DOCSLIB.ORG

Blockchain, Smart Contracts and DAO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Blockchain, Smart Contracts and DAO Blockchain, smart contracts and DAO A few words about blockchain governance Maciej Jędrzejczyk, Karolina Marzantowicz (IBM) In school they used to tell us that mathematics was the queen of the sciences. The development of distributed ledger technologies (DLT) shows how true this is. One of the main advantages of this technology is the decentralised trust written into the source code of the IT programme. With this, in the age of the digital economy, we can move from a state where central persons, institutions and organisations serve as trusted third parties, to a state where their role is assumed by algorithms of decentralised consensus, i.e. mathematics. One form of DLT is blockchain. The network (numbers of participants) within the blockchain technology is leading the growth of main roles that will be involved in the information systems and digital commun- implemented process served by the function- ications in the direction of large-scale ing network. This has to do particularly with decentralisation. The human factor is mini- “miners,” who solve increasingly difficult mised, and trust and accuracy of transactions mathematical tasks in order to take part in the are ensured through cryptography. process of verifying transactions and entering With the significance of this technology, it a block in the ledger. The person who solves needs to be examined in terms of the the task first is rewarded by adding the appro- governance under which new business models priate value in bitcoins to his wallet. and sectors of the economy will arise. This will The proof-of-work algorithm assumes that the allow us to identify the fundamental accumulation of resources in the network will characteristics and risks of solutions based on not exceed 51%. But as the degree of the tasks public and private blockchains. rises, miners group together into “mining Public blockchain, or creeping pools” in which each miner solves only part of oligarchisation the problem and the reward is divided among all of them. Currently the four largest mining A characteristic feature of a public blockchain pools include over 65% of all miners involved is the lack of components for managing this in solving problems in the Bitcoin network. If solution. This influences the functioning and one entity took control over the majority of maintenance of the whole system. Decentral- the resources verifying transactions, it could isation and distributed architecture counteract exploit these resources to dictate conditions to the concentration of power that could be the rest of the network. gathered by a single person, role or organisa- tion. This also increases the reliability of the The increasing number of mining pools is system because of the lack of critical a serious threat to decentralisation and the components (no single point of failure). fundamental principles of a public blockchain. A group (or organisation) possessing most of Unfortunately, this solution does not exclude the resources performing proof-of-work grouping and accumulation of resources of the calculations could manipulate the value of 12 verified blocks (insert false transactions or management of privacy is required. A private throw out true transactions). This is not just or “permissioned” blockchain provides the a hypothesis, as demonstrated by the recent possibility of extending DLT to include unsuccessful attack on the Krypton network, components such as management of where the attackers relied on computing participants and privacy. A private blockchain power rented in the cloud to interfere with the is most often created by a consortium or integrity of the blockchain and the state of defined group of participants. They determine holdings of the cryptocurrency KR. who can function in the network and under Moreover, public networks cannot choose what rules. Moreover, a network in which the who decides on consensus, or expose and participants are not anonymous can use algorithms other than proof of work for monitor the identity of the nodes. For many business organisations subject to strict regula- distributed verification of transactions, such as tions this rules a public blockchain out of their Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. consideration. An example is the open project Hyperledger, Anonymity and privacy – the fundamental realised by the Linux Foundation. In the difference between public and private proposed Hyperledger Fabric architecture, blockchain governance there are functioning components responsible A public blockchain affords participants in the for management of the participants and their network anonymity secured by cryptography. privacy and for issuance of certificates used for The irreversible ledger may be a repository for signing transactions and smart contracts so documents, contracts, title deeds and other that the details are visible only to the parties to assets. Blockchain may be used to place the given transaction. The functions of information and instructions with a wide range verifying node and passive node have also of applications. The potential applications of been separated, enabling greater oversight of this technology extend far beyond actors participating in the consensus and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The