In the ever-evolving digital landscape, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have emerged as a disruptive force, challenging the traditional paradigms of digital asset ownership and control. As Fortnow and Terry aptly highlight, NFTs seek to redefine the relationship between creatives, users, and digital artwork, a relationship historically dominated by powerful online intermediaries operating under the access model [1].The prevailing access model, underpinned by a blend of technological, legal, and market dynamics, has largely curtailed the ability of creators and individual internet users to exert meaningful control over digital assets. Instead, these assets are predominantly governed by centralized intermediaries, offering seemingly unlimited access. While this model boasts advantages, such as a robust rights management system ensuring IP security and user convenience [4], it is not without its criticisms. The most glaring concern for creators is the 'value gap' -the disparity between the value generated by intermediaries and the compensation received by content creators [3]. This concern was so profound that it catalysed significant reforms in the EU's digital platform regulations in the form of the DSM Directive and, most recently, the DSA Act [2].Centralized intermediaries, with their overarching influence, have not only skewed the value distribution but have also left users vulnerable. The tentative nature of access rights means users can be deprived of their digital assets without warning, rendering them powerless against potential misuse by these intermediaries [5].This special issue of the journal underscores the profound impact of NFTs on Intellectual Property law. We are privileged to feature contributions that delve deep into this relationship from diverse legal perspectives. Dr. Ioanna Lapatoura offers a compelling analysis of the intricate relationship between NFTs and trademark law, using the MetaBirkins case as a focal point. Daniel Becker and Aylton Gonçalves, on the other hand, explore the implications of NFTs within the Brazilian legal framework. However, the legal ramifications of NFTs extend beyond IP law. In that context, Matteo Alessandro challenges traditional notions of property in light of NFTs, while Marica Ciantar examines the transformative potential of NFTs and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in reshaping collective organizational governance. Prof. Dr.Yulia S. Kharitonova exploredlegal issues of decentralized services in the context of utility NFTs. J.-G. A. Hanneman researched DAOs and AI-based Smart Contracts. The darker aspects of NFT transactions are also addressed, with Ass Prof. Dr. Dimitrios Kafteranis, Dr. Huseyin Unozkan and Prof. Dr. Umut Turksen elucidating their alignment with financial crime regulations. Moreover, the discourse on NFTs in private law is expanded upon by Dr. Elena Tzoulia, who highlights their intersection with the secondary digital consumer protection acquis in the EU.This issue serves as a testament to the multifaceted legal challenges and opportunities presented by NFTs. Through the insightful contributions of our esteemed authors, we hope to foster a deeper understanding and stimulate further discourse on this pivotal topic.
As the development of Solidity smart contracts has increased in popularity, the reliance on external sources such as third-party packages increases to reduce development costs. However, despite the use of external sources bringing flexibility and efficiency to the development, they could also complicate the process of assuring the security of downstream applications due to the lack of package managers for standardized ways and sources. While previous studies have only focused on code clones without considering how the external components are introduced, the compositions of a smart contract and their characteristics still remain puzzling.
Non-Fungible Token (NFT) refers to a non-homogenized crypto token, which is unique and irreproducible and has the ability to represent ownership.Each NFT is different and is essentially a digital asset notarized on the blockchain. This asset can be a picture, an audio, a video, a string of code, a digital signature, and any other form of a digital asset.
The law governing rights with third party effect (proprietary rights, rights in rem) in digital assets has been a point of controversy for some time, in particular with regard to crypto assets. Crypto assets exist on distributed ledgers and therefore cannot be âlocatedâ in the way tangible assets can, but they cannot readily be qualified as ârightsâ either. This has led legislators and organisations worldwide to develop a broad range of different solutions with regard to the determination of the applicable law. Broadly speaking, proposed solutions can be divided into two groups: the first group of solutions (âparty-orientedâ solutions) takes the location of the current holder, transferor or security provider as the connecting factor, or the location of an intermediary holding the assets in custody for the holder, transferor or security provider, or the law governing the agreement with the intermediary. Advantages of these solutions include their simplicity and the legal certainty they provide for bulk transactions where the identity and location of the parties is known. Disadvantages include complications in the context of chains of assignments, joint holders, and changing locations, and of course generally unknown identity and/or location of the relevant party. The second group of solutions (âasset-oriented solutionsâ) seeks to achieve uniformity of results within one and the same class of assets, trying to âlocateâ a particular crypto asset in accordance with a choice of law made with regard to the whole class of assets or the whole ledger (elective situs) or some other objective criterion characterising the whole class of assets (such as the seat of the issuer). Any solution will normally end up with a waterfall of connecting factors, so the pivotal point is what should be at the top and at the bottom of the waterfall.
