Blockchain Papers

Jorge Feliú Rey

No abstract is available for this record.

Erik Zenner

No abstract is available for this record.

Germaine Blum

No abstract is available for this record.

Edmund Schuster

No abstract is available for this record.

Charlotta Kronblad, Helena Haapio

Smart contracts are becoming all smarter and increasingly available. Yet there seems to be a reluctance in mainstream industry to actually use them. It seems hard to convince general counsel, law firms, and purchasers of legal services to implement smart systems. This is a challenge for the providers of smart technology. The technology is not the problem - successful implementation is. The aim of this paper is to explore the resistance and gatekeepers within the legal industry, potentially resulting in a better understanding of how to overcome the barriers and use available smart technology. © 2018 Editions Weblaw. All rights reserved.

Simon Geiregat

Bitcoin werkt omdat personen spelregels afspreken over haar werking. De waarde van bitcoins vindt geen grondslag in data, maar in een meerpartijenovereenkomst. De houder van een Bitcoinportemonnee is bijgevolg een schuldeiser, net zoals de houder van een zichtrekening. Een schuldeiser mag zich in België eigenaar van zijn recht noemen. Bitcoins zijn bijgevolg geen onlichamelijke goederen sui generis. Hun goederenrechtelijk statuut valt integendeel terug op dat van schuldvorderingen.

Carlos Enrique Tur Faúndez

La cadena de bloques y los smart contracts se hallan hoy en boca de todos y, en nuestra opinion, son muchos los motivos para ello por cuanto constituyen, ciertamente, una tecnologia disruptiva y con un extraordinario potencial. Sin embargo, se hace necesario conocer en profundidad sus fundamentos tecnologicos, su verdadero alcance y su posible integracion en el mundo juridico, para lo que es preciso poner los pies en el suelo y aceptar de una vez por todas que, en este asunto, el Derecho y la Informatica estan condenados a entenderse.Los smart contracts son codigo y nada mas que codigo, no obstante lo cual, la mayoria de ellos son creados con la finalidad de ejecutar automaticamente los acuerdos alcanzados por las partes. Para ello, se requiere una nueva categoria, el contrato legal inteligente, que existira unica y exclusivamente en el instante en que las partes acepten los terminos y condiciones previamente acordados.El contrato legal inteligente se construye sobre la estructura de un smart contract subyacente, pero su alcance va mucho mas alla, por lo que es imprescindible el analisis de su formacion y de los elementos que imperativamente lo componen. El incumplimiento de los requisitos legales conducira, inevitablemente, a los smart contracts ante los organos jurisdiccionales, e irrogara perjuicios absolutamente innecesarios.

Jeffrey M. Lipshaw

“Smart contracts” are a hot topic. Presently, smart contracts are mostly evidence of property, like cryptocurrencies or mortgages, created and/or transferred using blockchain technology. This is an exploration of the theoretical possibilities of artificial intelligence in a far broader range of complex and heretofore negotiated transactions that occur over time. My goal is to understand what it means to make a contract smarter, i.e. to delegate more and more of the creation, performance, and disposition of legally binding transactions to machine thinking. Moreover, I want to do so from the perspective of one who is neither a true believer in the purported technological singularity to come nor a digital Luddite.