fields of holding a full copy of the register based on the application of the DLT paradigm are blockchain. As transactions are recognised potentially countless, because it enables only after authorisation at numerous levels decentralisation of verification and storage of (signing of certificates, authentication of transactions of all kinds between parties on identity), “membership services” generally a global scale. permit controlled access to the network, thus eliminating the anonymity of the nodes. At the But in many sectors of the economy where the same time, this type of service can guarantee blockchain technology could have the privacy of transactions by distribution of applications, the participants cannot remain anonymous. transaction certificates which encrypt a confidential transaction between two specific When conducting business or providing public parties, rendering it illegible to others. It services, we typically know (and want to know) should be pointed out that all these features our supplier and customer. Anonymity is are integrated with the traditional advantages neither necessary nor desired. In solutions that of the distributed ledger and consensus are divided and distributed among all algorithms. participants in the network, appropriate 13 Business logic entered in blockchain, or Other problems should also be mentioned, smart contracts arising out of the ability of business One of the new features popularised with the organisations to comply with existing legal Ethereum project is the concept of smart regulations, which often require that certain contracts, i.e. compiled programming code specific behaviours be included in the business a copy of which is entered in the blockchain process, such as disclosure of the parties to the ledger and whose content represents the rules contract, the privacy of transactions, or for executing transactions between the parties. regulated access to data. Once distributed in the decentralised network, Smart contracts in public and private the smart contract is launched on all nodes as blockchains an executable programme, and the specific In the case of networks based on a public function provided for by the author is blockchain, the correctness of the transaction launched. between the parties is determined exclusively It can thus be said that a smart contract is by the consensus of the network. The a digital representation of the rules or influence of organisations making up the processes functioning within a given business membership of the given network is negligible, organisation that regulate the execution and and without obtaining a supermajority of the course of transactions. The blockchain capacity of the network (e.g. 51% of the hash technology serves here as an irrefutable ledger rate in the case of networks based on proof- of contracts governed by smart contracts. This of-work consensus) there is no practical context also raises the possibility of instant possibility of recognition of certain (and practically cost-free) execution of transactions or agreements executed by smart transactions between parties seeking to main- contracts as defective or invalid. This problem tain anonymity, resolution of disputes without lay at the heart of the incident of The DAO in involving a trusted third party but relying on June/July 2016. The discovery of a smart the transparency of the blockchain, and even contract susceptible to an attack by hackers automatic conclusion of contracts without (and exploitation of that susceptibility by an involvement of the human factor. unknown perpetrator to drain over USD 60 New technology, new problems, new million in cryptocurrency) caused a battle challenges lasting several weeks for agreement on what remediation (if any) should be applied. The irrefutability of contracts unfortunately A problem in and of itself was to achieve the does not eliminate potential legal problems. As agreement of the entire community, which in the case of any entity operating in displayed irreconcilable interests. Without commercial life, fundamental aspects of a process in place for dealing with an incident a comparative analysis of public and private of a defectively written smart contract, a blockchains in this context include: decision was taken for direct intervention in Clear identification
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Securing the Chain
    Securing the chain KPMG International kpmg.com/blockchain360 Foreword It’s no secret that blockchain1 is a potential game changer in financial services and other industries. This is evident by the US$1B investment2 in the technology last year alone. Or the fact that you don’t have to look very far for blockchain use cases, which are as diverse as a foreign exchange market in financial services to the pork supply chain in consumer retailing. Some even see blockchain as a “foundational” technology set to disrupt, enable and change business processing, as we know it across industries. To date, much of the blockchain frenzy has centered on its vast transformative potential across entire industries. So, organizations have focused squarely on “how” they can use blockchain for business. Yet, as more proof of concepts move toward practical implementations and cyber threats rapidly grow in number and sophistication, security and risk management can no longer take a backseat. In addition to “how”, the question then becomes, “Is blockchain secure for my business?” Simply put, it can be. But, not by just turning the key. Security will depend on a variety of factors, none the least of which requires a robust risk management framework. Consider, for example, that as many as half of vulnerability exploitations occur within 10 to 100 days after they are published according to one study3. Then add in the number of threats that are already known. Next, factor in the plethora of unknowns that accompany emerging technologies and you quickly see why a comprehensive view of your risk and threat landscape is necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Report Brief