The ERC721 standard defines a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) as an identifier that uniquely identifies digital data recorded on a blockchain. The NFT currently in use claim to ensure the uniqueness of the contents associated with the NFT by taking advantage of the tamper-resistant characteristics of the blockchain data. Besides, digital signatures based on public-key encryption is a representative technique to prevent digital data from being falsified, and its application to NFT is also discussed. In this study, we first consider an NFT implementation by applying a designated confirmer signature using an interactive verification method without using blockchain technology. We design an NFT issuance protocol that guarantees the uniqueness of data with a designated confirmer signature, and evaluate the security of the protocol. Moreover, we compare it with existing blockchain implementations. By analyzing the both methods, we aim to provide insights into the potential applications and performance in using designated confirmer signatures for NFT. Our findings contribute to the ongoing research on secure and efficient mechanisms for ensuring the integrity and uniqueness of digital assets in decentralized systems.
Testing is an integral process in the development life cycle of a Smart Contract, especially considering the immutable nature of blockchains. Thus, rigorous testing of smart contracts is necessary to identify defects or vulnerabilities and correct them before deployment. This proactive approach prevents any unfair advantages that may be exploited by one or more entities within the smart contract. In this paper, we present a three-layered approach for prioritizing test cases using gas consumption values and frequency of test case targeting methods, aiming to enhance the efficiency of the testing process. We illustrate our approach by applying to the smart contract Ballot. sol. We used the Ethereum Virtual Machine environment, and generated test cases using the Bounded Model Checker engine of the Solidity compiler. Additionally, we created manual test cases to simulate real-time smart contract behavior. We use the test cases of the Ballot.sol contract to showcase the prioritized list of test cases along with their respective individual and cumulative statement coverages. Our approach offers a faster testing environment for smart contract deployment.
Smart contract is the core of blockchain networks. It eliminates the requirement for third-party services. They are the self- executing contracts that compose rules and terms of transactions that should be agreed upon by every participating node. Smart contracts are executed in a decentralized environment of blockchain. The conditions of an agreement are written in a code that is coded using various programming languages. With more advancement in technology, access control to data has become increasingly difficult. The users need to have access to their assets and resources to complete the job even if the location is remote. We proposed smart contract-based system architecture to implement contract policies to manage access control over the given data. This will help in maintaining data security and integrity and avoid unauthorized attacks.
Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that gained popularity for enabling the transformation of cryptocurrency among peers without mediation by a centralized third-party authority. Smart contracts expand the applications of blockchain technology and have played a role in its widespread adoption. Smart contracts are immutable digital programs that are deployed on blockchains to codify agreements between parties. Existing smart contract implementations have faced challenges, including security vulnerabilities, leading to significant losses and concerns. This has stimulated a wave of attempts to improve Smart Contract Languages (SCLs) to overcome implementation challenges and ensure code quality, producing many languages with diverse features. Scholars have made some attempts to classify SCLs and clarify the process of selecting an SCL, but to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive survey of existing SCLs has been published. Our work surpasses earlier efforts by evaluating a significantly larger set of SCLs, in greater depth, to ease the process of SCL selection for blockchain research and implementation. In this paper, we (1) propose a robust framework for comparing existing SCLs, (2) analyze and discuss 36 SCLs, addressing issues beyond those used to construct the comparison framework, and (3) define new parameters for future research and development of SCLs. The survey provides a guide for those who intend to select or use an SCL to implement smart contracts, develop new SCLs, or add new extensions to the existing SCLs.
We propose a simple modelling language extending iContractML 2.0 for access control policies on smart contracts. The language supports multi-party authorisation and dynamic role-based access control (RBAC) where role members can be added or removed at runtime. Models in this language can be mapped to both Solidity and DAML in a model-driven approach to RBACs.
