Elektronik İmza ve Blokzincir Teknolojilerinin Delil Değeri Bağlamında İncelenmesi: Hibrit Doğrulama Modeli

Öz

Bu çalışma, blokzincir teknolojisinin elektronik imzalı belgelerin delil değerine hangi koşullarda katkı sağlayabileceğini incelemektedir. Çıkış noktası, blokzincirde kullanılan kriptografik işlem imzası ile 5070 sayılı Kanun ve eIDAS kapsamındaki güvenli/nitelikli elektronik imzanın uygulamada karıştırılabilmesidir. Blokzincir kaydı, belirli bir özel anahtarla işlem yapıldığını ve kaydın sonradan değiştirilmesinin güç olduğunu gösterebilir; ancak işlemi yapan kişinin hukuki kimliği, imza iradesi veya belge içeriğinin geçerliliği kendiliğinden ispatlanmış olmaz. Bu nedenle blokzincir, elektronik imzanın alternatifi değil; elektronik imzalı belgenin yaşam döngüsünde bütünlük, kayıt sırası, çok taraflı onay izi ve denetlenebilirlik sağlayan yardımcı bir katman olarak konumlandırılmaktadır. Önerilen modelde belge zincir dışında saklanmakta; imzalı ve gerekiyorsa zaman damgalı belgeden üretilen hash değeri, kullanılan algoritma ve sınırlı doğrulama referansları izinli blokzincire kaydedilmektedir. Model, mahremiyet koruyan denetim izi, yetkili doğrulayıcı, algoritma geçişi ve uzun dönem doğrulama unsurlarını birlikte ele alan LegalTech temelli bir doğrulama mimarisi sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blokzincir
• elektronik imza
• dijital imza
• delil değeri
• KVKK
• post-kuantum kriptografi

Survey Of Electronic Signature and Blockchain Technologies in The Context of Evidential Value: A Hybrid Verification Model

Öz

This study examines the conditions under which blockchain technology can contribute to the evidential value of electronically signed documents. Its starting point is the practical confusion between the cryptographic transaction signature used in blockchain and secure/qualified electronic signatures under Law No. 5070 and eIDAS. A blockchain record may show that a transaction was made with a specific private key and that subsequent alteration of the record is difficult; however, it does not, by itself, prove the legal identity of the person performing the transaction, the intent to sign, or the validity of the document content. Therefore, blockchain is positioned not as an alternative to electronic signatures, but as an auxiliary layer that provides integrity, recording order, multi-party approval trails, and auditability throughout the lifecycle of an electronically signed document. In the proposed model, the document is stored off-chain; the hash value generated from the signed and, where necessary, time-stamped document, the algorithm used, and limited verification references are recorded on a permissioned blockchain. The model offers a LegalTech-based verification architecture that jointly addresses privacy-preserving audit trails, authorized verifiers, algorithm migration, and long-term verification.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blockchain
• electronic signature
• digital signature
• evidential value
• KVKK
• post-quantum cryptography

Kaynakça

1. Alghathian, G. A., Mohammed Krim, K. B., Khamaysa, M., ve Altarawneh, M. (2026). Blockchain as a model for granting trust in AI-mediated digital transactions. Frontiers in Blockchain, 9, 1770743. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2026.1770743
2. Amin, M. A., Shah, R., Tummala, H., ve Ray, I. (2024). Utilizing Blockchain and Smart Contracts for Enhanced Fraud Prevention and Minimization in Health Insurance through Multi-Signature Claim Processing. 2024 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Networks and Computer Communications (ETNCC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ETNCC63262.2024.10767491
3. Apsimet, N., Alimkulov, Y., Konysbay, B., Zhanibekov, A., ve Muratova, A. (2026). Challenges of using digital evidence in pretrial investigations of online fraud: Lessons for Kazakhstan from international practice. IDP. Internet, Law and Politics, 44, 1-17.
4. Asad, M., ve Otoum, S. (2025). BPPFL: a blockchain-based framework for privacy-preserving federated learning. Cluster Computing, 28(126). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-024-04834-4
5. Bafra, J. (2001). İmza İncelemeleri ve Bilirkişilik. İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, 75(2), 356-365.
6. Baldi, M., Chiaraluce, F., Kodra, M., ve Spalazzi, L. (2019). Security analysis of a blockchain-based protocol for the certification of academic credentials. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05815
7. Batista, D., Mangeth, A. L., Frajhof, I., Alves, P. H., Nasser, R., Robichez, G., ve Miranda, F. P. D. (2023). Exploring Blockchain Technology for Chain of Custody Control in Physical Evidence: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(8), 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16080360
8. Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu. (2017). E-imza ile İlgili Sıkça Sorulan Sorular. https://www.btk.tr/e-imza-ile-ilgili-sikca-sorulan-sorular

