you already trust a company with your document's date record. Here's how Bitcoin timestamping (Satohash + OpenTimestamps) compares — and why they're actually complements, not competitors.
The short version
Where each shines
DocuSign & friends are great at the process: identity verification (who is this person?), audit trails, workflow routing, and legally-recognized signature capture. If you need "Cam signed this on August 20 with this email," a signature service is the right tool.
Satohash is great at the existence claim: "this exact file existed before Bitcoin block #963,338." That's a fact the signing company's database can't give you — because their database is theirs, and they could edit it (or go bankrupt).
Why use both (the power combo)
1. Sign with DocuSign for identity + workflow.
2. Stamp the signed PDF with Satohash for an immutable, independent date anchor.
3. If anyone ever disputes the date, you have a Bitcoin block — verifiable by any node on Earth, forever, regardless of what DocuSign's servers say.
The honest caveats
- A Bitcoin timestamp does not prove who signed — pair it with a signature service or digital signature for identity.
- DocuSign's audit trail is convenient and legally tested; OTS is a stronger existence proof but you assemble the trail yourself.
- Neither replaces a notary for every jurisdiction — but together they cover the "when + who" far better than either alone.
Stamp your signed documents free: satohash.io/stamp