Home Blog Page 63

Virtual Financial Assets And The Regulation of Blockchain Micro-Loans

0
Virtual Financial Assets And The Regulation of Blockchain Micro-Loans

Share and get +16 +16 Ranging from investment within the capital markets to the provision of credit by institutions, the concept of financing, at its core, aims to provide the finances with what he doesn’t have in general or temporal terms. It is a concept which is a long-standing technique availed of by the masses for reasons which are personal and customized to one’s profession, interests and social standing.If one had to look at different sources of financing, whether such sources are against the backdrop of a filial relationship or whether such financing is against the backdrop of a contractual relationship with a financial institution, it immediately becomes evident that the concept of ‘trust’ dominates any financing arrangement which any person would enter into. By way of example, if a teenager was to borrow money from his brother, the brother lending the money does so on the basis of the fact that he knows his brother and trusts that he will be repaid in the future. Similarly, and perhaps more surgically, a financial institution will only approve a mortgage on the basis of it having the knowledge that the borrower has proved that he has the financial capacity and capacity to repay the financial institution in the future. The financial institution, on the basis of its own examination process, is led to a point where it ‘trusts’ that the borrower will not fall short in the performance of his obligations.It is, therefore, no surprise that the concept of financing has evolved with the emergence of technologies that have proved to provide comfort, from a trust point of view to all parties involved in a financing transaction. Blockchain technology is an example of one such technology. It is also perhaps safe to say that bureaucratic legal practices that are part of the ‘baggage’ of seeking or granting financing have elevated.The purpose of this piece is to provide the reader with a brief flavour as to the advantages and challenges which microfinance, particularly the provision and acceptance of micro-loans, pose to all parties involved.Virtual Financial Assets And The Regulation of Blockchain Micro-LoansAccess to the financial system goes a long way when determining one’s social standing. It is indeed such social standing which, for better or for worse, determines the way an individual lives his life. At its core, the concept of financial inclusion strives to ensure that the main routes of exclusion to the financial system are eliminated through the implementation of infrastructure, law and policy. Exclusion may come in various forms such as price exclusion, whereby the price one has to pay for access to the financial system is not affordable and access exclusion, whereby the location or infrastructure where one is based does not permit access to the financial system.The concept of financial inclusion is, therefore, one which may be viewed and interpreted from different lenses and in its definition, is embedded with a sense of elasticity that adapts to the mentality and self-set standards of any person pronouncing himself on the matter. What is certain is that at the very heart of every opinion as to what financial inclusion is (or is not), the elements of the need for a minimum standard of education, affordability and state-development/encouragement to avail of socio-friendly financial systems reverberate and rebound against the walls which encapsulate any and all attempts to define the matter.Undoubtedly, law plays a huge role in ensuring that the financial system is not only delivered to the end customer at the highest possible standard and with the most robust of safeguards, but it also plays a critical role in ensuring that the financial system is accessible to the public at large.The ‘microloans/credit’ conceptAs the name implies, when we speak of ‘micro’ we speak of small and limited capacity. Indeed, the ‘limited’ nature of the concept alludes to the lower end of the pyramid and financing too and amongst persons who fall within that spectrum. Inevitably, therefore, the figures in micro-finance are, when compared to the concept of ‘finance’ in general and more wide-ranging terms, low.The roots of the concept date back centuries, however, one notable mark in modern microfinance was when Muhammad Yunus, in a time when famine swept Bangladesh, loaned minimal amounts of money to women in Bangladesh for the latter to be able to develop their own produce. The loans were not collateralized, and this meant that the lower earners within the Bangladesh society had access to a financing facility in pursuance of growing their own business, as small as the latter may have been. This model hence combatted the exclusions to financial exclusion as denoted above.The novelty of the concept invariably attracted the attention of entrepreneurs and established financial institutions which saw business opportunity in the concept, that is to say, the concept of micro-finance, particularly micro-credit, proved to be an additional tool which may be added to an up and coming or already established financial institution’s business model, generating a revenue stream.The legal position: Focus on MaltaFrom a reading of Article 3 of the Financial Institutions Act (Chapter 376 of the laws of Malta), it can be deduced that no person may regularly or habitually, in or from Malta, provide services tantamount to “lending (including personal credits, mortgage credits, factoring with or without recourse, financing of commercial transactions including forfaiting)” unless such activity is channelled through a corporate vehicle and unless such company holds a licence duly issued by the Malta Financial Services Authority (the “MFSA”) which allows it to perform such activity and hence, provide such services. In this respect, the same Act defines a “credit facility” as “the lending of a sum of money by way of an advance, overdraft or loan, or any other line of credit,  including discounting of bills of exchange and promissory notes, guarantees, indemnities, acceptances, bills of exchange endorsed pour aval and financial leasing”. It is evident, therefore, that the provision of a micro-loan in fiat is considered to be a regulated activity that requires the service provider to be in possession of a valid licence issued by the MFSA (or equivalent authority in terms of European Union law).It is also to be noted that when a person conducts the “business of banking” in terms of the Banking Act (Chapter 371 of the Laws of Malta), which in a nutshell, is inclusive of accepting deposits of money from the public and lending out, in whole or in part, such deposits to other clients of the business, needs to duly be in possession of a valid licenced issued by the MFSA.Therefore, whether a person is lending money from its own reserves or from pools of deposits accepted from the public, law mandates that such entities must seek authorization and must hence submit themselves to supervision.Restrictions and exclusionsFirstly, one must not forget that the regulation quoted above is limited in application to the lending of money, the latter of which is best embodied in what we know as ‘fiat currency’. Interestingly, and very intelligently, the law does not specifically define what ‘money’ is, keeping the concept as open-ended which needs to be interpreted in terms of the socio-economic present in and any legal conditions which are in force at a specific moment in time. By deduction, we can safely say that irrespective of whether money is physical, digital or electronic, insofar that it satisfies what is economically and legally acceptable as money, it will be deemed to be subject to the abovementioned restrictions when availed of in a lending transaction.From a pure fiat currency perspective, the Financial Institutions Act as above referenced also includes numerous exemptions as to when a licence is not required. For example, in terms of the Financial Institutions Act, an entity is not deemed to be conducting the business of a financial institution, and hence, a licence is not required, if lending
occurs between entities which form part of a group of companies or if such companies are all controlled, directly or indirectly by the same person.Virtual Financial Assets: an opportunity?Following the aforementioned determinations, it only seems natural that a question which any inquisitive person would ask is “What if you lend cryptocurrency?”. An answer to such a question needs to set off, in terms of local Maltese law, as to what a ‘cryptocurrency’ or, as coined in Malta, a “Virtual Financial Asset” (VFA), really is. The answer to such lies in the Virtual Financial Assets Act (Chapter 590 of the Laws of Malta), wherein a VFA is defined as “Any form of digital medium recordation that is used as a digital medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value and that is not (a)   electronic money (b) a financial instrument; or (c) a virtual token”. Insofar, therefore, that an asset is not considered to be electronic money in terms of the Financial Institutions Act, a financial instrument in terms of the Investment Services Act (Chapter 370 of the Laws of Malta) and a virtual token in terms of the Virtual Financial Assets Act, then such an asset, provided that it is a form of digital medium recordation which is capable of being deployed as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value, such an asset is deemed to be a VFA. The lending of an asset classified as electronic money will be subject to the abovementioned treatment in terms of the Financial Institutions Act or the Banking Act (depending on the specific intricacies of the business model in question).Opportunity knocks, however, for a more flexible lending arrangement when the asset being lent out to a borrower is one which is classified as a VFA, simply because the VFA Act in itself does not regulate the activity of “lending” such virtual tokens or VFAs, and VFAs are capable of being traded for other VFAs or exchanged for fiat money. Within the context of the real world, conversion by the borrower of a VFA of that VFA into fiat money, provides such a borrower with an opportunity to avail of such money for his or her personal development. Therefore, indirectly, the micro-credit arrangement expounded by Muhammad Yunus as noted above, which, in its purest form, is subject to regulatory approval, may still be achieved without the need to subject the lender to the bureaucratic regulatory processes associated with Financial Institutions and Banks. Of course, lack of exposure to such processes depends on the intricacies of the ‘loan arrangement’ in question, which shall be discussed in the subsequent section of this piece.Of course, some may say that the above is not a novel concept and maybe effectively implemented using any form of asset (for example: borrowing four apples, selling them for a value in fiat and using that fiat).Loans of VFAsAs denoted above The Virtual Financial Assets Act does not regulate the lending activity, in whatever form, of VFAs i.e. the Act does not regulate the activity of when a person lends out his or her VFAs to another person, but limits itself in application to the intermediaries involved (i.e. VFA exchanges, brokers, custodians, etc) and issuers of such VFAs.  The act of loaning a VFA from one person to another, for the other to be able to use such a VFA as agreed between the parties would classify as a loan for consumption in terms of Maltese law, provided that the initial VFA loaned out is returned to the lender. Law makes provision for the possibility of the loan to be repaid in terms of the value of the VFA loaned out at the time and place the loan was made (unless agreed otherwise) if serious prejudice is to be suffered by the borrower should he seek to return the VFA in the same kind and quality it was loaned out. The charging of interest on the loan is not automatically allowed and must be specifically catered for in the loan agreement in question. Should interest be charged, the rate of interest cannot exceed that of 8% per annum. If a rate of interest is not agreed upon but it has been agreed that interest is to be charged, the law specifies that a 5% rate shall apply. Figure 1 below provides a graphic overview as to how such an arrangement may be achieved through a borrower’s independent use of a third-party cryptocurrency exchange.Figure 1: An example of a VFA loan within the context of a loan for consumption:The future of blockchain in micro-creditOn a critical note, it should be expounded that availing of VFAs for the purpose of micro-credit may not necessary be the wide-ranging solution, simply because, as of today, access to virtual financial assets exchanges, brokers and intermediaries as well as knowledge and trust in virtual financial assets is a long way from mass adoption and acceptance.The power of blockchain technology may, therefore, be better utilized through implementation for the fiat model. Nonetheless, lending of VFAs to persons which are (a) able to access the VFA ecosystem and (b) willing to borrow such VFAs from willing lenders remains an option.Blockchain is borderless and at its peak, may also connect borrowers with lenders without the requirement of financial institutions. Of course, the law would need to allow for the discard of such intermediaries. Through immutability and openness, it is clear that blockchain and blockchain-based assets have the potential to trigger a micro-finance revolution, however, such optimism needs to be neutralized by proper and ethical development of the technology through education and development which on the one hand challenges the applicability of currently enforced laws whilst on the other hand, ensures that law and the spirit of the law is not breached or disregarded.

