Blockchain, A Swiftly Evolving Technology, Be Controlled

The accelerating technology rapid advancement produces massive leaps in understanding, technology and possibilities. It also creates new opportunities and most likely, legal issues. It’s the same with blockchain technology, the most talked-about technological tool.

In 2008, it was first introduced as the technology behind Bitcoin which is a digital currency. That is develop and maintain electronically without central. Authority Blockchain is a secure digital ledger that can store any type of information. It streamlines the process of keeping records and cuts down on transaction costs.

Its applications in finance, commerce and even politics continue to expand. Which has brought about a debate on how to regulate this instrument.

Goodbye Middleman Technology

Because it doesn’t need an authority centrally controlled to validate and verify transactions. Blockchain allows people who might not be able to trust one the other to collaborate and communicate directly.

Blockchain technology means there’s no intermediary in exchanges between peer-to-peer and instead. Users depend on an uncentralize computer network that communicates via a secure, cryptographic protocol.

Blockchain is able to codify transactions by deploying tiny snippets of code to the blockchain. The code, commonly call smart contracts or smart contract, executes automatically when certain requirements met.

A prime example of smart contracts are corporate-focus digital rights management (DRM) systems that restrict the use for digital documents. A DRM-enabled ebook might limit the editing, copying and printing the content.

Smart contracts that are based on blockchain are becoming more complicated and, potentially more secure. In theory, they’ll perform exactly as they were design to as no one is able to change. The rules that govern a specific transaction.

Practice Eliminating Trustworthy Brokers Technology

However, in practice eliminating trustworthy brokers from transactions could result in some friction. One of the most well-known smart-contract issues occurred to the DAO. Which is a decentralise autonomous organization for venture capital financing.

The DAO was launch in April 2016 and in April 2016, the DAO quickly raise. More than US$150 million through crowdfunding. A few weeks later an individual was able to exploit an insecure code. And drained around US$50 millions worth of cryptocurrency from its fund.

The security issues did not start within the blockchain but more from problems. With the smart-contract software that is use to manage the DAO.

Concerns were raise about the lawfulness of the action there was some debate. That because the hack was allow by the smart-contract software, it was perfectly legal act. In the world of online world, code is law.

Discussions in the DAO debate raised this crucial issue: does the intent of the code predominate over the language used in the code?

Blockchain advocates envision a world that sees entire corporations and government agencies operate in a decentralized and automated way.

Smart contracts, however, have a number of issues regarding enforceability, which are detailed in a new white paper published by Norton Rose Fulbright, the London Law company Norton Rose Fulbright.

How do we settle disputes that arise from the self-executing smart contract? How can we determine which kinds of terms of contracts are able to be translated correctly in code? And which should be left to the natural language? Do we have a way to both?

It’s not entirely evident that code is able to address the complexity levels required in order to replace legal language. The ambiguity inherent in the law’s language is a good thing rather than a flaw and compensates for unclear instances that have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the courts of law.

Traditional contracts recognize that no law can comprehend the entirety of the world as it is and even predict the future course of its development. They also define precisely the conditions that are applied by law.

Smart contracts, on the other hand they are merely fragments of code that are specified and enforced by the code that is the foundation of the blockchain infrastructure. At present, they don’t have any legal status. That means that if there is a problem with an intelligent contract, the parties do not have recourse under law. The DAO’s founders suffocated to learn this lesson the previous year.

The Friction Between The Creative And The Law

If blockchain technologies ever to become widespread the government will have create new legal frameworks that can handle these complexities.

Positive law imposes rules of conduct and penalizes those who do not comply. It could be a synthesis of the ideals that the government is trying to attain, show an ethical perspective for society, or strengthen how power is distributed within the present regime.

Technological advancements however tend to be geared towards profits and changes.

There’s a tension inherent in this. The laws can hinder the advancement of technology and thus impede the competitive edge of an entrepreneur, or the state.

Let’s look at the regulation of nanotechnology in European Union versus in the United States. European law is able to limit risks that it could limit the potential of nanotechnology, and decreasing its competitive advantage against the US. Another fact about the law: it’s slow as well as reactive. It may be a huge irritation.

Technology Advancements

However, ever since the technological advancements started to accelerate with an exponential curve in the over the past century, the law has played a crucial part in helping societies to adhere to previously agreed-upon standards for cohabitation.

Our legal system can appear outdated in the current fast-paced world. However, before we change our laws to adapt to new technologies that could (re)define the way we live, it’s important to allow to debate and give enough time for social debates to occur.

The law is a source of creating friction. It allows us to regain our control over technological advances. With all the excitement surrounding blockchain technology, it’s likely that those interested will soon be able to be seeking legal recognition and state-sanctioned enforcement of smart contracts.

These new technologies are too new to be examine in a sufficient depth examination of their social economic, and political consequences. Also, more time is need to evaluate how blockchain can be use in a advantageous manner.

Blockchain technology could be a key element of the future society. The system of law as slow as it is could be the perfect solution in this moment for ensuring that this revolutionary tool is utilize in a manner that is consistent with establish values and principles and with the common good at the heart of its.

Comments are closed.

Post Navigation