9. Cherian, I. E. (2026). Between code and convention: The legal future of blockchain arbitration for smart contract disputes. International Journal for Legal Research & Analysis, 3(3), 1007-1033.
10. Eren, H., Karaduman, Ö., ve Gençoğlu, M. T. (2025). Security Challenges and Performance Trade-Offs in On-Chain and Off-Chain Blockchain Storage: A Comprehensive Review. Applied Sciences, 15(6), 3225. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063225
11. Esu, R. (2025). Blockchain and data protection: developing a functional erasure framework for storage limitation. Information & Communications Technology Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2025.2600197
12. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2014). Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions in the Internal Market. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/910/oj
13. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 General Data Protection Regulation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
14. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 Amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as Regards Establishing the European Digital Identity Framework. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1183/oj
15. European Telecommunications Standards Institute. (2016). ETSI EN 319 142-1 V1.1.1: Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); PAdES Digital Signatures; Part 1: Building Blocks and PAdES Baseline Signatures. European Telecommunications Standards Institute. https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/319100_319199/31914201/01.01.01_60/en_31914201v010101p.pdf
16. European Telecommunications Standards Institute. (2021). ETSI EN 319 102-1 V1.3.1: Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Procedures for Creation and Validation of AdES Digital Signatures; Part 1: Creation and Validation. European Telecommunications Standards Institute. https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/319100_319199/31910201/01.03.01_60/en_31910201v010301p.pdf
17. Fan, C., Ghaemi, S., Khazaei, H., ve Musilek, P. (2020). Performance evaluation of blockchain systems: A systematic survey. IEEE Access, 8, 126927-126950. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3006078
18. Fang, W., Chen, W., Zhang, W., Pei, J., Gao, W., ve Wang, G. (2020). Digital signature scheme for information non-repudiation in blockchain: a state of the art review. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2020(56). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-020-01665-w
19. Fišerová, M. (2018). Pragmatical Paradox of Signature. Signata: Annales des sémiotiques / Annals of Semiotics, 9, 485-504. https://doi.org/10.4000/signata.1599
20. Ghaly, P., Gjermundrød, H., ve Dionysiou, I. (2025). Privacy-preserving “right to be forgotten” in configurable blockchain tokenization: A cryptographic audit framework. 2025 7th Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/BRAINS67003.2025.11302955
21. Göksu, M. F. (2021). Akıllı sözleşmelerin Türk hukukunda geçerliliği ve icra edilebilirliği / Validity and enforcement of smart contracts in Turkish law. GSI Articletter, 2021 Winter, 34-49.
22. Ishchukova, E., Sajadi, F. S., Petrenko, S., Petrenko, A., ve Nekrasov, A. (2026). Post-Quantum Transition in Blockchain Architectures: A Systematic Review of Cross-Layer Security, Performance, and Governance Constraints. Technologies, 14(6), 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies14060367
23. Jin, S. (2024). The paradigm logic of blockchain governance. Technology in Society, 78, 102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102681
24. Karaduman, Ö. (2026). Data-Availability-Aware Hybrid Storage Optimization in Permissioned Blockchains: A Multi-Objective Metaheuristic Approach. Applied Sciences, 16(5), 2299. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16052299
25. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu. (2018). Kişisel Veriler. https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/Icerik/2050/Kisisel-Veriler
26. Kobayashi, I. (2026). Institutional silence and LegalTech in Japan: A comparative inquiry into access to justice and the practice of law. Law, Innovation and Technology, 18(1), 348-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2026.2633676
27. Li, C., Jiang, B., Dong, M., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Xin, X., ve Ota, K. (2024). Efficient Designated Verifier Signature for Secure Cross-Chain Health Data Sharing in BIoMT. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(11), 19838-19850. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2024.3370708
28. Marijan, D., ve Lal, C. (2022). Blockchain verification and validation: Techniques, challenges, and research directions. Computer Science Review, 45, 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2022.100492