Visa Applies for Blockchain-Based Digital Currency Patent to Potentially Remove Physical Currency

0
Visa Applies for Blockchain-Based Digital Currency Patent to Potentially Remove Physical Currency

Visa applied for a new patent application to create a blockchain-based digital currency on a centralized computer, according to a publication by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
 
 
The patent was originally filed in November 2019, and was described as “Digital Fiat Currency.” The US dollar was mentioned as one of the fiat currencies to be used potentially, although the patent could also apply to other central bank digital currencies including the pound, yen, and the euro. 
 
Filed by Simon J. Hurry and Alexander Pierre with the Visa International Service Association, the application noted that Ethereum could be used as a possible network for the digital currency.
 
The central entity computer described in the patent will receive requests with details including the serial number and the denomination of physical currency. Blockchain will be recording the creation of the digital currency and the removal of the physical currency from circulation in a fiat currency system. 
 
Former Chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Christopher Giancarlo commented on Visa’s digital currency patent this week during the virtual conference Consensus Distributed, “This confirms when the US does big things like the space program and the internet, there are partnerships between the private and public sector. This patent filing is evidence the private sector is very much at work on the future of money.”
 
Also known as “Crypto Dad,” Giancarlo has previously revealed his vision for a “true digital dollar.” He has adopted a new role as co-founder of the Digital Dollar Project, a partnership between Accenture and the Digital Dollar Foundation to explore a US central bank digital currency (CBDC). 
 
Visa issues Binance Card
 
Leading crypto exchange Binance announced the launch of its new product ‘Binance Card’ which aims to provide crypto payment services anywhere in the world. Issued by Visa, costumers are able to top-up funds through the Binance Card app using Bitcoin (BTC) or the Binance Coin (BNB).
 
