Cryptocurrency is a relatively recent economic and technological phenomenon, competing with established traditional third party financial systems through a trust-based peer-to-peer decentralized network. This unique financial and technological transactional structure opens new market opportunities and challenges, defining the cryptocurrency compared to the established financial market. To illuminate and analyse the inner workings of the cryptocurrency market, this thesis highlights the market drivers for the current top five cryptocurrencies in terms of market capitalization, by focusing on the current market situation and market history. This is supplemented by examining the history of traditional money and how cryptocurrencies can be compared with it. In addition, the technological and financial structure of the main cryptocurrencies and how the main components of the market work will be examined. Financial analysis such as price, volatility, market correlation, market history matching, liquidity of the cryptocurrency market and strategic market analysis were conducted as part of this study. By using this information, it is possible to establish a foundation for further market comprehension of the five major cryptocurrencies and the future challenges. Based on the analysis in this thesis, several findings were made regarding the nature of the cryptocurrency market. Generally, it is apparent that established market models are applicable to the cryptocurrency market. However, the cryptocurrency market experiences symptoms of its own free decentralized market model, technology, and limited public adoption.\nArguably, a common public opinion is that the cryptocurrency market is difficult to comprehend, and market development can often seem arbitrary and mysterious to outsiders. The market is complicated by periods of with seemingly arbitrary exceptionally high volatility. This along with historical growth levels that are unparalleled in many other industries are common in the cryptocurrency market. Other common unbalancing factors are the exposure to market manipulations, geopolitical uncertainties and agendas, and market responses to news and singular events. There are additionally several limitations and challenges with regards to the industryâs technological foundations. This has the potential to impact the valuation and longevity of the different cryptocurrencies. By analysing these aspects, an insightful and comprehensive comparative market analysis of the cryptocurrency industry is formed.
Message digest algorithms are one of the underlying building blocks of\nblockchain platforms such as Ethereum. This paper analyses situations in which\nthe message digest collision resistance property can be exploited by attackers.\nTwo mitigations for possible attacks are described: longer message digest sizes\nmake attacks more difficult; and, including timeliness properties limits the\namount of time an attacker has to determine a hash collision.\n
Recently we could see several institutions coming together to create consortium based blockchain networks such as Hyperledger. Although for applications of blockchain such as Bitcoin, Litcoin, etc. the majority-attack might not be a great threat but for consortium based blockchain networks where we could see several institutions such as public, private, government, etc. are collaborating, the majority-attack might just prove to be a prevalent threat if collusion among these institutions takes place. This paper proposes a methodology where we can use intelligent software agents to monitor the activity of stakeholders in the blockchain networks to detect anomaly such as collusion, using supervised machine learning algorithm and algorithmic game theory and stop the majority-attack from taking place.
Intrigued by Bitcoinâs exceptional value development and media attention the last years, we assess if there have been any speculative bubbles in the Bitcoin market and if it exists any bubble today. Our empirical analysis can be divided into three steps. First, it is conducted an econometric test on the existence and date stamping of bubbles in Bitcoin prices based on a new recursive test proposed by Phillips et al (2015) â the SADF and GSADF test. However, this statistical test derives a bubble conclusion from an explosive price behavior. This deviates from common definitions of bubbles within financial theories that a bubble exists if the value of an asset exceeds its fundamental value. Over the period 2010 â April 2018, we detected several of short-lived bubbles and a number of huge bubbles. Our empirical results indicate that there are found six huge bubbles during 2011-2018 lasting from 24 days â 123 days. Our statistical evidence suggests that there does not exist any bubbles in the Bitcoin market today. Second, we find that these bubbles may not incorporate information about rational expectation but rather of irrational exuberances, a finding consistent with the theory presented in the Google Trends, The RSI and the bubble model of âThe Stages in a Bubbleâ. Third, we find that there are some reoccurring trends that are affecting the Bitcoin market investigating the date-stamping results. These are the incidents of the Mt. Gox and Chinaâs relation to Bitcoin as a legal currency.