Eleonora Rosati is a Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Stockholm University (Sweden) and Of Counsel at Bird & Bird in Milan (Italy). The present contribution is a re-publication of a study prepared at the request of the World Intellectual Property Organization and published under the same title on 1 September 2023. Over time, technological advancements have resulted in novel ways both to exploit content and to infringe rightsâincluding intellectual property rights (IPRs)âvesting in them. Legislative instruments have consistently clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply to new media, ie, means to disseminate intangible assets, including in digital and online contexts. In terms of rights enforcement, however, the progressive dematerialization of content and dissemination modalities has given rise to challenges, including when it comes to determining where an alleged IPR infringement has been committed. This study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) Can the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other dissemination media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverse? (2) Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications for the localization of IPR infringements? The first question is answered in the affirmative. In relation to the second question, it is submitted that the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaversesâwhile of substantial relevance to the determination of enforcement optionsâmay not have significant implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned. Over time, technological advancements have resulted in novel ways both to exploit content and to infringe rightsâincluding intellectual property rights (IPRs)âvesting in them. Legislative instruments have consistently clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply to new media, ie, means to disseminate intangible assets, including in digital and online contexts. In terms of rights enforcement, however, the progressive dematerialization of content and dissemination modalities has given rise to challenges, including when it comes to determining where an alleged IPR infringement has been committed. The importance of such an exercise cannot be overstated: it is inter alia key to determining (i) whether the right at issue (eg, a registered IPR) is enforceable at the outset, (ii) which law applies to the dispute at hand as well asâin accordance with certain jurisdictional criteriaâ(iii) which courts are competent to adjudicate it. For example, determining that the relevant infringement has been committed in country A serves in turn to determine (i) if the right at issue is enforceable at all, given that IPRs are territorial in nature. So, if the IPR in question is a national trade mark, the infringement needs to be localized in the territory of the country where the right is registered; (ii) whether, eg, country Aâs law is applicable to the dispute at hand and (iii) if, eg, the courts in country A have jurisdiction to adjudicate the resulting dispute. This said, questions of applicable law and jurisdiction should not be conflated. Answering the former serves to ensure that a court does not have to apply more than one law, but rather on the of infringement to the law applicable to the such a to ensure that one law is applicable does not in the context of jurisdiction which for more than one The localization exercise has to be when the is committed in a digital online For infringements in courts the have developed to the the where (i) the the (ii) the content be and (iii) the is of criteria are of has in the of on a of including of relevant of an in a national is to is a substantial with a given is it is the the of to the and more of not is that such a be the rise of and for digital In the progressive of the be the of has for it has been to the of the new it is that the be and the of the and In metaverses have been developed which centralized and The distinction is on whether the at issue is and a eg, a whether it is a and decentralized eg, a decentralized as it to the of as the to has the to new to the and application of the criteria The present study is with the of such a study seeks to answer the following questions: the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other dissemination media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is The IPRs are trade and The is to infringements committed of and an and on are and as such an it is that a is through which the questions at the of the present study be answered in terms that are as and as to of relevance to the question of of IPRs online and in the is the of the be and in the alleged IPR infringement that not but the of other than the including are to The study is as and the to the present as well as relevant and of the relevant for the localization of IPR infringements in to and as well as national This a distinction between and registered on digital and online and and on localization for the of determining applicable law where A of the criteria on and of infringement be and the of resulting is with the of and whether the of the find application in relation to new at in as the questions are the one whether the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverses is answered in the affirmative. is submitted that the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaversesâwhile of substantial relevance to the determination of enforcement optionsâmay not have significant implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned. study as a as the courts in in relation to to for the localization of IPR including committed through the are the that substantial in terms of that to a with a given for the of both determining applicable law and the of and enforcement the question whether the has for a more of both at the a of the is a means of a on a to a is a is a between the and of the on the one hand and the rights and to online on the are to to the through to the territorial of the relevant that it more to online in that at the of of the in a for a on the of under law for the of The has which is the second of the that with the of and media and an more than be is to in the and not the more of have not and the application and enforcement of IPRs to inter alia the the of an IPR infringement is The importance of such a which be means of the infringement of both and registered IPRs in cannot be overstated: it is inter alia key to determining (i) whether the right at issue (eg, a registered IPR) is enforceable at the outset, (ii) which law applies to the dispute at hand as well asâin accordance with certain jurisdiction criteriaâ(iii) which courts are competent to adjudicate it. answer it be to a the answer to the following the the the the and the have in it has been are media in the of the are means to disseminate not in a new media have new ways to exploit content and with infringe relevant