OpenTimestamps vs TimeBinder for design firms: which fits your issue process?

OpenTimestamps vs TimeBinder for a design firm at a glance

Where OpenTimestamps is the better fit

• You want it free and open. The tool and the proof format are open source. The OpenTimestamps client README calls it "production software that has been in use for many years".
• Someone in the practice can script it. If your BIM manager or IT lead can run a command over an issue folder at each stage gate, the cost is zero.
• The people checking are technical. If a consultant or lawyer is happy to run the OpenTimestamps tools or use a node, the .ots proof is enough.
• You don’t want any service in the middle. The proofs are standard files that can be checked without the TimeBinder service.

Where TimeBinder may fit a design firm better

• Panels and clients are not technical. A tender panel or client can open a certificate, scan the QR code and see what was recorded. See how to present a timestamp certificate to a panel if you need to explain it.
• One record per issue set. At each stage gate you can put the IFC or DWG export, the PDF set, renders and the design statement into a single TimeBind of up to 10 files, rather than keeping a separate .ots file beside every file.
• A choice of speed and independence. A Pooled TimeBind is grouped with others in one shared entry and usually recorded within 24 to 48 hours, often sooner. An ASAP TimeBind gets its own transaction, sent straight away, and can be checked independently.
• Nothing to install. It runs in the browser, which suits a practice that locks down software.

Using either one at each stage gate

The same habit works with both tools: date the exact set before it leaves the practice.

1. Concept. The concept report, diagrams and early massing files, before a client or competition jury sees them.
2. Design development. The model export and drawing set you issue for coordination or client sign-off.
3. Tender or submission. The final submission set and design statement, before you lodge. See design competition entries and planning or DA submission drawings.
4. Construction issue. The issued-for-construction set, so you can show later what was issued. See Revit and BIM versions before issue.

Keep the exact files unchanged. A later edit gives a different fingerprint, so a changed file no longer matches its record.

What neither tool shows

• Who made the drawings or models, or who owns them.
• That the content is accurate, complete or compliant.
• How a tender panel, a competition jury, a client or a court will treat the record.

A timestamp can support a conversation about what existed and when. It does not settle authorship. For ownership questions, talk to a lawyer.

When neither is the right tool

• You need the provider to store and manage versions. Use your project’s document platform. See BIM common data environment history vs a timestamp.
• You need a certified or witnessed copy. See blockchain timestamp vs notary.
• You need an EU qualified timestamp. See RFC 3161 vs blockchain timestamps.

Why the choice of tool matters at the issue stage

Both tools record a file fingerprint on Bitcoin. The difference is who has to read the result: a panel, client or lawyer who is not technical needs something they can open and check. Whichever you use, the aim is the same: a dated record that adds a layer of protection when an issued set is later questioned or an altered copy turns up.

General information, not legal advice. A TimeBind shows that this exact file existed no later than the recorded time and still matches its fingerprint. It does not show authorship, ownership, copyright status or how any court, tribunal, client or insurer will treat it.