This paper aims toward amplifying the concept of cryptocurrency as emerging digital money in the world and its practices in Nepal. The paper is based on review of various articles, books and relevant websites that provide information regarding cryptocurrencies. The paper highlighted the conceptual part and types of cryptocurrencies in the first section, the major literature review in the context of world in the second section, and the practices of cryptocurrency in Nepal in third section followed by conclusion in final section. An exploratory research design has been adopted in the study. The primary survey has been done to collect the data with self administered questionnaire. The paper reveals the importance of cryptocurrencies in the present context of digital world. The paper concluded that the majority of the respondents are not well known about cryptocurrency in Nepal. The respondents are found interested to invest with knowledge, policy and security on cryptocurrency in Nepal. This thematic based research paper will create a platform for the researcher to study the practical scenario of cryptocurrency.NCC JournalVol. 3, No. 1, 2018, page: 100-107
The cryptocurrency is thought to be the next internet revolution, where transactions are done utilizing peer-to-peer network creating a blockchain of the participants involved. Therefore, it is in totality creating a new virtual world, which might change the course of the foreseeable future finance. The reaction to the block chain and cryptocurrency is synonymous to the reaction to the internet when for the first time it emerged. While it is widely accepted for transactions in some countries; for instance in Nepal, it is illegal. Where the basic knowledge about the cryptocurrency is scarce in terms of Nepal, this article attempt to connote the grass root construct on cryptography, cryptocurrency and its practices across the globe to its readers.NCC JournalVol. 3, No. 1, 2018, page: 167-175
By comparing cryptocurrencies with other existing payment methods, including banknotes and bank cards, it is clear that the use of Bitcoin and its competitors (Ethereum, \dots) is almost insignificant in world trade. We may also note that these cryptocurrencies have become tools of speculation, which is the antithesis of their primary purpose. Based essentially on the security of electronic signatures, the Ecash introduced here will put the users back to the center of the game and exclude miners and their enormous waste of power energy. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to show that even a piece of paper can be recycled into a secure Ecash, while remaining environmentally friendly. Hence, we create here a cryptocurrency that would use a slight modification of the current banknotes to set up anonymous electronic transactions. By trading with banknotes, we mechanically transfer ownership of the paper money from one owner to another, hence, in this scheme, we introduce the notion of ownership transfer. It implies that at each transaction the elements allowing to authenticate the Ecash does not change, while the ownership certificate will change since the Ecash is transfer towards someone else.
We analyze the economic incentives generated by the proof-of-stake mechanism discussed in the Ethereum Casper upgrade proposal. Compared with proof-of-work, proof-of-stake has a different cost structure for attackers. In Budish (2018), three equations characterize the limits of Bitcoin, which has a proof-of-work mechanism. We investigate their counterparts and evaluate the risk of double-spending attack and sabotage attack. We argue that PoS is safer than PoW agaisnt double-spending attack because of the tractability of attackers, which implies a large "stock" cost for the attacker. Compared to a PoW system whose mining equipments are repurposable, PoS is also safer against a sabotage attack.
This article analyses the impact of state decentralization on one aspect of territorial diversity, specifically on the policy discretion of regions, as an expression of their political autonomy for self-government. Our interest focuses on the factors that determine the decisions and actions of regional governments in developing their policies. We ask: why do regional governments take different public policy options? Conceding that several factors help explain policy decisions (such as productive structure, government ideology, social capital, political context, budgetary resources), we choose to explore the impact of two of them, by asking: in what way, and to what extent, are policy decisions and actions conditioned by the financing model and by their different ideologies? We present quantitative and qualitative comparative evidence from two contrasting case studies: two regions in decentralized Spain that have developed their own policies of income and spending, and have translated them into differing public management policies and regulatory models for providing health services. These governments are ideologically different and have undergone different degrees of recent ideological changes, but the resources provided to them by the financing model have also been different. We show how resources determine the scope of governmentsâ actions, while ideology determines their direction.
Anne Haugen Gausdal, Karen V. Czachorowski, Marina Z. Solesvik
The aim of this study is to develop a theoretical framework for blockchain, operations in particular. Furthermore, we aim to identify the main drivers and barriers of digital innovation and explore the general possibilities of blockchain applications within the maritime industry. A case study approach is applied: the Norwegian offshore industry. Primary data is collected through interviews, while secondary data is collected from industrial and company reports, the Internet, and national and international media reports. We have discovered that cost reduction intentions, the high level of regulation in the maritime industry, and the large amount of data that maritime companies should process, along with the intention to work more effectively, are the main drivers of digital innovation. On the other hand, the high cost of implementation, the bad quality of Internet connections offshore, the old age of decision-makers, the technology-oriented culture, the lack of investment initiatives, the low level of blockchain diffusion through the supply chain, and risk aversion are the main barriers. The results of the qualitative study show that some of the barriers and motives of digital innovation and the introduction to blockchain technology were pointed out by earlier studies. However, we have identified several unique drivers and barriers specific to the industry. Finally, the blockchain process framework is developed.
Vincent Chia, Pieter Hartel, Qingze Hum, Sebastian Ma ¡ 8 authors
Blockchain technology has become almost as famous for incidents involving security breaches as for its innovative potential. We shed light on the prevalence and nature of these incidents through a database structured using the STIX format. Apart from OPSEC-related incidents, we find that the nature of many incidents is specific to blockchain technology. Two categories stand out: smart contracts, and techno-economic protocol incentives. For smart contracts, we propose to use recent advances in software testing to find flaws before deployment. For protocols, we propose the PRESTO framework that allows us to compare different protocols within a five-dimensional framework.