rights has not relevant and to be and the have to be not to new and have been the to both the and of In terms of and and courts have consistently IPRs applicable to the of through new as an example, the World Intellectual Property Organization and and at to and of on the other digital other the and clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply in the digital not In courts have consistently rights enforceable in digital and online contexts. So, in which the the the has both the relevant rights to the and and applicable in and The same is for that not the rights the for example, not law to to when it the through the of the the under the right has been to be in the context of digital through of the The apply to other IPRs So, the of of a trade for the of infringement has been to courts have not the of rights to in that the to and the as a new of dissemination of content and other in infringement of the IPRs A first in the novel the has been relevant to at of for a Over the of the has been has been technological including the of and the of for digital the to and of the of which is the for and to more than has been the The is to be and the of the and have to the as to the and with and the of advancements and to with the digital the of and with the of such a however, to be For the present it is to that the of does not to a metaverses have been developed which centralized and The distinction is on whether the at issue is and a eg, a whether it is a and decentralized eg, a centralized metaverses content is and to the in accordance with the terms of in decentralized metaverses is to the in relation to such content with the relevant content the that of a as a is and of to be between the of a and that of with the that the of of a to that of a the application of IPRs to media is determining the of an issue that has given rise to when the of such rights in is the one to the localization of alleged infringements as a of In the localization of the infringement to the in which the is to as a of the law applicable to the The localization of the infringement in is relevant to the of the of within the territorial of the and to the jurisdiction of the court the of within the territorial jurisdiction of the In however, questions of applicable law and jurisdiction should not be conflated. Answering the former serves to ensure that a court does not have to apply more than one law, but rather on the of infringement to the law applicable to the such a to ensure that one law is applicable does not in the context of jurisdiction which for more than one be in in online the between centralized and decentralized has given rise to and have been time, present an in terms of In and as an example, has as a to jurisdiction in with to both registered and The localization of the alleged infringement has the of the of the court in accordance with relevant criteria under and national For example, under law, the of the rise to the the where the one of the criteria to jurisdiction under The same is under of the with to between of the both and the courts of the in which the of infringement has been committed inter alia have jurisdiction in relation to the alleged infringement an trade right that the present study seeks to answer the following questions: the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is The IPRs are trade and The is to infringements committed of and an and on be and as such an it is that a is through which the questions at the of the present study be answered in terms that are as and as to of relevance to the question of of IPRs online and in the is the of the be and in the alleged IPR infringement that not but the of other than the including as are to The study is as of in it the relevant for the localization of IPR infringements in to and as well as national a distinction between and registered on digital and online and and on localization for the of determining the territorial of where A of the criteria on the and of infringement be and the of resulting This be relevant to the of the of in the online IPR enforcement with in relation to infringements committed in the including where the and localization of is with the of and whether the of the find application in relation to new at in In for and as a as the courts in in relation to to to the localization of IPR infringements committed through the are the that substantial in terms of that to a with a given for the of both determining applicable law and the of and enforcement the question whether the has for a more of both at the A of which is the of of rights under is territorial nature. In the in given territory on the law of that with to both and This said, the rather and and (eg, in the context of trade a of have the of the between national IPR has not through the of of but in the of IPR enforcement have been on a the a is to the other on enforcement of The in of the are a of following the of the has been a the it and as a IPR enforcement enforcement, have been at the In the the enforcement of in the that it does not that are more to the IPRs with which the present study is and relevant on the localization of a distinction to is that between trade and and registered trade and The present the for infringements of a on the same apply to other the relevant of and national with and enforcement at the the not instruments to a enforcement are the and the in and in the is on the of national and of for of of of the and of first is not that of the a of the of to the localization of The at to and of on the other digital the which with 1 to of the and the as key to and the on and rights the and the to to in and in the both instruments clarified that rights continue to apply in the digital and new online to a certain in to rights in the digital the of on IPRs has in relation to both law for and of and of law determining jurisdiction and applicable law in infringement The former have been through both and The have been through In terms of determination of the law applicable to the infringement of IPRs in in the is in a to determine the applicable law in infringements of the of the of the under The under is relevant to law, the localization of the to The relevant for IPRs and registered national IPRs are in and The in of the is that in a be in the courts of that The in as an that in a be in in to in the courts for the where the The of law in is not to the of the but rather to determine which court has jurisdiction in and in between and to the enforcement of Over time, has a and at it is that the where the be the where the the of the rise to that the be the of the the courts for of is in the law of the and where it is not to a of the should be on the at the rather than that at the of the have in in which the is an localization be that of the country where the relevant has said, the of where to has inter alia implications for the that be the has clarified that if one in an other than the one of of