The ‘physical’ Binance Card hasn’t been issued yet. However, the ‘virtual’ Binance Card is available in a beta version. Binance users can expect the ‘physical’ Binance Card in their hands within the next few weeks. According to the blog post, the Binance Card will be first rolled out in Malaysia followed by Vietnam and then further to other countries.
 
Visa partners with Fold to offer Bitcoin rewards credit card
 
Visa has partnered with Fold, a San Francisco-based Bitcoin cashback app, to offer a credit card that will enable consumers to accumulate Bitcoin rewards as easily as earning points. 
 
According to Will Reeves, the CEO of Fold, the partnership will be ideal in taking Bitcoin mainstream as consumers will have the chance to own the leading digital asset.
 

Blockchain Government Use cases – [Algorand, Power Ledger, and RSK]

0
Blockchain Government Use cases – [Algorand, Power Ledger, and RSK]

Share and get +16 +16 Governments from around the world are warming up the potential of blockchain government uses cases. As such, it’s no longer surprising to see more and more projects collaborating with governments. In this guide, we will be looking into four different projects – Algorand, ICON, Power Ledger, and RSK and see what all exciting implementations they are presently working on.AlgorandFounded by Turing Award winner Silvio Micali, Algorand is a one-of-its-kind open-source, permissionless, and pure proof-of-stake blockchain that doesn’t fork and is ideal for the creation of next-gen financial products. SFB Technologies will be partnering with Algorand blockchain to develop the CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) of the Marshall Islands dubbed Marshallese Sovereign (SOV). SFB Technologies chose the Algorand protocol for its speed, scalability, and security.Co-Founder and CTO of SFB Technologies, Jim Wagner, noted:“Algorand was selected after extensive market research among the leading protocol options. The company has already powered several mainstream use cases and thanks to its unique features the platform has the functionality required to issue, manage and distribute the SOV on a global level.”CBDC is the digital form of fiat money that will be generated by the country’s central bank and can be used as legal tender. As the world embraces technology and a cashless approach, several central banks around the world are exploring whether or not they could issue a CBDC to complement cash. There are many benefits of CBDC usage:Two parties will be able to directly transact with each other, without needing to go through an intermediary like a bank. Every citizen can be provided with a basic public address to hold their coins. This can go a long way in banking the unbanked.Since CBDC is blockchain-based, the transactions are transparent and every single coin can be traced back to its very source.Several countries like China, France, Thailand, etc. are working on their own versions of CBDCs. Looking specifically into SOV, the government of the Marshall Islands will oversee it and its supply will grow at a fixed rate of 4% each year to keep inflation in check. The SOV will allow the Marshall Islands to efficiently operate in the global economy by circulating alongside the US dollar.ICONICON is a decentralized network that aims to connect multiple blockchains from across the world and solve the problem of interoperability in the space. It plans to do so through its “Loopchain” technology and achieve seamless cross-chain communication through real-time smart contracts. All the communities which will become part of the ICON republic will be interconnected through smart contracts.ICON is one of the major projects in South Korea. As you are probably aware, South Korea is one of the most crypto/blockchain progressive countries in the world. This is why it isn’t surprising that ICON has pretty good ties with the government. As highlighted in this medium post, ICON has had a working relationship with the government since 2016. ICON is the government’s leading blockchain tech partner and is working on several government-backed projects in the Insurance, Healthcare, Customs Service, and Education industries and received government funding from both the Ministry of Creation and Science and the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning.Korea National Election CommitteeIn July 2018, ICON was selected as the blockchain technology consultant for ‘Building the Next Generation Election System based on Intelligence Information Technology’, launched by the Korea National Information Society Agency and supervised by Korea National Election Commission (NEC). As a consultant, ICON offered expertise in constructing a blockchain-based voting and ballot counting system.ICON and the Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentICON and Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon have discussed the idea of creating a Seoul Coin or S-Coin. The Coin will be used within administrations of the Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Seoul government also commissioned a project called “Seoul Blockchain Demonstration Project,” of which ICON was selected as an operator.ICON and Chain SignICON and Cyberdigm collaborated to develop Chain Sign, a blockchain-based contract platform that allows legally binding contracts to be signed digitally. It is powered by loopchain and has proven its cost efficiency and tamper-proof safety to a list of clients, including the government’s regulatory authority, Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), and Samsung Electronics. In fact, when the Seoul Metropolitan Government launched the  Seoul Fintech Lab, its MOU signing was done via Chain Sign by the Mayor of Seoul and the Financial Supervisory Service Director.Other Government InitiativesICON has received funding from the South Korean government twice:In its education implementation U-coin by the Ministry of Creation and Science in April 2017.In its Insurance project by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning also in April 2017.The Ministry of Information and Communication and the Korea Internet Development Agency (KISA) announced that loopchain could be implemented to process the shipping process of all the South Korean e-commerce import goods.Power LedgerThe Australia-based Power Ledger was founded in 2016 and provides an energy trading platform for the decentralized selling and buying of renewable energy. Power Ledger’s proprietary software is currently being used in multiple countries, including Australia, Thailand, India, Japan, and the United States.Power Ledger and ThailandPower Ledger has partnered with Thai renewable energy business BCPG and Thai utility Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) to trade rooftop solar power between an international school, apartment complex, shopping center, and dental hospital in Bangkok. According to Reuters, this system has a total generating capacity of 635 KW.Power Ledger managing director, David Martin, said:“By enabling trade in renewable energy, the community meets its own energy demands, leading to lower bills for buyers, better prices for sellers, and a smaller carbon footprint for all. It will encourage more consumers to make the switch to renewable energy, as the cost can be offset by selling excess energy to neighbors.”The Power Ledger platform monitors and visualizes for each participant the generation, consumption and trading position, and provides Statement of Use information for invoicing purposes.Power Ledger and AustraliaWA Government land developer DevelopmentWA will be partnering with Power Ledger, Curtin University, and the Australian Government Smart Cities initiative to create a 100% renewable energy residential development. This development is part of the Australian Government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs initiativeKnutsford, DevelopmentWA’s East Village will be a showcase for energy-efficient residential infill development. It features a microgrid supply network for water and power and a 670 kWh on-site battery. Power Ledger co-founder, David Martin, said:“The property industry is in a unique position to drive energy change from the ground up. This project highlights how developers can choose to make smarter, more efficient choices when it comes to homes.”This initiative will exemplify the possibilities for affordable and sustainable living in Western Australia. The energy consumption will be tracked and assessed by an on-site living laboratory.RSKRootstock (RSK) is a smart contract platform that is connected to the Bitcoin blockchain through sidechain technology. Rootstock was born to be compatible with Ethereum’s applications (the web3/EVM/Solidity model) but using bitcoin as the underlying cryptocurrency. The idea behind the creation of RSK was to give the Bitcoin blockchain smart contract functionalities. At its very core, Rootstock is a combination of:A Turing-complete resource-accounted deterministic virtual machine (for smart contracts) compatible with the Ethereum’s EVM.A two-way pegged Bitcoin sidechain (for BTC denominated trade) based on a strong federation.A
SHA256D merge-mining consensus protocol (for consensus security relying on Bitcoin’s miners) with 30-seconds block interval. (for fast payments).Being one of the more well-known projects in the space, it’s no surprise that RSK is involved in several government projects. Simply put, RSK is using blockchain technology for governments in many different ways.RSK and the Central Bank of ArgentinaThe Central Bank of Argentina (BCRA) is currently working on a proof-of-concept (PoC) that’s powered by RSK technology and allows for the end-to-end traceability of account debit claims. The PoC is within the framework of the 2019 Financial Innovation Roundtable of the BCRA and will be built by the Blockchain Group, which comprises of IOV Labs, Sabra Group, Banco de la Provincia de Córdoba, BBVA, ICBC, Banco Santander, BYMA, Interbanking, and Red Link.This PoC requires a working partnership between different industry actors, such as banks, clearinghouses, financial agents, and providers of this technology. The solution is being extensively tested by the participants to see the viability of the technology is solving real-time process integration problems between banks and system actors. Post-testing, it will be determined whether more banks can join the network or not.It is hoped that through practical experimentation, this initiative will help the industry better to understand blockchain technology and its true potential.RSK and GasnetArgentina’s national gas regulator, Enargas, has given Gasnor, a natural gas distributor with more than 2 million users, the permission to pilot a smart contract-based certification platform. IOV Labs collaborated with software builder Grupo Sabra to launch a permissioned blockchain platform called “Gasnet.” Gasnet will be running on an enterprise version of the RSK Smart Contract Network and is designed to secure and speed up Argentina’s gas certification processes.Under Gasnet’s consortium network, both Gasnor and Enargas run a network node and certification documents and transaction details can fly between them with ease. Both IOV Labs and Grupo Sabra believes that while the system will begin with just certification, Gasnet’s shared ecosystem can facilitate any number of services.  The database can be used to immutably store the Gasnet Technician’s credentials, which can be very helpful in the safe installation of gas. Gasnet eventually plans on becoming the shared database for Argentina’s entire gas distribution ecosystem, for all nine regulated companies in Argentina.Ever since development started in 2019, Gasnet has made the onboarding process 25% more time-efficient and it expects time savings of 40% once all the stakeholders get up to scratch with the technology. Plus, IOV Labs believes that the Argentine economy will benefit immensely from the inevitable cost-savings. Gas represents 57% of the energy sector and has “a direct impact on the development of supply and on the costs assumed by demand.”RSK and OS CityOS City is a govtech company that creates and curates software technology to foster a more sustainable urban future through the digital transformation of governments. The company was founded by PhDs in Political Science and Artificial Intelligence and is leveraging the newest technologies to:Improve government efficiency and trust.Build a more sustainable future.This initiative has received support and recognition from the likes of UNICEF Innovation, Singularity University, The WEF, Google, etc. It will help cultivate the next generation of smart cities in countries such as Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Colombia.OS City was formed because of the fragmented structure of the world’s governments. Due to the lack of interoperability in the government offices, they tend to become a bottleneck for environmental, social and economic prosperity. OS City chose to work with RSK because:It combines the benefits of the most secure network with the virtues of a strong organization.It helps organizations build out their IT infrastructure while avoiding vendor lock-in, reducing costs, and creating scalable and sustainable IT environments.The benefits of OS City:Enables governments to recover an estimated 20% of revenue leakage.Increases global government workers’ productivity to save up to $3.5T a year.Offer a unified and better experience for both workers and constituents to increase constituent satisfaction and government revenue to up to 10% in developing economies.Conclusion: Blockchain Government Use-CasesGovernments from around the world have warmed up to the prospect of integrating blockchain technology and decentralization. This is critical for the mainstream adoption of the technology. Projects like RSK, ICON, Power Ledger, and Algorand have paved the way for more government-blockchain collaboration down the line.