Charlotte R. Young

Society is progressing at a rapid pace. As math and science evolve, new technologies begin to utilize these advances and create something novel. These technological changes are revolutionizing not only the science-oriented industries, but also the humanities. One such example falls within the legal arena. More specifically, the exciting advent of smart contracts and their use of technological changes are altering the way law is processed and practiced. However, as is often the case, new technological innovations spur certain growing pains. The implementation of smart contracts is proving no different. Some view the smart contract as the start of a more ideal society. With the aid of smart contracts and blockchain technology, machines can finally be equipped to fulfill some of the most basic human functions. Not only would business transactions always occur in a timely, seamless, and cost-effective manner, but also more mundane life tasks, such as ordering laundry detergent, could soon be done via smart contract technology. As exciting as these changes may be, smart contracts and the blockchain technology behind them are still immature. Before this legal phenomenon is widely accepted, there needs to be more advancement in not only the code that creates the technology, but also in the law and its regulations. As it stands today, smart contracts are most likely to be accepted only in part, and heavily tailored to meet each contracting party’s needs. This Note will start by giving an overview of the technology needed to implement smart contracts—blockchain technology—and an explanation of how smart contracts fit within the framework of a blockchain. Next, this Note will discuss some of the major issues smart contracts face. Such issues include: the need to translate natural language into computer code, the traditional concept of contracting in conjunction with the effect of smart contracts on traditional legal notions, and reoccurring enforcement issues. After discussing smart contracts and the current issues barring wide-spread acceptance, this Note will explore the future of smart contracts in the legal arena by analogizing such an electronic contracting change to the now-widely accepted electronic clickwrap agreements. Additionally, this Note will explore recently enacted state statutes that create favorable legal conditions for smart contracts and what impact, if any, these statutes may have upon federal legislation. Furthermore, this Note will analyze the lack of and potential need for regulations regarding smart contracts. In an attempt to make smart contracts acceptable, this Note will suggest future regulations focus on two components of smart contracts. As it will be discussed, regulations should require smart contracts to utilize a permissioned ledger and focus on ensuring the legal requirement of mutuality between the two contracting parties. Lastly, this Note will conclude that although the publicity surrounding smart contracts is exciting and innovative, this form of contracting is likely to remain in a controlled business environment with implementation under select circumstances.

Evgeniy Shishkin

We describe our efforts towards building a tool that automatically verify high-level functional properties of Ethereum smart contracts against its formal specification that can be given using four different methods: an invariant over contract state or three different types of trace properties. A model of runtime system, the source code of smart contract together with its specification is translated into SMT-solver formula and checked for counter example. We tested the method on simplified version of notorious TheDAO smart-contract, called MiniDAO. Our proof-of-concept tool was able to find a functional property violation of MiniDAO in just several seconds. We believe that the proposed method is indeed useful and deserves deeper investigation.

Jason Grant Allen

No abstract is available for this record.

Dimitrios Linardatos

No abstract is available for this record.

Mykyta Sokolov

No abstract is available for this record.

David Berger

No abstract is available for this record.

Jewan Kim

No abstract is available for this record.

Martin Heckelmann

No abstract is available for this record.

Dhiren Patel, Keivan Shah, Sanket Shanbhag, Vasu Mistry

No abstract is available for this record.

Mirjam Eggen

No abstract is available for this record.

David Fox

Abstract This chapter focuses on the characterisation and treatment of cryptocurrencies in the common law of property, using Bitcoin as the main example. It first examines how a crypto-coin might be viewed as an object of property, and more specifically whether it could make a suitable object for any regime of property rights at all, before discussing the fungibility, specificity, scarcity and exclusivity of cryptocurrencies in the context of property law. It then considers whether crypto-coins fall into either of the two conventionally recognised categories of personal property: choses in possession or choses in action. It also explores the applicability of rules of derivative transfer of title to crypto-coin transactions, and how the standard rules of following and tracing may be used for the identification and tracing of cryptocurrencies through mixtures. Finally, it looks at remedies available at common law and in equity for enforcing titles to cryptocurrencies.