In this note, I return to Coase (1937), on its 80th anniversary, to assess whether its logic and insight can be reconciled with the blockchain revolution. I argue that, indeed, it can, and propose the existence of a third method of organizing economic activity in a specialized exchange economy, in addition to the two that Coase considered. I call it the cryptographic stigmergy. If there be such merit in the argument here, let it be dedicated to the memory of Ronald Coase.
Although the blockchain is widely acknowledged as one of the most disruptive technologies emerged in the last decades, many implementation hurdles at the technical, regulatory and governance level still prevent a widespread adoption of services based on open networks. This research discusses the role Trust Service Providers may play in permissioned blockchains, providing a reliable ecosystem in which services can be safely developed and preserved in the long run. As case study, the paper outlines the main features of TrustedChainÂŽ, the first blockchain network of European Trust Service Providers specifically designed for highly sensitive sectors, with cutting-edge applications for public administration, e-government, banking, e-health and industry. Emphasis is thus placed on systemic trust, law compliance, adequate technical performance, confidentiality of transactions and long term preservation of data as essential conditions for blockchain networks to thrive and accomplish complex tasks in an effective and reliable way.
The cryptocurrencies are digital currencies that were initially designated to replace the old ones. However, they act as investment assets and many treat them like stocks. The market for cryptocurrencies counts more than 1600 types and the Bitcoin is the first and foremost of all of them. In one year the price of Bitcoin grew staggering 2000 percent. Other currencies have not seen this type of rising. This study investigates the period of over 4 years of data for 5 cryptocurrencies, the three years before and the last year of hyper-growth of the Bitcoin. We used GARCH model to see if two periods of data may offer some incites for patterns. The findings of this paper show that the Bitcoin in the period of high volatility is more diverged from its counterparts. According to results in the period of high volatility, the factors that influence the price formation of cryptocurrencies may not be the same for all of them. Using the price of the Bitcoin of one day earlier and the price of altcoins today we find spillover effect. Spillover effect is less prominent in the second period of high volatility. It may indicate of relatively independent nature of altcoins during the periods of high volatility.
It gives me great pleasure to invite you to contribute to the inaugural edition of the JBBA - Journal of the British Blockchain Association. The JBBA is Europeâs first peer reviewed, academic journal devoted to Blockchain & other Distributed Ledger Technologies and Cryptocurrencies. Peer-review is a critical part of the functioning of the scientific community, of quality control, and the self-corrective nature of science, and our aim is to provide a journal which only publishes rigorously reviewed articles which enhance the body of knowledge growing around the Blockchain. The JBBA is an online, open access journal offering a wide ranging and comprehensive coverage of all facets of DLT/ Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrencies. The JBBA attempts to cover the state-of-the-art advances in all aspects of Blockchain technology. The international and multidisciplinary nature of this field enables us to cover both theoretical research and technological developments. A high-quality peer-reviewed journal will enable authors to showcase their work, and at the same time, allow policy makers to build on an evidence-based framework. This will enable stakeholders to provide government with sound academic support for experimentation, proofs of concept and knowledge transfer. We aim to become the âGold Standardâ for the highest quality, evidence based, peer-reviewed resource on blockchain technology. We will publish: Original research (PhD thesis, Dissertations, Scientific Trials) Interviews with key influencers, Thought Leaders and Experts DLT/ Blockchain Start-ups/ ICO White Papers Case studies & Expert opinions Book reviews Critical reviews, Commentary and Analysis Editorial covering the latest important issues and trends
The present work deals with the inter relationships of blockchain technology and the new European General Data Protection Regulation, that will be intact after May 28th, 2018. The regulation harmonises personal data protection across the European Union and aims to return the ownership of personal data to the individual. This thesis, therefore, addresses the question how this new technology that is characterised by decentralisation, immutability and truly digitised values will be affected by the strict privacy regulation and vice versa. The aim of this work is to clarify whether blockchains can comply with the new regulation on the one hand and to identify how blockchain could support its compliance, on the other hand. The questions are validated through an extensive literature review and are further investigated by using a Delphi study that asks a panel of 25 renowned experts to find opportunities, limitations and general suggestions about both topics. In addition, a framework is proposed to support the assessment of privacy and related risks of blockchains. As a result, it becomes apparent that blockchains can become more privacy friendly and comply with the regulation if an active dialogue between blockchain developers and regulatory authorities helps to strengthen their mutual understanding and work. With the support of this work and the blockchain Privacy Impact Assessment canvas a foundation for the necessary next steps is laid to overcome the challenges of defining a data controller or deleting personal data within a blockchain.
The blockchain is the enigmatic technology that gave birth to Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency movement. By fate or by good fortune, carbon markets and cryptocurrencies face common problems: a need to find consensus on data, and a need to trade value between distrustful strangers. Could the blockchain ledger enable a consensus on carbon budgets, and deliver value for carbon mitigation services? Could blockchain technologies help to resolve the climate crisis? To answer these questions we need to examine the opportunities for decentralized ledgers in carbon and energy markets. Here we show that the blockchain offers a unique opportunity to improve accountability in carbÂŹon markets and to develop renewable energy micro-grids, but for the blockchain to reach its full potentialâto be the game changerâit should be combined with macro-economic policies and macro-prudential regulatory frameworks that can finance a multi-trillion dollar transition.