    A REVOLUTION IN TRUST Distributed Ledger Technology in Relief & Development MAY 2017 “The principal challenge associated with [DLT] is a lack of awareness of the technology, especially in sectors other than banking, and a lack of widespread understanding of how it works.” - Deloitte Executive Summary1 The Upside In 2016, the blockchain was recognized as one of the top 10 In a recent report, Accenture surveyed emerging technologies by the World Economic Forum.2 The cost data from eight of the world’s ten potential of the blockchain and distributed ledger technology largest investment banks, with the goal of putting a dollar figure against potential (hereinafter “DLT”) to deliver benefits is significant. Gartner cost savings that might be achieved with estimates that DLT will result in $176 billion in added business DLT. The report concluded that the value by 2025; that total reaches $3.1 trillion by 2030.3 banks analyzed could reduce infrastructure costs by an average $8 to Investment in the field reflects the widespread belief that the $12 billion a year. The survey mapped technology can deliver value. Numerous trials, and some more than 50 operational cost metrics deployments, can be found across multiple sectors. and found the savings would break down as follows: Over two dozen countries are investing in DLT 70% savings on central financial More than 2,500 patents have been filed in the last 3 reporting 4 30-50% savings on compliance years 50% savings on centralized operations As of Q4, 2016, 28 of the top 30 banks were engaged in 50% savings on business blockchain proofs-of-concept operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Analysis Methods on Ethereum Smart Contract Vulnerabilities — a Survey
    1 Security Analysis Methods on Ethereum Smart Contract Vulnerabilities — A Survey Purathani Praitheeshan?, Lei Pan?, Jiangshan Yuy, Joseph Liuy, and Robin Doss? Abstract—Smart contracts are software programs featuring user [4]. In consequence of these issues of the traditional both traditional applications and distributed data storage on financial systems, the technology advances in peer to peer blockchains. Ethereum is a prominent blockchain platform with network and decentralized data management were headed up the support of smart contracts. The smart contracts act as autonomous agents in critical decentralized applications and as the way of mitigation. In recent years, the blockchain hold a significant amount of cryptocurrency to perform trusted technology is being the prominent mechanism which uses transactions and agreements. Millions of dollars as part of the distributed ledger technology (DLT) to implement digitalized assets held by the smart contracts were stolen or frozen through and decentralized public ledger to keep all cryptocurrency the notorious attacks just between 2016 and 2018, such as the transactions [1], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Blockchain is a public DAO attack, Parity Multi-Sig Wallet attack, and the integer underflow/overflow attacks. These attacks were caused by a electronic ledger equivalent to a distributed database. It can combination of technical flaws in designing and implementing be openly shared among the disparate users to create an software codes. However, many more vulnerabilities of less sever- immutable record of their transactions [7], [9], [10], [11], ity are to be discovered because of the scripting natures of the [12], [13]. Since all the committed records and transactions Solidity language and the non-updateable feature of blockchains.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and the Blockchain
    Law and the Blockchain Usha 1K Rodrigues* ABSTRACT: All contracts are necessarily incomplete. The inefficiencies of bargainingover every contingency, coupled with humans' innate bounded rationality, mean that contracts cannot anticipate and address every potential eventuality. One role of law is to fill gaps in incomplete contracts with default rules. Emerging technologies have created new, yet equally incomplete, types of contracts that exist outside of this traditionalgapfilling legal role. The blockchain is a distributed ledger that allows the cryptographic recording of transactions and permits "smart" contracts that self-execute automatically if their conditions are met. Because humans code the contracts of the blockchain, gaps in these contracts will arise. Yet in the world of "smart contracting"on the blockchain, there is no placefor the law to step in to supply default rules-no "legal intervention point." The lack of a legal intervention point means that law on the blockchain works in a fundamentally different way from law in the corporealworld. Business organizationallaw provides a prime example of how the law uses default rules to fill gaps in an incomplete contract and how the law works differently in the blockchain context. I. INTRODU CTION ............................................................................. 68o II. ORGANIZATIONAL LAW AS A GAP FILLER ...................................... 686 A. THE FIRM AS AN INCOMPLETEFCONTRACT................................ 686 B. THEORIES OF, TimE CORPORATE FoRM ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Contracts and Distributed Ledger Technology: a Lawyer's Guide