China’s WeBank Makes its First Move to Take its Blockchain Global, Partnering with Singapore’s OpenNodes

0
China’s WeBank Makes its First Move to Take its Blockchain Global, Partnering with Singapore’s OpenNodes

China’s top digital bank WeBank has announced its partnership with Singaporean government-backed OpenNodes. This partnership will allow China’s FISCO BCOS blockchain platform to be brought to Singaporean academics for innovation and new initiatives. FISCO BCOS was deemed to be China’s version of Hyperledger Fabric when it was launched in 2018. 
 
 
The Financial Blockchain Shenzhen Consortium (FISCO) is backed by more than 100 Chinese organizations, including Huawei, Tencent, JD Finance, and WeBank, which is partly backed by Tencent. Developed by FISCO, the enterprise blockchain protocol was the first blockchain to be supported by China’s Blockchain Service Network.
 
WeBank’s executive vice president and Chief Information Officer, Henry Ma said, “We seek to spur the next-generation talents into building viable solutions using blockchain to serve the general public. Providing this open-source technology as a developer arena will also help us strengthen the stack of our technologies in the process while allowing for better products and services for the general public.”
 
This also became the first move in taking FISCO BCOS international, which also support the Blockchain Services Network’s ambition to go global. The partnership aims to introduce Singapore’s university students to FISCO BCOS. Ma added, “Combining forces is the first stepping stone to expanding the consortium into Southeast Asia, and ensures we are well fed by a constant source of knowledge, technology expertise, and domain experience.”
 
As previously reported by Blockchain.News, the digital bank is leading the global banking community in banking technology patents climbing ahead of US giants JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America with 632 filed patents in 2019.
 
China’s international blockchain ambitions
 
China’s Blockchain Services Network (BSN), ChinaChain has been opened since late April for commercial use after six months of internal testing. 
 