the ie, the where the content is the court is competent to adjudicate on the on that A in with the be in other including law In questions of applicable law are answered in the same as in the given the in in instruments the jurisdiction in be in accordance with a jurisdiction which determining if the is to the where the court is (eg, that the resulting not be under the law of the country where the court is be them. a does not to in the jurisdiction in inter alia needs to be in a which to the of a court to in a on the of the in such a of with inter alia said, the of to jurisdiction with court on of and eg, to the of and where the and the applicable to the to infringement under the in which the alleged infringement an is courts whether to the when determining jurisdiction when the of the are whether the not within the territory to determine law and This said, courts have that it is an under the to content a and the content to the eg, such content for the for registered the to in the of law is a in with the territorial of under law, the localization of the to The relevant for IPRs and registered national IPRs are in and registered the and of the to be in accordance with the law of the country where a national trade is that trade one to to in eg, through application for national in of the concerned. A of the territorial of infringement is not of relevance to it is to that the of for the registered IPRs in the present contribution is to the relevant and and within the and as trade are the under the not eg, the In for a trade to be in relation to and it to the to of the and to with and The of the at the of has the digital in In be the one it not be that for to the other courts in and the of the for to the digital including in the context of and of law developed in that have not a on the localization of IPR infringements and the of the in relation to inter alia national trade for that infringement the of for a of of an be the courts of the in which the of infringement has been committed In the courts of the in which the of infringement is committed have jurisdiction in of of infringement committed within the territory of that with the that the of the territorial jurisdiction of the court is to the that be than if in accordance with where the is The question that is whether, the of of the to infringement the of of infringement within has the same as where the within the In the answered in the that the for jurisdiction to are than within jurisdiction to the courts in the where the to the not in the where such that the in in the such to trade law, it is that the that and of the are not and to where the in is advancements and the of content and the and of have the dissemination and of both and in has a in the in which not content is and but are to the has of in digital have a rights have to a on and the and of content to the with to a has both the between and and and and have in and at both national and In has given rise to insofar as IPR enforcement is including questions of localization of the relevant time, courts have to and and in relation to new and infringement including in the context of eg, infringement In the to of has not resulted in significant of in infringement has more in have criteria to determine (i) the court is competent if it is in a country which the content is (ii) with the courts in the territory where the the and (iii) courts in the territory at which the content is have criteria are in should be that in has as a to determine applicable law and jurisdiction in and in of it be in In relation to both registered and in the of a in to alleged infringements in for of jurisdiction and applicable law has been the of the a certain In the for example, has been the to the infringement of the right and trade is a inter alia the in to the of application of that to of that are not in the A is well under the law of the with the of courts have a in relation to but not to in determining the of the infringement as such when the of the A more of the and is with the in and the the of in which the of infringement the intellectual property right at as to the law of the country where the of at the of the committed have been committed. In the context of online that of the of the of online the for of the said, on in the including to and other the has such a and for a This has been as in relation to (i) the in and in to determine whether the committed for and through a of in a an infringement under the (ii) and the right under of in and and (iii) the right of under of the in of of the in a be eg, the of a certain the content and of the and with in a certain other law and which be it is clarified in the that of the territory be on the at that of one more be on including of a a in that the of the of a relevant an be the of an in the relevant national the of in a in that the of such as in a in that The same that of a the on that be as a substantial to the has been as a to the relevant with the jurisdiction of the court in other For example, courts in the and a that be to the In the courts have consistently the question of whether a is to a country is a which on relevant where a to the the territory of the is territory and is at that be as within the in the of and the of that the of an online be for of to the a and to to the not to in the courts have in other of including trade For example, in the of of and to the in and and and the that to as to the court an for of a trade to of the trade in the territory the registered trade and within the right that if, to the it be that the is at in that the of the the a has been in in relation to the the of of and clarified that of the territory be the to a trade mark, and of the relevant and of the that the localization of the of the alleged IPR infringement be as a jurisdiction This is with to both registered and the has an to the of where the in relation to on a of in the for the of rise to the the has to that such a cannot be as jurisdiction to courts in a in which the alleged has not In the that the rise to the is where the of the for the of the content is In a the one at issue the to such an infringement be localized at the where the that is where the and carried out the to the online on a an been with to national trade in the that the where the rise to the be the where the alleged is This is such a be the where the relevant of infringement relevant be and be a is in with the of in the same in and such an is the of on a to to that present to an enforcement of and rights the jurisdiction the of of the to an to the jurisdiction in The of jurisdiction to the courts in the of the have been both and and the in with the such an In with to online infringement determination of the not be a This is it is more to a under as the has with to jurisdiction within the of infringement for in A has been to the and jurisdiction within insofar as are concerned. that the of is the same as that of for apply with to as the clarified