There have been many smaller mainstream uses of the public recording information into Bitcoin’s Blockchain. Marriages and financial shareholding have also started to use blockchain technology. Now, for the first time, government survey information is being sent to the world’s most technologically-advanced online ledger.

First Government use of Blockchain Tech to Store Data

The watershed moment was recently recorded in the state of Connecticut by Tierion, who’s business concept is to record information onto Bitcoin’s Blockchain. State of Connecticut officials sought out Tierion to survey the state’s top 200 technology companies to learn how they can help them retain premium local talent while growing their workforce.

“Generating a blockchain receipt for each survey response makes it possible for anyone to verify the data without relying on a trusted third party,” says Tierion in an official statement. “ Auditing each result can be done by verifying the receipt.”

Such surveys done by government officials are useful in future endeavors, like allotment of state resources or zoning for area development. With many private and public interests involved, a secure and transparent way to store and retrieve this data can be a benefit to all involved. Instead of these survey results being behind closed doors, the public now has an avenue to review such public works.

This sudden interest by Connecticut government is interesting, given the state’s curious response to the Bitcoin phenomenon. The state has struggled in crafting legislation around its unique abilities, and it has been the subject of some debate. Connecticut passed the bill Public Act No. 15-53 earlier this year, enforced retroactively throughout 2015, that covers the use of “virtual currencies.” This was presumably signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy on June 19, 2015.

The controversial law seems based around the processes of obtaining licensed use of virtual currencies, and broad discretion is given to the banking establishment to oversee Bitcoin licensing requirements throughout the state. The Banking Commissioner for the state of Connecticut decides what companies need a Bitcoin state license to transact business, without clear definitions of who would qualify, or not.

The Banking Commissioner is also allowed to create any conditions or bonding requirements needed to obtain state licensure, as well.

The new use of Bitcoin’s blockchain shows Connecticut seems actively involved in the usefulness of Bitcoin, just not very transparent about how it will be legislated. Providing seemingly limitless powers to any banking official seems to generate a high potential for conflicts of interest in how Bitcoin is managed going forward.

An office working with and for banks may not be the best way to handle such a revolutionary technology that can be easily used to make traditional commercial banking obsolete.