    Smart Contracts and Distributed Ledger Technology: A Lawyer’s Guide Presented by: Kenneth Moyle Clear Law Institute | 4601 N. Fairfax Dr., Ste 1200 | Arlington | VA | 22203 www.clearlawinstitute.com Questions? Please call us at 703-372-0550 or email us at [email protected] All-Access Membership Program ● Earn continuing education credit (CLE, CPE, SHRM, HRCI, etc.) in all states at no additional cost ● Access courses on a computer, tablet, or smartphone ● Access more than 75 live webinars each month ● Access more than 750 on-demand courses Register within 7 days after the webinar using promo code “7member” to receive a $200 discount off the $799 base price. Learn more and register here: http://clearlawinstitute.com/member Clear Law Institute, © 2017 Smart Contracts and Distributed Ledger Technology A Lawyer’s Guide Agenda Concepts and Confusion Smart Contracts: Theory and Reality The Lexicon • Legal vs. Technical viewpoints • Distributed Ledger • Common Accord • Blockchain Initial Coin Offerings and SAFTs • Cryptocurrency Regulatory Developments • Smart Contracts Statutory Developments Resources www.ClearLawInstitute.com (703) 372-0550 Clear Law Institute, © 2017 “ The digital revolution is radically changing the kinds of relationships we can have. What parts of our hard-won legal tradition will still be valuable in the cyberspace era? ” - Nick Szabo, 1996 “What is the best way to apply these common law principles to the design of our on- line relationships?” Integrity of record Trust in the Enforceability outcome under law www.ClearLawInstitute.com
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing the Dao: the Need for Legal Recognition and the Application of Securities Laws to Decentralized Organizations
    DECONSTRUCTING THE DAO: THE NEED FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION AND THE APPLICATION OF SECURITIES LAWS TO DECENTRALIZED ORGANIZATIONS Laila Metjahic† TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1534 I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1537 A. The Basics of the Blockchain and Its Role in Decentralized Organizations ............................................................................................. 1537 B. Smart Contracts and Their Role in Decentralized Organizations ........ 1538 C. What Are Decentralized Organizations? ................................................ 1541 D. Why It Is Necessary to Clarify the Legal Status of the DAO and Other Decentralized Organizations ......................................................... 1546 II. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 1549 A. How U.S. Courts Define a General Partnership ..................................... 1549 B. How U.S. Courts Define a Security .......................................................... 1551 III. PROPOSAL ................................................................................................................ 1553 A. The DAO Is a General Partnership .......................................................... 1553 B. Even If the DAO Is Not a General Partnership, It Is Nevertheless a Joint Venture
    [Show full text]
  • The DAO Chronology of a Daring Heist and Its Resolution the DAO | Chronology of a Daring Heist and Its Resolution
    The DAO Chronology of a daring heist and its resolution The DAO | Chronology of a daring heist and its resolution “[the] Digital currency Ethereum is cratering because of a US$50 million hack” Business Insider on 17.06.2016 2 The DAO | Chronology of a daring heist and its resolution It has been the saga of the summer for anyone interested in digital currency and beyond. Within hours the value of the ETH plunged as a result of a hack which relieved the DAO, a massive blockchain-based crowdfunding project, of ETH worth US$50 million. The heist was covered by a number of mainstream journals which published the Decentralized Autonomous news with a varying amount of technical Organizations detail, mostly highlighting the risks A commonly accepted definition involved in dealing in digital currencies. of DAOs some times also referred to as DACs (Decentralized What happened was – of course – a Autonomous Companies) has not severe setback for one of the best-known yet evolved. Usually the terms blockchain-based business applications. refer to a more or less complex It is therefore important to understand interacting set of smart contracts exactly what happened and draw the being able to resemble the necessary consequences in order to fundamentals of organizations, improve the technology. interacting with individuals and dealing with some sort of In order to grasp the whole story about property. the hack of the DAO, it is important to understand what a DAO is and on what Smart contracts can be platform it was deployed: the blockchain seen as the simplest form of platform Ethereum.