Internet-of-Things (IoT) and Supply Chain monitoring applications rely on messaging protocols for exchanging data. Contemporary IoT deployments widely use the publish-subscribe messaging model because of its resource-efficiency. However, the systems with publish-subscribe messaging model employ a centralized architecture, wherein the data from all the devices in the application network flows via a central broker to the subscribers. Such a centralized architecture make publish-subscribe messaging model susceptible to a central point of failure. Besides, it provides an opportunity for the organization that owns the broker to tamper with the data. In this work, we contribute Trinity, a novel distributed publish-subscribe broker with blockchain-based immutability. Trinity distributes the data published to one of the brokers in the network to all the brokers in the network. The distributed data is stored in an immutable ledger through the use of the blockchain technology. Furthermore, Trinity executes smart contracts to validate the data before saving the data on the blockchain. Through the use of a blockchain network, Trinity can guarantee persistence, ordering, and immutability across trust boundaries. Our evaluation results show that Trinity consumes minimal resources, and the use of smart contracts enable the stakeholders to automate the data management processes. To the best of our knowledge, Trinity is the first framework that combines the components of the blockchain technology with the publish-subscribe messaging model.
In response to food contamination scandals worldwide, retail giant Walmart is tackling food safety in the supply chain using blockchain technology. In 2016, it established the Walmart Food Safety Collaboration Center in Beijing and plans to invest $25 million over five years to research global food safety (Yiannas and Liu, 2017). Using IBMâs blockchain solution based on Hyperledger Fabric, Walmart has successfully completed two blockchain pilots: pork in China and mangoes in the Americas (IBM, 2017). With a farm-to-table approach, Walmartâs blockchain solution reduced time for tracking mango origins from seven days to 2.2 seconds and promoted greater transparency across Walmartâs food supply chain (Yiannas, 2017). IBM called it âcomplete end-to-end traceabilityâ (McDermott, 2017). The case highlights the challenges of implementing blockchain technology in the food supply chain and the opportunities for deploying blockchain solutions throughout the global food ecosystem to increase safety and reduce waste.
Murat Yasin Kubilay, Mehmet Sabir Kiraz, Haci Ali Mantar
In conventional PKI, CAs are assumed to be fully trusted. However, in practice, CAs' absolute responsibility for providing trustworthiness caused major security and privacy issues. To prevent such issues, Google introduced the concept of Certificate Transparency (CT) in 2013. Later, several new PKI models (e.g., AKI, ARPKI, and DTKI) are proposed to reduce the level of trust to the CAs. However, all of these proposals are still vulnerable to split-world attacks if the adversary is capable of showing different views of the log to the targeted victims. In this paper, we propose a new PKI architecture with certificate transparency based on blockchain, what we called CertLedger, to eliminate the split-world attacks and to provide an ideal certificate/revocation transparency. All TLS certificates, their revocation status, entire revocation process, and trusted CA management are conducted in the CertLedger. CertLedger provides a unique, efficient, and trustworthy certificate validation process eliminating the conventional inadequate and incompatible certificate validation processes implemented by different software vendors. TLS clients in the CertLedger also do not require to make certificate validation and store the trusted CA certificates anymore. We analyze the security and performance of the CertLedger and provide a comparison with the previous proposals.