The Blockchain Services Network is built by a consortium of China’s biggest corporations including telecommunications companies and banks, connecting nodes in 128 cities in the country. Companies including China Mobile, China UnionPay, and Huobi China have also taken part in the creation of the BSN. The network also includes 7 areas outside of China including Paris, Sydney, San Paulo, Singapore, Tokyo, Johannesburg, and California. This would facilitate the interested parties to conduct business in China to be able to use the network and to follow the network’s rules.
 
Along with WeBank’s FISCO BCOS, Hyperledger Fabric, Ethereum, EOS, ChainSQL, and Baidu’s Xuperchain were also part of the plan to be added to the “ecosystem play,” and “internet environment,” as explained by Zhiguang Shan, the Chairman of the BSN’s Development Association. This network of blockchains will be available for those who are interested to take part in it, including small to medium-sized businesses.
 
OpenNodes: Encouraging engagement in blockchain
 
Tribe Accelerator announced the launch of its digital media and engagement platform, OpenNodes in August 2019. Founded by 25 founding members and led by Tribe Accelerator, OpenNodes is also supported by the Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), as well as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Temasek. Yi Ming Ng, Managing Director of Tribe added, “All the stakeholders in the ecosystem have come together to collectively drive this blockchain ecosystem for more mass adoption to happen.” OpenNodes allows for more engagement and collaboration between the stakeholders in the blockchain ecosystem, allowing for a better reach of the audience, showcasing the use cases in the blockchain ecosystem.
 
OpenNodes is funded by Singapore’s Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), along with other government stakeholders, as well as IBM, R3, ConsenSys, Ethereum, BMW, PwC, and Singapore stock exchange (SGX). Its aim is to support and educate corporates and connect them with technology solution providers. 
 