that jurisdiction within is than under of the courts in the where the alleged infringement has been committed have to adjudicate the relevant dispute. of the not be to the of the trade an for on an online that in to be within the of trade law, in an of the application of said, the in and does not and the question of jurisdiction to the of the rise to the it is to the more in and a In the that an for infringement be the courts of the where the the are of whether the for the of the at issue of the to which the rise to the is where the alleged and the of and for not be it jurisdiction of the courts where the is and the jurisdiction of The for of be as in the at which such is of whether a has a is the that courts in that are to whether the alleged infringement does in the clarified the to to and determine the of the court For an of to be at a certain it is not that such are and for to be to other insofar as to with the in which the court of the infringement is is for the court to the of the that of infringement have been committed on the territory of a is it in and be given to the in to of the the of the of a a other than the in the in which the is of with an of on an in to to the that of in other of a other than that of the in which the is of an of in in in as the it is not to determine the of of the at a be the that the the of the of an to A distinction that is relevant to for the of the present is that between of and be not but are to infringe as the are an distinction is The first the of of and as a of In for of in relation to a in the but not the and the that of a of certain of a in an be to not in relation to should the be but at the The second distinction the of of on a does in the be in as are relevant to the of IPRs in the including in in which are to and be the localization of the In the in in with in the context of in and is to to the of For example, if one an of and that terms of a answer insofar as is out of developed through in with the of of for is when on enforcement including are not the A of the on the and localization to and to an and more of the in the enforcement to the of IPRs and the that such a has given rise be in with to IPR localization and enforcement to the In the second of the of of and the for a of the that carried out of The as including has been including in relation to For example, in the which in and insofar as certain are are not for infringements committed of In the the at a and online means of the and of online and the in the have been the of the a example, in law for in relation to including a be that the of has certain as a of the of and relevant For example, the in to with that with the example, in the the a of the it a of law in inter alia a in on the and as the are In the of an in for the in accordance with the as the in a where the content is if it is on the out eg, if the content is on a and is to the The in in which the that such a not been the in and that it is not in application to certain (eg, In however, it should be that other law has the in the but not For example, the application of the in a the of certain as a published on the The that of the the and for a that the of an to determine not have a within the of the In the the has the of the the that the at issue does not an which is such as to it of the In where the relevant is of the be on a In the of means that it be a for to said, in the for the first that the of an that the of content be on a for The clarified that the of of a under on the of which to that the of the is both and to the of whether the (i) technological that be a in the at issue to infringements on and (ii) in content to the (iii) for the of content such which be the that the has a that of to content to the that The that a has that content be is and is the that it on a in the to a if a has a and the has to to that In the the of under trade law with to an online that for
Decentralized Applications (DApps) refer to computer programs that operate on blockchain platforms and are designed to handle significant amounts of money, facilitate transactions involving valuable assets, and oversee the transfer of digital rights among numerous parties. DApps provide a trustless environment for autonomous, transparent, and fully traceable exchange of value. Many traditional industries, such as finance, energy, and supply chain, are expected to be revolutionized by this new technology. Yet, in reality, the trustworthiness of DApps is under constant threats, with people losing millions of dollars. In this presentation, I will demonstrate how the security and fairness in the DApp world are both due to the mismanaged conflicting interests between contending parties. I will also present solutions we have developed in the past few years and suggest potential future directions.
Abstract With the addition of multiple blockchain platforms in the ecosystem, the Dapp owners need to migrate their smart contracts from one platform to another to remain competitive , cost-effective, and secure. A smart contract is a piece of code that contain logic and data. To migrate a smart contract, whether itâs on the same blockchain platform or a different one, we need both its source code that represents the logic and data which indicate the state of the contract. The source code can be easily set up, but to complete the migration, we have to extract the current state of the contract. In this paper, we have developed an advanced state extraction technique that uses static analysis to analyze the smart contractâs call graph and events, and extracts the entire storage state from the storage trie, along with the proper associations across function calls, enabling users to visualize, manage, and transform the state as desired for migration. The soundness of the extracted state was confirmed using the method of abstract interpretation. Further, the migration adapter is designed that transform extracted state into slot-value pair and migrated it to the target blockchain. Our new approach has allowed us to analyze 14% more smart contracts with the extraction of 15% more data from 67,993 contracts, and migrate some of them to the Polygon test-net.
Based on the concept of contract separation proposed by OpenZeppelin platform, this thesis realizes on-chain upgrading by splitting the complete smart contract into main contract and agent contract. Taking the digital certificate smart contract as an example, this paper proposes the design and implementation of an upgradable digital certificate smart contract based on Ethereum. This method can be used to upgrade on-chain at a lower cost and improve the security and maintainability of the smart contract when there are code vulnerabilities or the need to expand the service. Experimental results show that the digital certificate smart contract designed based on this paper can realize the full life cycle of on-chain upgrade, while not affecting the normal invocation of users.