A forum selection clause is a form of contractual waiver. By this device, a contract party waives its rights to raise jurisdictional or venue objections if a lawsuit is initiated against it in the chosen court. (If the forum selection is exclusive, then that party also promises not to initiate litigation anywhere other than in the chosen forum.) The use of such a clause in a particular case may therefore raise a set of questions under contract law: Is the waiver valid? Was it procured by fraud, duress, or other unconscionable means? What is its scope? And so on. Unlike most contractual waivers, however, a forum selection clause affects not only the private rights and obligations of the parties, but something of more public concern: the jurisdiction of a court to resolve a dispute. The enforcement of such a clause therefore raises an additional set of questions under procedural law. For instance, if the parties designate a court in a forum that is otherwise unconnected to the dispute, must (or should) that court hear a case initiated there? If one of the parties initiates litigation in a non-designated forum that is connected to the dispute, must (or should) that court decline to hear the case? This Report analyzes the approach to these questions in the United States.1 Part I provides a brief background on the general attitude toward forum selection clauses. Part II surveys current state law on their use, in consumer as well as commercial contracts. Part III addresses the interpretation of forum selection clauses as either permissive or exclusive. Part IV analyzes the effect of permissive clauses in state and federal courts. Finally, Part V turns to choice of law problems, particularly as they arise in the course of litigation in federal courts. Historically, forum selection clauses were viewed as contrary to public policy and therefore invalid.2 The most frequently invoked justification for this rule, relevant only in connection with exclusive clauses, was that parties should not be able to deprive a court of jurisdiction it would otherwise have over a dispute.3 However, other explanations for the traditional approachârelevant in connection with permissive as well as exclusive clausesâappear in the case law as well. Some courts rejected forum selection clauses out of suspicion that the partiesâ intent in selecting a particular forum was to circumvent otherwise applicable substantive policies. Others worried that permitting parties to choose their forum would âbring the administration of justice into disreputeâ by highlighting considerations such as the relative intelligence or impartiality of particular judges.4 Overall, the sense was that â[t]he jurisdiction of our courts is established by law, and is not to be diminished, any more than it is to be increased, by the convention of the parties.â5 Over time, and given increasing recognition of the need for certainty and predictability in interstate and international commerce, adherence to the traditional view diminished. This shift manifested itself in the case law6 and elsewhere. For example, in 1968, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted a Model Choice of Forum Act7 based on the Hague Conferenceâs 1964 Convention on the Choice of Court. Although the model law gave courts considerably more discretion than the Convention did in enforcing forum selection clauses, its starting point was that the use of such clauses was desirable.8 And the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, adopted in 1971, included a section stating that a forum selection clause will be given effect âunless it is unfair or unreasonable.9 The real turning point in U.S. doctrine was the Supreme Courtâs 1972 decision in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore, Co.10 The case involved a forum selection clause included in a contract for towage negotiated by the U.S. owner of a drilling rig and a German towing company. The agreement designated the London Court of Justice as the exclusive forum for litigation; however, when its rig was damaged, the U.S. company brought suit in the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida. The to or the on the of the forum selection that such were the court this and its decision was The U.S. Supreme Court then and that the forum selection clause was to a of the that as as I to of the Courtâs that have frequently in and the rejected the that contractual of jurisdiction and venue were as against public Court did that the of a particular forum selection clause be on the of in contract such as or or of by the the a of of exclusive forum selection as a general the parties that any litigation would in the designated any other court should to hear the the on a court other than the designated court to an otherwise and exclusive forum selection if enforcement would be under the the Court that the forum would be so that the would be of in or if enforcement would a public policy of the forum in suit was The Bremen decision have effect for it involved an international its of a of the Court to the of international the have to the international the case involved the of and the decision was therefore on federal courts of jurisdiction on state the Bremen these courts jurisdiction in adopted the Bremen it in contracts. State courts to the Bremen in as well as international the decision the U.S. approach to forum selection clauses. The of the Bremen the of forum selection clauses only to exclusive forum selection clauses, and so this Report only in The of the Courtâs to the general of private as to forum to permissive clauses. The Part addresses the of such under current law. the of U.S. forum selection clauses, permissive and exclusive, viewed with A have the of such based on the Model Choice of Forum most however, the and of forum selection clauses by law. that law the Bremen it the of that case into that the for example, courts have adopted a that analyzes the forum selection clause was to the it should be as exclusive or it the parties and the in and the in of enforcement by a that it is under the or for such as or Some have also adopted to (or litigation contracts. A of the traditional to forum selection clauses. one this is in the case that forum selection for example, provides that or in a by any party is enforcing rights under the contract in is as it is against the public policy of however, courts have these the toward the more enforcement of forum selection is to as the the of these general is on exclusive forum selection clauses that to deprive courts of jurisdiction they would otherwise have the use of forum selection clauses in of the of is particularly For instance, a of and have adopted to with a of substantive Some to choice of court. for instance, in a agreement that jurisdiction or venue in a forum of this Others general any contractual that would as a waiver of the rights by the under the of the courts to and to a forum selection clause as a waiver of any of the Laws of For example, law any contractual that as a waiver of any of the rights in the A court the forum selection clause included in a agreement to be it the to for a by a The any agreement that that the an against the