 
Image via Shutterstock

What Is Quorum Blockchain? A Platform for The Enterprise

0
What Is Quorum Blockchain? A Platform for The Enterprise

Share and get +16 +16 Samer Falah, Head of Quorum Blockchain Engineering, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. * Imran Bashir, Quorum Engineer, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. *IntroductionQuorum® is an enterprise blockchain platform. It is a fork of the public ethereum client ‘geth’ with several protocol level enhancements to support business needs. The primary purpose of the Quorum project is to develop an enterprise ethereum client which empowers businesses to embrace and benefit from blockchain technology. As Quorum is an open-source project, the code base of the platform is open for anyone to audit, which promotes trust in the platform. Open-sourcing further increases adoption and attracts developers from different industries to participate in the development of this platform.Blockchain and enterprise needsThe very nature of blockchain or distributed ledger provides a secure, shared platform for decentralised applications (DAPPs) and data thanks to its cryptographically secure, auditable and immutable characteristics. However, there are several enterprise-driven requirements which need to be met for a blockchain to be suitable for enterprises. These requirements primarily include privacy, performance and permissioning.ensures the confidentiality of transactions. It is a required feature in many industries such as financial services, health, law and government. For example in the financial industry it is mandated that the transaction details are kept confidential and shared only between the authorised parties involved in the transaction. Similarly in the health industry, patient records are extremely sensitive information and must only be visible to authorised persons.ensures that speed and scalability of the network is adequate to handle enterprise use cases.ensures that the blockchain network is only accessible to authorised entities.All the requirements mentioned above are of paramount importance in any enterprise use case.Now that we have introduced enterprise features briefly, we can now look at how Quorum achieves these features. First we introduce the Quorum architecture.Quorum architectureAs compared to public ethereum, Quorum provides several enterprise features which are listed belowTransaction privacyMultiple pluggable consensus mechanisms suitable for enterprise use casesEnterprise-grade permissions management (access control) for network nodes and participantsEnterprise-grade performanceFundamentally, Quorum is the public ethereum client which is enhanced with enterprise features. It provides privacy features, enterprise permissioning and improved performance in a permissioned network. A component called private transactions manager serves as an off-chain privacy mechanism. Quorum communicates with the private transaction manager using HTTPS and keeps a reference to private transactions with relevant state trees on the blockchain.This high level architecture is shown below in Diagram 1. We will cover all these aspects in greater detail in the upcoming sections.Now we look at all these elements in more detailDiagram 1 : Quorum high level architectureQuorum nodeThe Quorum node is a lightweight fork of geth. Since it is a fork of geth, it continues to take advantage of the research and development that is continuously taking place within the ever growing ethereum community and the amazing work of the geth development team. As such, Quorum is regularly updated inline with geth releases to keep up with the latest improvements.The Quorum node includes the following modifications as compared to public geth client:The consensus is achieved with RAFT, PoA or Istanbul BFT consensus algorithms instead of using Proof-of-Work. Availability of all these different protocols allows flexibility to choose any of these algorithms according to business needs.The Peer to Peer (P2P) layer has been modified to only allow connections to/from permissioned nodes.The block generation logic has been modified to replace the ‘global state root’ check with a new ‘global public state root’.The State Patricia trie has been split into two: a public state trie and a private state trie.The block validation logic has been modified to replace the ‘global state root’ in the block header with the ‘global public state root’Block validation logic has been modified to handle ‘Private Transactions’Transaction creation has been modified to allow for Transaction data to be replaced by hashes of the encrypted payloads in order to preserve private data where requiredThe pricing of Gas has been removed, although the Gas itself remains.Quorum supports both public and private transactions. Public transactions work normally as in public ethereum where private transactions are enabled through a separate component called private transaction manager (privacy manager).Now that we have introduced the Quorum node, let’s look at the privacy manager.Privacy managerThe privacy manager component (private transaction manager) is responsible for providing transaction privacy on the Quorum network. In other words, this component allows Quorum nodes to share transaction payload securely between authorised parties of the transaction. It consists of two sub elements, namely the transaction manager and enclave.Transaction managerIt is a restful and stateless service which is primarily responsible for the following operations.Automatic discovery of the other transaction manager nodes on the networkExchanges encrypted payloads with other nodes’ transaction managersStores and allows access to encrypted transaction dataCurrently, there are two types of transaction managers available, namely Constellation℠ and Tessera℠. Constellation is the original privacy manager developed in Haskell. It is not being developed further in favour of Tessera, which is a more feature-rich and actively developed project. As such, we only focus on Tessera in this article. Transaction manager provides a general-purpose mechanism for securely exchanging information. It is comparable to a network of MTA (Message Transfer Agents) where PGP provides encryption of messages. The private transaction manager is not a blockchain-specific technology. Itcan be used in any application where individually sealed and secure message exchange within a network of participants is required.TesseraTessera is an Enterprise transaction manager. It is a java based stateless software used to enable the encryption, decryption, and distribution of private transactions for Quorum.A Tessera node performs the following functions:Generates and hosts multiple public/private key pairs.Automatically discovers all nodes on the network (i.e., their public keys) by connecting to as few as only one other node.Provides two way SSL using TLS certificates (mutually authenticated TLS)Supports various trust models like Trust On First Use (TOFU), IP whitelist and certificate authority.Connects to any SQL database which supports the JDBC clientSynchronises a directory of public keys mapped to recipient hosts with other nodes on the network.Exposes a public API which is used for communication between Tessera peer nodes.Provides a private API which is used for communication with Quorum node and:Allows to send a byte string to one or more public keys, returning a content-addressable identifier. This byte string is encrypted transparently and efficiently (at symmetric encryption speeds) before being transmitted over the wire to the correct recipient nodes (and only those nodes). The identifier is a hash digest of the encrypted payload that every recipient node receives. Each recipient node also receives a small blob encrypted for their public key which contains the Master Key for the encrypted payload.Allows to receive a decrypted payload based on an identifier. Payloads which your node has sent or received can be decrypted and retrieved in this way.Supports several storage backends including LevelDB, BerkeleyDB, SQLite, and Directory/Maildir style file storage suitable for use with any Filesystem in Userspace – FUSE adapter, e.g., for AWS S3. Conceptually, one can think of Tessera as a blend of a distributed key
server, PGP encryption (using modern cryptography) and Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs).EnclaveDistributed Ledger protocols typically leverage cryptographic techniques for transaction authenticity, participant authentication, and historical data preservation (i.e., through a chain of cryptographically linked data). To achieve the “separation of concerns” most of the cryptographic operations, including symmetric key generation and data encryption/decryption is delegated to the Enclave. As a result, this separation enhances security due to modularisation and also allows for performance improvements through parallelisation of certain cryptographic operations.The Enclave works in conjunction with the Transaction Manager to strengthen privacy by independently managing the cryptography operations. It holds private keys and can be considered a “Virtual HSM” isolated from other elements of the system. An enclave communicates only with its own associated transaction manager.The enclave handles the following data:Public/Private key accessPublic keys of extra recipientsDefault identity of attached nodesSpecific operations that an enclave performs are listed below:Fetching the default identity for attached nodes (default public key)Providing forwarding keys for all transactionsReturning all public keys managed by the enclaveEncrypting a payload for given sender and recipient(s)Encrypting raw payloads for a given senderDecrypting transactions for a given recipient (or sender)Adding new recipients for existing payloadsNow that we understand Quorum high level architecture, let’s now see how quorum achieves all the enterprise features we introduced earlier. How Quorum Blockchain worksIn the section, we will explore how Quorum supports the key enterprise features including privacy, performance and permissioning.First, we’ll see how private transactions are supported on Quorum.Private transactionsAs introduced earlier, private transactions are supported in Quorum through an off-chain mechanism called Privacy transaction manager. We now describe, with an end to end example, how privacy transaction manager works to enable private transactions. With this example, it will become clear how all components of Quorum work together to provide privacy features.Just before we dive into the example, note that Quorum does not only support private transactions, it supports standard public transactions too. As usual, all transactions need to be signed by the sender. There are two transaction signing mechanisms in Quorum. For public transactions, ethereum EIP-155 based transaction signing mechanism is used, and for private transactions, ethereum Homestead based transaction signing mechanism is used. Also, Quorum supports raw private transactions which means that transactions can also be signed externally without using Quorum’s signing mechanism. This feature allows for greater flexibility and security.Now back to our example:Imagine there are three Parties, A, B and C. A & B are privy to a transaction called ‘AB’, but C is not.We now look at the transaction flow from the view of each of these parties. View of Parties A & BDiagram 2: Parties A & B Looking at the diagram above, we can describe the process step by step as presented below.Party A sends a Transaction to their Quorum Node, specifying the Transaction payload and setting privateFor to be the public keys for Party B. It can be set optionally for party A too.Party A’s Quorum Node sends the Transaction to its paired transaction Manager with a request to store the transaction payload.Party A’s Transaction Manager makes a call to its associated Enclave to validate the sender and encrypt the payload.Party A’s Enclave verifies the private key for Party A, if validated, processes the transaction.Party A’s Transaction Manager calculates the SHA3-512 hash of the encrypted payload then stores the encrypted payload and encrypted random master keys (RMKs) against the hash in the databaseParty A’s Transaction Manager then securely transfers (via HTTPS):The encrypted payloadRMK that has been encrypted with the shared key produced by enclave processing from step 4The nonces to Party B’s Transaction Manager.Party B’s Transaction Manager responds with an ACK/NACK response. Note that if Party A does not receive a response/receives a Nack from Party B then the Transaction will not be propagated to the network. It is a prerequisite for the recipients to store the communicated payload.Once the data transmission to Party B’s Transaction Manager has been successful, Party A’s Transaction Manager returns the hash to the Quorum Node which then replaces the Transaction’s original payload with that hash. It also changes the transaction’s