Eric Tjong Tjin Tai

Abstract: A classic legal problem is whether breach of contract may give rise to a remedy. Under common law this is discussed under the doctrine of excuses. Its civil lawequivalent is the attributability of causes of non-performance of an obligation, and its converse, force majeure. Despite the variety of approaches in various jurisdictions, the general outlines are roughly equivalent as far as translation into smart contracts is concerned: the main issue is what is the cause of non-performance and whether this cause can be attributed. Smart contracts can deal with the general outline of this structure, but may in practice only approximate the refinement that contract law offers. Themain problems are: determining the actual cause of the non-performance by means of automated oracles or the smart contract on its own (without relying on human judgment), dealing with multiple causality and impediments due to the creditor, determining attributability of the cause of non-performance. Smart contracts may offer no more than an approximation of the detailed rules of contract law, by hard-and-fast rules. This may suffice for certain categories of contracts, but may need additional effort to obtain a closer approximation of contract law rules where larger interests are concerned. The related doctrine of withholding performance is similarly difficult to realize appropriately in smart contracts. As regards hardship or unforeseen circumstances, it is best to disallow this in smart contracts,which leaves open the questionwhether partiesmight go to court for relief. The reliance on oracles furthermore opens a weakness to the automatic performance of smart contracts, due to possible liability of oracles for perceived incorrect assessment.

Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci, Paulius Jurčys, George Kousiouris

No abstract is available for this record.

Helen Eenmaa, María José Schmidt-Kessen

Smart contracts, self-executing agreements based on blockchain technology, have the capacity to create trust in what we term no-trust contracting environments. We argue that using them in such environments is the path to unleash the full potential of smart contracts. Compared to the contract enforcement mechanisms characterized by traditional contract law or relational contracts, smart contracts can offer a superior solution for facilitating trade. Several lawyers and economists have debated whether smart contracts might offer the prospect of cheaper, faster and better transactions. As we discuss below, contract law scholars caution that they neither replicate the relational context essential for the day-to-day practice of contracting nor offer a superior solution to problems addressed by traditional contract law, such as contract validity and legality. We clarify and systematize the current thinking on the legal nature and reliability of smart contracts, and address the concerns of contract law scholars. While doing that, we suggest a step forward in characterizing contracting environments, contract enforcement mechanisms and the trust relationship underlying contracts.

Christian Twigg‐Flesner

INTRODUCTION Much has been said about the effect of disruptive technology on business. In this contribution, an attempt is made to consider, in general terms, the implications of ‘disruptive technology’ for the law, particularly contract law. The particular disruptive technology focused on in this contribution is more of a ‘disruptive development’: the so-called digital revolution, and the new business opportunities and production methods which have emerged from the increasing digitalisation of so many activities, not least by utilising the potential of the Internet combined with smart-technology. These developments undoubtedly pose interesting challenges for contract law, particularly established paradigms forming the basis of many legal rules. This analysis begins by exploring the notion of disruptive technology, before considering the general challenges for, and possible responses by, the law as a result of new developments in technology or business practice. It will then highlight the main novelties of the digital revolution and turn to some of the specific legal issues which the digital revolution seems to create and consider potential legal responses. The key argument of this contribution is that there is a danger of rushing towards introducing new legal rules in response to new developments without rigorous consideration of the specific issues for both businesses and consumers which are created by things such as the digital revolution. Once these issues have been fully scoped, any legal responses need to be calibrated carefully so as to deal with these issues in a focused manner – there is a risk that, in the rush to provide a legal response, more problems might be created than solved. DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY Before considering the impact of the digital revolution on contract law, a few words should be said about the meaning of ‘disruptive technology’, a term used frequently in this context. This notion has gained prominence in the writings of Clayton Christensen, and focuses on the way technological developments can affect the way existing business models operate. In brief, Christensen distinguishes between two types of technological evolution: first, there is ‘sustaining technology’, by which he means technology which is evolving gradually or simply improving established technologies, particularly their performance. In contrast, ‘disruptive technology’ is a new type of technology, which, when first introduced, might be less reliable than established technologies, but will become reliable rapidly.

Andreas Glarner, Stephan Meyer

Die Entwicklung von Blockchain-Technologie und Smart-Contract-Applikationen macht es erstmals möglich, Softwaresysteme zu bauen, welche das dezentrale Halten und Transferieren von Vermögenswerten ohne Intermediäre erlauben. Die Autoren zeigen in diesem Beitrag anhand verschiedener Fallgruppen auf, wie Smart Contracts im Rahmen von Escrow-Verhältnissen genutzt werden können und welche rechtlichen Fragen sich dabei stellen.