or in a venue of And in forum selection clauses included in the these of must be a general policy of toward forum selection clauses. the of is not the of private parties to of jurisdiction and it is contractual parties of The effect of such on choice of court is to the of particular of unfair any clause in a a forum selection clause be as on the of instance, the of a or in the of one of the parties instance, that it was procured by duress, fraud, or the is an in and of and other However, parties frequently the of forum selection clauses in on the of that it would be unconscionable to to a clause that not Bremen itself this on the of the clause in that And Supreme Court did the a for example, the Court the that forum selection clauses their enforcement not however, in v. the Supreme Court to the of The Bremen to for the of form The case involved an exclusive forum selection clause included the on a for on a A federal court of that the forum selection clause was and on that to permitting the to in a court other than the one The Supreme Court The Court the forum selection clause the it would any clause in a contract on a it or it it for that parties to the contract an exclusive forum selection the in the form of a on the in it be by its and the the form of on the the Court the clause was not Although the clause was not and the parties the clause was therefore to the Bremen was an and therefore on federal courts and state courts only in that however, the decision a and it is in of contract is that courts have on the of its in a of For instance, courts have to forum selection clauses included in consumer on the of the that they of the forum selection This is a courts that parties of forum selection clauses if the relevant clauses in or otherwise set other in the if the parties did not in the forum selection clauses in parties of and have to be for This is a Overall, the general that such in the consumer as well as the commercial is by well U.S. law, as as is by of is not for a contract to be as a general the that a forum selection clause only one party not it courts to clauses that objections to jurisdiction and venue by only one of the contract The is of clauses that the choice of court permissive for one party and exclusive for the Overall, the United is a policy in of enforcing forum selection clauses. courts party enforcement of a clause a of Forum selection clauses raise a of questions of the parties to only contractual out of their or to their they to federal as well as state courts in a and they the choice of court to be exclusive or This Part on the of these The general in the United States is that a forum selection clause will be as permissive it of most the or of such is A permissive forum selection clause the partiesâ to or in an a exclusive agreement not only a forum but the or in to litigation a clause these interpretation is more is approach to in most have adopted to as a against as a of the against one case this the court that of the jurisdiction a jurisdiction it be or a of such a a of of in this that the jurisdiction of any other for instance, clauses stating that the of jurisdiction be and be by the law of the State of with venue in were viewed as for of such as or and as to Some also to in the of such when they the partiesâ intent the one for example, the court a forum selection clause in the parties to as the venue for to be exclusive the as a venue interstate or (or to the jurisdiction of more than one By selecting one of in as the exclusive forum for parties able to the of as well as the of jurisdictional However, it is not for parties to such of the U.S. case law and on forum selection clauses on that the effect of exclusive when a party to such an agreement it by litigation elsewhere. other they on the of forum selection in the jurisdiction of a court. such they more than a to jurisdiction and venue in the either to elsewhere. However, forum selection clauses, permissive clauses, may a as in that the parties may a forum that is not otherwise connected with the such the the of the parties also the effect of jurisdiction on a court that would not otherwise have Part that Part turns to the effect of permissive forum selection clauses on the U.S. courts have the discretion to decline jurisdiction on the that litigation in forum would be more or on this may be by the or initiated by the court The to be not only the of the parties, but a of other and as well. effect of a permissive forum selection is to the to the of venue in the on the that court would have more the is the court will the partiesâ forum selection clause in to decline of its The of jurisdiction over the to by the United States state and federal courts have that the of jurisdiction and an and therefore be by a a as a for the of jurisdiction over a The traditional rule, however, was that be given only the of this courts to by Over time, this and courts to such waivers, in the form of forum selection clauses, as this is with to it is to as the and waiver of with this view of the jurisdictional as a courts that jurisdiction on the of is when the forum is otherwise unconnected with the a courts have that the designated forum a to the but these to be The of a forum selection effect on jurisdiction a as well. Over the course of the as the Supreme Courtâs the under it was viewed as to jurisdiction over state a its courts to jurisdiction Some of these to the and state courts to jurisdiction on any not with however, particular of in jurisdiction may be over that use this form of a state court may jurisdiction over a only on one of the If a not as one of the of then the the court is to jurisdiction on that if the litigation is otherwise unconnected with the This itself in federal courts as they the of the state in they the of in to forum selection clauses the of This is with the general that to not the to on it was to jurisdiction over to however, the is that jurisdiction be only when is If that is then a party to a forum selection clause may that its waiver of the court jurisdiction over other if the of the chosen state not as one of the then a forum selection clause should not be is other for the of This is the in A of have under they to jurisdiction on the of a forum selection A of these based on the Model Choice of Forum one section of in the court would jurisdiction but for the of the Others to to the state in that the contract in also a choice of law in of law, and that the a of these one in other of contract would not be to jurisdiction on the court. if the court in the initiates litigation jurisdiction over the and the parties, the may that venue is either or and that the suit in court. The of a forum selection clause may the procedural If a in state a that also the jurisdiction of a federal court in that the a to the case to the federal the to a forum selection clause the state court as a the that agreement a waiver of the this courts have adopted a that such a waiver be and is by the to or by a particular state court as the exclusive forum for A permissive forum selection clause not this and therefore not a to is procedural by a state court a case to a more forum in state (or However, a to a case on the of