V value to 37 or 38. This value will indicate to other nodes that this hash represents a private transaction with an associated encrypted payload as opposed  to a public transaction with nonsensical bytecode.The Transaction is then propagated to the rest of the network using the standard ethereum P2P Protocol.A block containing Transaction ‘AB’ is created and distributed to each Party on the network.View of party CDiagram 3: Party CWhen processing the block, all Parties will attempt to process the transaction. Each Quorum node will recognise a V value of 37 or 38 which identifies the transaction as a private transaction whose payload requires decryption. The node then makes a call to their associated Transaction Manager to determine if they hold the Transaction. This lookup is made using the hash as the index.Since Party C does not hold the Transaction, it will receive a NotARecipient message and will skip the Transaction – it  will  not update its Private StateDB. Party A & B will look up the hash in their local Transaction Managers and discover that they do hold the Transaction. Each transaction manager will then make a call  to  its paired Enclave, passing in the  Encrypted  Payload,  Encrypted symmetric key (RMK) and Signature.View of Party BDiagram 4: Party B The Enclave validates the signature and then decrypts the symmetric key using the Party’s private key that is held in The Enclave, decrypts the Transaction Payload using the now-revealed symmetric key and returns the decrypted payload to the Transaction Manager.The Transaction Managers for Parties A and B then send the decrypted payload to the EVM for contract code execution. This execution will update the state in the Quorum Node’s Private StateDB only. NOTE: Once the code has been executed it is discarded so it is never available for reading without going through the above process. What happens inside the enclave?Now we expand on step 4 from above, which involves enclave processing.Diagram 5: Enclave processing “Party A’s Enclave verifies the private key for Party A and, if validated, processes the transaction.”This processing comprises of several steps shown belowGenerate a random master key (symmetric key) and a random nonce.Encryption of transaction payload with the symmetric key generated in step 1. Payload container is produced using xsalsa20poly1305 which is an authenticated encryption algorithm. It is based on Salsa20 stream cipher and a universal hash function called poly1305. The ‘crypto_box’ is produced using a public-key authenticated-encryption scheme which is a combination of three constructs, namely Curve25519, XSalsa20 and Poly1305.Calculate the hash (SHA3 – 512 bit) of the encrypted payload from the previous step.Encrypting the symmetric key from step 1 with the recipients public key. This process is repeated for all recipients one by one. In our example it is only for Party A and B.Enclave returns three objects to the transaction manager.Encrypted transaction payload from step 2Hash from step 3Encrypted symmetric keys for each recipients from step 4 Tessera also supports other Elliptic curves for the creation of public/private key pairs and data encryption and decryption. Also, Tessera supports integration with external hardware security modules(HSMs) or cloud-hosted key management. A notable feature of Tessera is its support for extern
al key vault integration with third-party key vaults such as Azure, Hashicorp, and AWS. This feature allows for fully decoupled and reliable key management.Now let’s discuss how enterprise-grade performance is achieved in QuorumEnterprise-grade performanceQuorum incorporates several suitable consensus mechanisms for enterprise networks. These consensus algorithms provide immediate finality and higher transaction throughput as compared to a typical proof of work mechanism on public blockchains like Bitcoin and ethereum.In an independent performance evaluation study, the transaction per second (TPS) speed is reported as high as approx. 2500 TPS. This study is available on the link here:In another study, the transaction throughput of private contract deployments is measured as high as approx. 700 TPS and performance of normal transactions have been measured up to approx. 2000 TPS. This paper is available hereThis degree of enhanced performance makes Quorum a suitable choice for enterprise use cases.Enterprise permissioning mechanismA common and standard enterprise grade scheme used for providing organisational level access control is Role Based Access Control RBAC mechanism. RBAC is an ANSI standard. The standards document is available from ANSI here It is a de facto mechanism for providing enterprise systems with a common enterprise grade access control mechanism. It is implemented in many enterprise systems. Operating systems such as Windows, and RedHat also have a RBAC implementation which shows its industry wide acceptance and usability.Quorum implements a modified subset of the RBAC standard. It works on the same principles as standard RBAC. It allows role based access along with rule-based permissioning, which ensures necessary control over who can join the network and how it can be operated.To understand permissioning features in Quorum, first we need to define some terminologies that will help us to understand the permissioning model better.Network – A set of interconnected nodes representing an enterprise blockchainOrganisation – A set of roles, ethereum accounts and nodes with a set of network access control permissionsSub Organisation – A group within an organisation.Account – An ethereum EOA (Externally Owned Account)Voter – An account with permissions to vote.Role – A named job function in an organisationNode – A geth node which is part of the network and belongs to an organisation or a sub organisationPermission – A description of the type of actions that an account is authorised to perform. ( e.g. value transfer, deploy smart contract or execute smart contract) Diagram 6 : Quorum Permissioning mechanismQuorum permissioning mechanism is implemented using smart contracts and some necessary changes in the client software. As such, this model can be divided into two parts, the first one that deals with the access control decision output, which represents a decision that if an account is allowed to perform a function or not. This part can be considered the ‘enforcement logic’ and is implemented in the Quorum client software.The other part is responsible for the administration of the underlying rules associated with the permissioning logic. This “rule engine” derives an access control decision based on the roles assigned to an entity. It governs what an object is allowed to do on a blockchain network. This part can be called ‘policy management’. This component is fully implemented using smart contracts written in the solidity language. Both of these elements coupled make up the Quorum permissioning mechanism. Quorum permissioning mechanism currently works with RAFT, IBFT and PoA consensus mechanisms.As shown in diagram 6, in the Quorum permissions model, the network is composed of different organisations. The network administrator account(s) defined at the network level can propose and approve new organisations requesting to join the network. They can also assign administrative privileges to an account to act as an organisation’s administration account. The organisation administrator account can perform several functions, which are listed below.Create new rolesCreate sub organisationsAssign roles to its domain accountsAdd new nodes to the organisation. In addition, a sub organisation can have its own set of roles, accounts and sub organisations. The organisation administration account manages and controls all activities at the organisation level. The organisation administrator can create an administrator role and assign that to a different account to allow that account to administer the sub organisation.The access rights of an account are derived from the role assigned to it. For example an administrator role is able to execute a smart contract, whereas as a trainee role is only able to read. An account that exists at an organisation level can transact through any node which is present either in the sub organisations underneath or at top organisations level.Diagram 7: relationship of different entities in Quorum permissioning model In diagram 7, we present this architecture, where network is the top level entity, containing an organisation or several organisations, with each organisation containing accounts and nodes and relevant access and status types.Also note that user is an external entity that exists outside the network. It can be an organisation or an individual user. The key idea here is that a user is mapped to ethereum accounts in the permissioning mechanism. It can be a 1 to many, many to 1 or 1 to one relationship. For example, a single organisation represented by a username can be mapped to several accounts on the blockchain. Similarly many external entities can be represented by the same account on the chain. A single user can also be mapped to a single account. The advantage of this approach is that there is no need to maintain on-chain records of users, which not only can result in high storage costs but is also not appropriate to be stored on chain for privacy reasons.Accounts are assigned roles and statuses depending on their business function and access level whereas nodes are allocated statuses which represent their access level on the network. Organisations can also be assigned with statuses. This feature is particularly useful when an entire organisation is required to be assigned with a status on the network, for example when an organisation leaves the network, the administrator can simply assign suspended status to the organisation which will apply to all the entities within that organisation including accounts and sub organisations.ConsensusSince consortium chains are permissioned there is no need for an expensive Proof of Work consensus mechanism. Moreover, due to performance requirements, slower public chain consensus mechanisms are not appropriate for consortium chains. Therefore, Quorum offers different consensus mechanisms that are more suitable for private blockchains. These mechanisms are listed below.RAFT-based Consensus: A Crash fault tolerant (CFT) consensus model for faster block generation, transaction  finality,  and  on-demand block creation.Istanbul BFT Consensus: It is a Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) algorithm which is based on Practical byzantine fault tolerant (PBFT) consensus algorithm. It supports immediate transaction finality. It provides liveness and safety under standard Byzantine fault threshold assumptions of ⌊ n-1 / 3 ⌋ under a partially synchronous network and 3f + 1 network configuration. Clique Consensus: Clique is a Proof of Authority (POA) consensus algorithm which is available with public Go ethereum client (geth).Example use caseQuorum is used in many use cases including, but not limited to logistics, healthcare, Identity, property, payments, capital markets and post trade. We provide a list and brief description of some of the projects below. These are just some of the many use cases that Quorum has been used in. A comprehensive list is being maintained on the official Quorum website under section “Built on Quorum”. Readers are encouraged to refer to the Quorum website Quorum Blockchain exampleTools and developmentThere
are also many tools available for the Quorum ecosystem, which helps to improve both user and developer experience. These tools   mainly include network management, deployment and monitoring utilities. As Quorum is continuously growing and has an active developer community, several user and developer tools have emerged. This trend is only expected to grow. A short list of different tools is shown below, with a link for further details.Quorum is also available on different cloud platforms, mainly this includesThis is just a small list from a large pool of tools and developer platforms available for Quorum. For new updates, visit hereQuorum Blockchain SummaryIn conclusion, Quorum provides an enterprise grade blockchain platform with high performance, enterprise oriented access control mechanism and privacy. All these features make Quorum an excellent choice for use in any enterprise use case.If you need technical assistance you can contact Quorum engineering teamMeetups and conferences are also held regularly all around the world you can find more information about these events here In this article we have covered the core aspects of Quorum. For more in-depth details on development, relevant tools and specific details on various components of Quorum, we refer readers to comprehensive official quorum documentation which is available here.© 2020 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All Rights Reserved. *The information and viewpoints expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates. 