    [Show full text]
  • The DAO Attack Or, How to Steal $60 Million with Smart Contracts
    The DAO Attack or, How To Steal $60 Million With Smart Contracts By Charles Lin for CS 261 Tuesday, September 12, 2018 Today, we are covering... ● Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) ● The DAO Attack: story and technical details ● Aftermath and implications What is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization? What is a Company? What is a Company? ● A legal entity that people can purchase shares of ● People can use shares to vote on how to spend company assets ● Behaviour enforced by people ● Reneging punished by law ● People don’t always agree on the rules ● People don’t always follow the rules ● Legal punishment is a deterrent, not absolute enforcement, and does not repair damage What is a Company? ● A legal entity that people can purchase shares of ● People can use shares to vote on how to spend company assets ● Behaviour enforced by people ● Reneging punished by law What is a Company? ● A legal entity that people can purchase shares of ● People can use shares to vote on how to spend company assets ● Behaviour enforced by people ● Reneging punished by law What is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization? ● A contract that people can purchase shares of ● People can use shares to vote on how to spend contract’s ether balance ● Behaviour enforced by code ● Reneging impossible! “The” DAO slock.it and “The DAO” ● April 2016 ● German startup called slock.it - smart locks connected to blockchain ● Started a venture capital DAO to get the community to fund their startup and other startups of their choice ● Called it “The DAO” The DAO Code (simplified) from Atezi et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Implications of Progressive Decentralization in Blockchain Platforms
    Washington and Lee Law Review Online Volume 77 Issue 2 Article 6 3-29-2021 A Tale of Two Regulators: Antitrust Implications of Progressive Decentralization in Blockchain Platforms Evan Miller Vinson & Elkins LLP, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Evan Miller, A Tale of Two Regulators: Antitrust Implications of Progressive Decentralization in Blockchain Platforms, 77 WASH. & LEE L. REV. ONLINE 387 (2021), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online/ vol77/iss2/6 This Development is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review Online by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Tale of Two Regulators: Antitrust Implications of Progressive Decentralization in Blockchain Platforms Evan Miller* Abstract Competition regulators have identified the potential for blockchain technology to disrupt traditional sponsor-led platforms, like app stores, that have received increased antitrust scrutiny. Enforcement actions by securities regulators, however, have forced blockchain-based platforms to adopt a strategy of progressive decentralization, delaying decentralization objectives in favor of the centralized model that competition regulators hope they will disrupt. This regulatory tension, and the implications for blockchain’s procompetitive potential, have yet to be explored. This Article first identifies the origin of this tension and its consequences through a competition law lens, and then recommends that competition regulators account for this tension in monitoring the blockchain industry and strive to resolve it moving forward.