This article describes the combination of the current set of MPEG-21 multimedia framework standards with distributed ledger technologies and smart contracts. Their gathering shapes the smart contracts for media, a specification that can be used to encode the terms and conditions of a contract for media-related delivery and consumption. We provide the implementation of a system based on the smart contract for media to enable the twofold process of reducing the complexity of contract terms compliance validation and making stakeholders more aware of the media value chain. We also provide the technical details for a video-on-demand services use case in which the exploitation of media rights is modeled through the MPEG-21 framework and the smart contract for media. Finally, we perform an evaluation of our smart contracts implementation by analyzing the gas cost. Results suggest the viability of our approach.
In order to solve the problems of copyrights infringement, high cost and complex process of rights protection in current media convergence center, a digital rights management system based on blockchain technology and IPFS (Inter Planetary File System) technology is proposed. Considering that large files such as video and audio cannot be stored on the blockchain directly, IPFS technology is adopted as the data expansion scheme for the data storage layer of the Ethereum platform, IPFS protocol is further used for distributed data storage and transmission of media content. In addition, smart contract is also used to uniquely identify digital rights through NFT (Non-fungible Tokens), which provides the characteristics of digital rights transferability and traceability, and realizes an open, transparent, tamper-proof and traceable digital rights management system for media convergence center. Several experimental results show that it has higher transaction success rate, lower storage consumption and transaction confirmation delay than existing scheme.
Open access
Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
When migrating smart contracts from one blockchain platform to another, there are potential security risks. This is because different blockchain platforms have different environments and characteristics for executing smart contracts. The focus of this paper is to study the security risks associated with the migration of smart contracts from Ethereum to Arbitrum. We collected relevant data and analyzed smart contract migration cases to explore the differences between Ethereum and Arbitrum in areas such as Arbitrum cross-chain messaging, block properties, contract address alias, and gas fees. From the 36 types of smart contract migration cases we identified, we selected four typical types of cases and summarized their security risks. The research shows that smart contracts deployed on Ethereum may face certain potential security risks during migration to Arbitrum, mainly due to issues inherent in public blockchain characteristics, such as outdated off-chain data obtained by the inactive sequencer, logic errors based on time, failed permission checks, and denial of service (DOS) attacks. To mitigate these security risks, we proposed avoidance methods and provided considerations for users and developers to ensure a secure migration process. It is worth noting that this study is the first to conduct an in-depth analysis of the secure migration of smart contracts from Ethereum to Arbitrum.
Vimal Dwivedi, Mubashar Iqbal, Alex Norta, Raimundas MatuleviÄius
Blockchain governs inter-organizational business processes and enables decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) with governance capabilities via smart contracts (SC). Due to the programmer’s lack of prior knowledge of the contract domain, SCs are ambiguous and error-prone. Several works, i.e., SPESC, Symboleo, and SmaCoNat, exist to support the legally-binding SCs. The aforementioned SCLs present intriguing approaches to building legally-binding SCs but either lack domain completeness, or are intended for non-collaborative business processes. In our previous work, we address the above-mentioned shortcomings of the XML-based smart-legal-contract markup language (SLCML), in which blockchain developers focus on the contractual workflow rather than the syntax specifics. However, SLCML, as a blockchain-independent formal specification language, is not evaluated to determine its applicability, usefulness, and usability for establishing legally-binding SCs for workflow enactment services (WES) to automate and streamline the business processes within connected organizations. In accordance with this, we formally implement the SLCML and propose evaluation approaches, such as running case and lab experiments, to demonstrate the SLCML’s generality and applicability for developing legally-binding SCs. Overall, the results of this work ascertain the applicability, usefulness, and usability of the proposed SLCML for establishing legally-binding SCs for WES.
Mallellu Sai Prashanth, Seetha Srujana, V. Uma Maheswari, Rajanikanth Aluvalu
Blockchain technology has gained significant attention due to its decentralized and transparent nature. However, ensuring secure user authentication and authorization in blockchain-based systems remains a critical challenge. This research paper presents an innovative authentication and authorization framework implemented as the âAuthContractâ smart contract. The framework leverages the Solidity programming language and Ethereum blockchain platform to provide a robust solution for managing user access and privileges. The Auth- Contract enables the addition of new users by administrators, user authentication based on password hashing, and role-based authorization for accessing system resources. The contractâs functionalities are carefully designed to ensure security and prevent unauthorized access. Through an evaluation of the contractâs features and an analysis of potential vulnerabilities, this research paper demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed framework in achieving secure authentication and authorization in blockchain-based systems. The findings contribute to the advancement of secure user management practices and pave the way for enhanced security in decentralized applications and blockchain ecosystems.