under the doctrine of forum to this law and have it in procedural Although is the in they the approach that was as a of federal law in v. to on the of forum must be an forum must be is a in of the choice of the of private and public in the case must in of The private of the to be of to the of and the other that into of a case and The the state of the the on in a that is not to the dispute, and the of the court with the law to be have adopted that their courts to jurisdiction over that forum selection clauses courts. of is by clauses the of on the of a court may on that This is when an exclusive forum selection clause is a forum selection clause may as a waiver of a to the of the designated it not the other relevant And permissive forum selection clauses, by not the choice of may be relevant to the The is a permissive forum selection clause should be given in a forum this the chosen to initiate litigation in the designated and the to the in of other such a is to is in the that state courts to this Some courts have that a permissive forum selection clause suit is in the designated and is to under the Bremen that that the clause was as a of contract law, a party to litigation would need to that the designated forum was under that courts the traditional forum but a on the to a forum to it This is on the that the its to to that forum on the of its is one of the most in the Finally, courts to the with for the forum selection clause however, to decline to Although it to be a court that designated in a and exclusive forum selection clause a in a permissive may also forum on its one a court a of contract brought by a against a The contract included an exclusive forum selection clause in of The to the on the of forum The court that the Bremen and that the to that enforcing the clause would be unfair or However, it then on to forum on its that the connection to and that in the the court that it would be courts to the of and the the The initiates litigation other than the designated and the to in of the U.S. law, is given to a choice of and in this of case the general is that will not be the traditional forum in of that courts to a permissive forum selection clause when these however, a in the of a permissive forum selection clause the it may the court to to the choice of it the designated forum as an in the sense that the to jurisdiction the of the forum And it that the its to to the of that these permissive forum selection clauses in not in U.S. federal courts is by a general that the venue of brought in as otherwise by the under a may initiate litigation in a particular for example, if a of the to the A of additional the by a of when venue is when a case is in the of a to a case on this and under the court in a case is either it or it to or in it have additional when venue is but the doctrine of forum under a case will be in of an forum in a state or and under a case will be to a more court the federal a case in v. U.S. District the Supreme Court the these and a forum selection that the initiated litigation in a forum other than that designated in an exclusive forum selection to that the to the suit for venue under and The Court rejected this that the exclusive for venue is or the federal venue in other as as the of venue is or not the parties have in to in a the Court the only to use in a forum selection clause is an to federal court under in the case of an agreement a state or a under forum The Court on to the effect of an exclusive forum selection clause on these of The in to court the U.S. federal and so the Court the that should be a forum selection clause in that the enforcement of forum selection clauses party and of the justice a under to the of the parties should a of the be The Court particular of a forum selection clause for venue when a to suit only in a particular its choice of any other forum contrary to the rule, be given in the of the court should the partiesâ private only as the Court to a when a party suit in a forum in of a forum selection a to the forum will not with it the choice of law have this decision the traditional to exclusive forum selection Although involved a federal the also the to be given a forum selection clause in a to on the of forum in the of a (or the state the federal have not in the they a forum selection clause when forum And have on the that the under forum should be more than under the to of the than to however, the Supreme Court in stating that was a of the law on to state that should to to for forum in clauses to state or a of litigation under its to permissive forum selection clauses. is that the and of the the Court relevant only when an exclusive forum selection clause is on that courts have to the of in permissive forum selection clauses, with Some however, have adopted the of with to the in initiated in the designated forum and in initiated elsewhere. one the to the case out of the forum designated in a permissive forum selection The court that the its to the of that the private in of the in the designated and that would be only the public in of a the to the and interpretation of forum selection clauses on applicable may interstate and international choice of law is therefore an a of that be chosen to such the law of the the law chosen to the either by the parties, in the case of that also a choice of law or of the choice of law rule, in the case of that and in a case in the forum is not the the law of the the United choice of law is a of state than federal law, and state is one relevant to this on a court will forum law to of in the the effect of a permissive forum selection clause is on of jurisdiction and that effect is by forum law. A state court will its when a forum selection effect on its for instance, and its procedural when its effect on a the under a forum selection clause be given a court in that state will that the effect of a forum selection however, a court must the agreement is and it should be as permissive or exclusive. substantive contract law and therefore a lawsuit is in a state other than that law the it is for a of to For example, the forum state have adopted a the of a forum selection the state law the contract have such in to parties with such most with to exclusive forum selection clauses, they permissive as well. a permissive forum selection clause that is under forum law but as against public in the state law the that if the litigation is otherwise unconnected to the the law that the contract to the of would the forum selection and the for jurisdiction over the in the the law of the forum to the of by would the also arise in the effect of a forum selection clause on a to on the of For instance, in a state that would a permissive forum selection clause as a in forum law to the agreement would the procedural to the of a forum selection clause in a of Some contractual for example, based on or duress, or the of a more to the effect of a forum selection for instance, based on a policy of general to private jurisdiction or frequently as and to forum law. one court a general rule, the forum selection clause is and is a procedural that must be in with the law of the forum general a choice of law in the in the based on to