29. Mubarak, R., Riadi, I., ve Sutikno, T. (2026). Integration of blockchain and cryptographic algorithms for education certification and verification: A systematic literature review. Journal of Soft Computing Exploration, 7(1), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.52465/joscex.v7i1.23
30. Naseer, M., Gusdevi, H., Rahayudin, R., ve Guterres, A. (2026). Blockchain-based evidence legality in Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Jurnal Hukum Indonesia, 5(1), 40-65. https://doi.org/10.58344/jhi.v5i1.2351
31. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2015, August). Secure hash standard (SHS) (FIPS PUB 180-4). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4
32. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024a, August 13). Module-lattice-based digital signature standard (FIPS PUB 204). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.204
33. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024b, August 13). Module-lattice-based key-encapsulation mechanism standard (FIPS PUB 203). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.203
34. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024c, August 13). Stateless hash-based digital signature standard (FIPS PUB 205). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.205
35. Önaçan, M. B. K., ve Medeni, T. (2012). Elektronik İmza Nedir, Neden Gereklidir, İhtiyacı Nasıl Karşılanmalıdır? Türk İdare Dergisi, 474, 171-178.
36. Podda, E., Hölzmer, P., Amard, A., Sedlmeir, J., ve Fridgen, G. (2025). The impact of zero-knowledge proofs on data minimisation compliance of digital identity wallets. Internet Policy Review, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.3.2019
37. Ramos Fernández, R. (2025). Regulatory options for integrating zero-knowledge proofs into the European Digital Identity Wallet. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 39(3), 303-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2024.2398915
38. Saraiva, R., Araújo, A. A., Soares, P., Pontes, J. C., ve Souza, J. (2025). Metrics for quality assessment in blockchain-based systems: A systematic mapping study. Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality.
39. Schemitt, A. G., da Silva, H. F., Lunardi, R. C., Kreutz, D., Mansilha, R. B., ve Zorzo, A. F. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Post-Quantum Digital Signature Algorithms on Blockchains. 2025 IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom). https://doi.org/10.1109/Trustcom66490.2025.00276
40. Sorge, C., ve Leicht, M. (2022). Blockchain-based Electronic Time Stamps and the eIDAS Regulation: The Best of Both Worlds. SCRIPTed, 19(1), 61-87.
41. Tomar, D., ve Chhillar, K. (2026). A Blockchain and IPFS Hybrid Architecture for Secure Storage and Distributed Verification of Academic Documents. International Journal of Computer Techniques, 13(2), 92-99. https://ijctjournal.org/blockchain-ipfs-hybrid-architecture/
42. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. (2004). 5070 Sayılı Elektronik İmza Kanunu. https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/mevzuat/103723
43. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. (2011). 6100 Sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu. https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/mevzuat/103103
44. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. (2016). 6698 Sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=6698&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5
45. Vaziry, A., Wronka, C., Rodriguez Garzon, S., ve Küpper, A. (2026). Know Your Contract: Extending eIDAS Trust into Public Blockchains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.13903. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.13903
46. Vellela, S. S., Vuyyuru, L. R., Jidugu, S. K., Rao, M. P., Srinivas, B. R., ve D., R. (2025). The Impact of Quantum Computing on Blockchain Security and Quantum Resistant Protocols. 2025 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Cybersecurity (ISCS). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCS69371.2025.11386359
47. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2025). Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0. W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/
48. Wu, F., Zhou, B., Song, J., ve Xie, L. (2025). Quantum-resistant blockchain and performance analysis. The Journal of Supercomputing, 81, 498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-025-07018-y
49. Zhou, L., Diro, A., Saini, A., Kaisar, S., ve Hiep, P. C. (2024). Leveraging Zero Knowledge Proofs for Blockchain-based Identity Sharing: A Survey of Advancements, Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 80, 103678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2023.103678