Mallellu Sai Prashanth, Seetha Srujana, V. Uma Maheswari, Rajanikanth Aluvalu
The increasing reliance on web applications has led to a growing concern for their security vulnerabilities. Traditional security auditing processes often suffer from limitations such as manual intervention, lack of transparency, and centralized control. To address these challenges, we propose a novel approach utilizing blockchain technology and smart contracts to perform security auditing for web applications in a decentralized and transparent manner. The smart contract, named âWebAppSecurityAudit,â facilitates the auditing process by allowing users to conduct security audits on web applications. The contract leverages the Ethereum blockchain and employs the Solidity programming language. The contractâs core functionality includes creating and retrieving audits, storing audit details on the blockchain, and emitting events for audit notifications. The novelty of the proposed approach lies in several aspects. Firstly, by utilizing smart contracts, the proposed model eliminate the need for intermediaries or centralized authorities, ensuring a trustless and transparent auditing process. Auditors can directly interact with the contract, creating audits and storing the results on the blockchain. Web application owners can verify the audit details independently, increasing trust and accountability. Secondly, the proposed approach enables a decentralized audit record system. The use of blockchain technology ensures immutability and tamper-proof storage of audit information. This feature enhances the integrity of audit records, making them resistant to manipulation or unauthorized modifications. Thirdly, the contract introduces the concept of auditorsâ addresses and web application addresses, associating audits with specific entities. This association allows for efficient retrieval of audit details and enables traceability in case of disputes or inquiries. In conclusion, the proposed smart contract-based security auditing approach offers a decentralized, transparent, and tamper-proof solution for assessing the security of web applications.
Augusto Sampaio, Pedro Antonino, Juliandson Ferreira, Filipe Arruda ¡ 5 authors
We present a framework that supports the safe deployment and upgrade of smart contracts based on the design-by-contract paradigm. The starting point is an interface specification with invariants and pre- and postconditions for each function. The first deployed smart contract must conform to this specification. Specification evolution might involve both changing the data representation as well as extending the interface with new functions, provided the evolved specification is a refinement of the original one. Implementation evolution must conform to the corresponding specification. We report on the applicability of the framework in the verification of smart contracts that implement some Ethereum standards.
Jens Hunhevicz, David F. Bucher, Ranjith K. Soman, Meliha Honic ¡ 6 authors
Long-term access to lifecycle data is key to a successful transition towards a circular built environment. However, the underlying technology often remains centralized and risks becoming inaccessible over time. In this paper, we investigate whether decentralized access methods using Web3, i.e. blockchain and decentralized data storage protocols, can help to mitigate this limitation. We implement Web3 data access mechanisms for a material passport with both a role-based and a token-based smart contract. Initial results suggest that Web3 offers a promising approach to data access over the lifecycle of a built asset - but only with careful design choices.
During the past years a concept that has emerged in the Blockchain space is tokenization, which is the process of transforming ownerships and rights of assets owned by an individual into a digital form. Thanks to tokenization, internet services can now leverage access control systems that do not grant access based on identity (who you are) but rather on ownership (what you own). These types of systems can be classified as Ownership Based Access Control (OBAC) systems. The aim of this project is to prove the viability and compatibility with the current authorization paradigm of these kind of systems by implementing an access control enforcement service for digital resources based on the ownership of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). The results show that OBAC is feasible and can be integrated with the existing industry-standard protocols for authorization. It has been proved that, by using OBAC users no longer have to disclose their identity when accessing a service, resulting in improved privacy. Furthermore, access to a digital service becomes transferable and tradeable if its access is based on ownership of a NFT.
Enrico Ferro, Marco Saltarella, Domenico Rotondi, Marco Giovanelli ¡ 8 authors
Intellectual property rights (IPR) management needs to evolve in a digital world where not only companies but also many independent content creators contribute to our culture with their art, music, and videos. In this respect, blockchain has recently emerged as a promising infrastructure providing a trustworthy and immutable environment that, thanks to smart contracts, may enable more agile management of digital rights and streamline royalty payments. However, no widespread consensus has been reached on the ability of this technology to adequately manage and transfer IPR. This paper presents an innovative approach to digital rights management developed within the scope of an international research endeavour co-financed by the European Commission named MediaVerse. The approach proposes the combined usage of smart legal contracts and blockchain smart contracts to take care of the legally-binding contractual aspects of IPR and, at the same time, the need for notarization, rights transfer, and royalty payments. The work conducted represents a contribution to advancing the current literature on IPR management that may lead to an improved and fairer monetization process for content creators as a means of individual empowerment.