substantive of contract However, under current based on such also as procedural and under the law of the Overall, of the case law that the of U.S. courts to questions of in questions of a contractual state courts Some over choice of law and with of contract interpretation as court the of the contract is and if it the contract will be as forum selection clauses when the contract in also a choice of law, courts the chosen law to questions of Others however, particularly but not in the of international these the courts forum law in the of a forum selection forum selection clauses when the contract in not a choice of law, courts more to forum law to questions of will the of the choice of law in an to the law the Some courts this approach by that the choice of court was also a choice of the courts may be This to forum law in the of forum selection clauses may to This is particularly in international the U.S. approach to one a in of permissive than exclusive forum selection clauses in so that of other The jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts is not to under federal is of the parties to a the federal courts also have the to based on state contract law. a federal courts frequently hear out of interstate and international contracts. the of as in v. federal courts in must the substantive law of the state in they that However, they not procedural law. This questions the of the that forum selection clauses federal courts frequently forum selection clauses in the of a to venue to federal court. a of Supreme Court provides a to the the v. the initiated litigation in a court in in of an exclusive forum selection The to the case to the designated The court that on the that the effect of the forum selection clause was by such as a of public the case the Supreme it that the effect of a forum selection clause on the to venue was a of federal procedural law, by a the federal courts were to that law, to the of any otherwise applicable state law. This is a that federal law, in the form of any state law the of a forum selection that the Court in a that the federal would be to the of state law in on jurisdiction as The Supreme Court this approach in the decision the law the of forum selection clauses in the of The case law this federal courts to any state law forum selection the of a to it is law a federal court should in the of a forum selection on this point is federal courts in have that the of a forum selection clause is and should be by the Bremen as a of federal By this a federal court the of courts have the questions of as a of substantive contract This should by choice of law Some courts that to to the law chosen by the However, state federal courts over the choice of law the substantive law of the forum in the of a forum selection Although may have state law the effect of a forum selection it did not state law on of substantive contract law. forum selection clauses may a of questions under that law, their as exclusive or federal courts in state law to approach is not Some federal courts federal in forum selection clauses, the of applicable Others they as to questions interpretation of the on the that enforcement of a forum clause interpretation of the clause it be federal law to interpretation of forum selection clauses federal law on this to these is that a choice of court must in to be as Others that the the effect of forum selection clauses in federal courts is federal questions of a clause is exclusive or be by of law in an otherwise Although courts in the of a the of the state in they in to the substantive law the the by that federal law and the relevant state law in of contract is to a general the of forum selection clauses in U.S. in consumer as well as commercial they will be given is more to the of and that For any particularly for to the of procedural law the U.S. federal is of I to for on a and to for
Blockchain technology has recently gained widespread attention by media, businesses, public sector agencies, and various international organizations, and it is being regarded as potentially even more disruptive than the Internet. Despite significant interest, there is a dearth of academic literature that describes key components of blockchains and discusses potential applications. This paper aims to address this gap. This paper presents an overview of blockchain technology, identifies the blockchain's key functional characteristics, builds a formal definition, and offers a discussion and classification of current and emerging blockchain applications.
The UK Government is under growing pressure to improve the performance of public services whilst reducing costs. Services are under stress at a national and local level. This pressure to improve the value being delivered to citizens whilst reducing operational costs and risks is analogous to the pressure the financial service industry has been under since 2008. Financial services organisations are increasingly turning to Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to address these challenges. Distributed ledger technology is enabling a new paradigm in financial services where organisations collaborate and integrate at the infrastructure and transaction level, freeing up resources for innovation and competition at the application and value proposition level; what we are seeing is wholesale business model transformation. This paper explores how a new Public Value Network might enable Public Service Organisations to: 1. Retain their existing decentralised business models, (budgets, decision making, business, service design) yet optimise and synchronise locally and nationally 2. Collaborate in the design and delivery of frictionless human centric services 3. Automate- services, adherence to and auditing of regulation, policy and process 4. Improve financial transparency across public service value chain.
Krishnendu Chatterjee, Amir Kafshdar Goharshady, Rasmus Ibsen-Jensen, Yaron Velner
Crypto-currencies are digital assets designed to work as a medium of exchange, e.g., Bitcoin, but they are susceptible to attacks (dishonest behavior of participants). A framework for the analysis of attacks in crypto-currencies requires (a) modeling of game-theoretic aspects to analyze incentives for deviation from honest behavior; (b) concurrent interactions between participants; and (c) analysis of long-term monetary gains. Traditional game-theoretic approaches for the analysis of security protocols consider either qualitative temporal properties such as safety and termination, or the very special class of one-shot (stateless) games. However, to analyze general attacks on protocols for crypto-currencies, both stateful analysis and quantitative objectives are necessary. In this work our main contributions are as follows: (a) we show how a class of concurrent mean-payoff games, namely ergodic games, can model various attacks that arise naturally in crypto-currencies; (b) we present the first practical implementation of algorithms for ergodic games that scales to model realistic problems for crypto-currencies; and (c) we present experimental results showing that our framework can handle games with thousands of states and millions of transitions.