    [Show full text]
  • BLOCKCHAIN&Lrs
    BLOCKCHAIN&LRs ● Introduction ● Key elements BC ● SC ● Should we use it? ● Principles-Projects Encription Keys MD5 Hashing Algorith Are we decentralized yet? Smart Contracts Nick Szabo :“a set of promises, specified in digital form, including protocols within which the parties perform on the other promises” Vending Machine SC are self suficient. Doesn't need the suport of the state SC questions ● Binding vs Automatic Execution ● Who signs? Is he really him? Minor? ● Fully understands? Informed? ● Freedom ways of contract ● Digital breach ● Are we going to standard contracts? Do we want that? ● Who writes them? Responsability. DAO To the DAO and the Ethereum community, I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after f inding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional ether. I have made use of this feature and have rightfully claimed 3,641,694 ether, and would like to thank the DAO for this reward. It is my understanding that the DAO code contains this feature to promote decentralization and encourage the creation of "child DAOs”. I am disappointed by those who are characterizing the use of this intentional feature as "theft". I am making use of this explicitly coded feature as per the smart contract terms and my law f irm has advised me that my action is fully compliant with United States criminal and tort law. For reference please review the terms of the DAO: "The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Discovering Attacks on Ethereum Decentralized Applications
    Evil Under the Sun: Understanding and Discovering Attacks on Ethereum Decentralized Applications Liya Su1,2,3 ∗,† Xinyue Shen1,4∗,† Xiangyu Du1,2,3,∗ Xiaojing Liao1, XiaoFeng Wang1, Luyi Xing1, Baoxu Liu2,3 1Indiana University Bloomington, 2Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 4Alibaba Group {liyasu, shen12, duxian}@iu.edu, {xliao, xw7, luyixing}@indiana.edu, [email protected] Abstract the DAO attack that caused a loss over 50 million USD [39] in 2016, resulting in the hard-fork in Ethereum. Also found in The popularity of Ethereum decentralized applications our study is that miscreants took 14K Ethers from the victim (Dapps) also brings in new security risks: it has been re- Dapps with most financial losses (i.e., Fomo3D, Section 4.5). ported that these Dapps have been under various kinds of attacks from cybercriminals to gain profit. To the best of With this significant threat, the community’s understanding our knowledge, little has been done so far to understand this about the new type of cybercrimes is still very limited: to new cybercrime, in terms of its scope, criminal footprints the best of our knowledge, no extensive forensic analysis and attack operational intents, not to mention any efforts to on Dapp attacks has ever been reported, nor has any cyber investigate these attack incidents automatically on a large threat intelligence (CTI) been collected from them to find out scale. In this paper, we performed the first measurement study the perpetrator’s strategy, capability and infrastructure, not to on real-world Dapp attack instances to recover critical threat mention to utilize the knowledge to mitigate the threat.
    [Show full text]
  • Ripple Effects: How in Re Ripple Labs Inc
    RIPPLE EFFECTS: HOW IN RE RIPPLE LABS INC. LITIGATION COULD SIGNAL THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE PAYMENT PLATFORM LINDSAY MARTIN† ABSTRACT Ripple Labs provides an international payment network that allows financial institutions to transfer money more cheaply and quickly than traditional international payments. Ripple’s native digital currency, XRP, supports global payments by acting as intermediate currency between different currencies, eliminating correspondent bank’s need to hold deposits in foreign currencies. In an ongoing class action lawsuit, XRP purchasers claim that the digital asset qualifies as a security under federal securities laws and that Ripple illegally offered and sold XRP as an unregistered security. Given Ripple’s rising prominence as a tool for financial institutions, this pending case will impact cryptocurrency markets and international payments. Because XRP is most likely a security subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), this matter poses an existential threat to the Ripple network. This note examines the legal issues leading up to the Ripple litigation and explains why XRP is most likely a security. It concludes by discussing the SEC’s likely approach to Ripple’s unregistered Initial Coin Offering (ICO). INTRODUCTION Today, most global payments rely on outdated technology.1 To transact with entities in foreign countries, financial institutions must be members of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) network2 and maintain a correspondent banking relationship with a bank in that foreign country.3 The process is slow, expensive, and carries risks that international payments will not reach their intended destination due to the lack of an international central settlement institution.4 † Duke University School of Law, J.D.
    [Show full text]