Bitcoin on Showtime: Winklevoss Biographer Writes BTC Mining Plot for Billions

0
Bitcoin on Showtime: Winklevoss Biographer Writes BTC Mining Plot for Billions

Sunday’s episode of the Showtime series Billions featured a cryptocurrency mining scheme being executed in a prep school.
The Bitcoin focused episode was written by Ben Mezrich, who also wrote the book Bitcoin Billionaires which tells the story of the Winklevoss twins, the venture capitalist’s behind the Gemini crypto exchange who are reported to own about 1% of Bitcoin’s total supply between them.
Mezrich teased the episode on Twitter:

Billions this Sunday night… I’m not sayin’ there’s definitely gonna be some Bitcoin… I’m just saying I did happen to write the episode…I mean, just sayin’…
— Ben Mezrich (@benmezrich) May 14, 2020
Beg, Bribe, Bully
The episode entitled “Beg, Bribe, Bully” told the story of Gordie Axelrod, son of the shows main character Bobby Axelrod. Gordie is a prep school student operating a Bitcoin mining farm in his dormitory who gets in trouble when the principal of the school accuses him of damaging the school’s electrical supply.
According to the show, Gordie’s mining operation did require almost 24 kilowatts per hour for the infrastructure but he insists that the school’s power is damaged by a power surge.
Billions and Bitcoin
The episode marks the second time this season that Billionaires had featured a Bitcoin plot.
The premier episode this year also focused on cryptocurrency mining but at an illegal Bitcoin farm.
The episode drew huge reactions from the cryptocurrency community and even applause from CZ Changpeng Zhao of Binance himself.

#Adoption https://t.co/6LgPb1griI
— CZ Binance 🔶🔶🔶 (@cz_binance) May 4, 2020

Blockchain Oracles- The Key To Scalability And Interoperability

0
Blockchain Oracles- The Key To Scalability And Interoperability

Share and get +16 +16 blockchain oracles are third-party services that provide smart contract with external information. They serve as bridges between blockchains and the outside world.Scalability and interoperability are often considered the two holy grails of the crypto space. Interoperability is defined as the ability of different softwares to communicate and exchange information with each other effectively. Oracles are a powerful tool that can provide interoperability between different blockchains and communicate with external data sources.Why interoperability is importantThere are several centralized points of failure currently within the decentralized space. Eg. The exchanges act as a portal between the centralized and the decentralized space. However, since they are highly vulnerable, they are always under attack by hackers.For blockchains to succeed, they must be able to interact with legacy systems like financial institutions, etc. It is essential to maintain a robust point of contact between the two.Initially, the community thought that the smart contract ecosystem would be governed by chain maximalism i.e., one dominant chain that hosts a bunch of smart contracts. However, we already know that there are multiple smart contract platforms out there. To achieve maximum functionality, it is critical for these platforms to know how to “talk” to each other.Classifying oraclesThere are two kinds of interoperability that blockchain projects can use:On-Chain InteroperabilityThis method uses a third blockchain as a bridge between two different blockchains. Projects like AION, Wanchain and ICON use this method. The following three are the most common approaches to on-chain interoperability:Off-chain InteroperabilityThis method uses off-chain or middleware systems to facilitate interoperability.Atomic Swaps: Atomic swaps are a decentralized method used to exchange two assets without having to go through a centralized exchange. If you want to know more about Atomic Swaps then read this.State Channels: Layer-2 implementations like state channels can allow for off-chain interaction and atomic swaps.Operation System: A blockchain operating system enables cross-chain messaging and atomic swaps by running on top of the participating blockchains.Oracles: Oracles can allow a wide-degree of cross-communication across blockchains and enterprise systems, as well.Apart from this, we can also categorize oracles into software and hardware oracles:Software Oracle: The information relayed within the software oracles comes from online sources like websites, backend APIs, or even other smart contracts.  The type of information included here can range from stock prices to sporting event data.Hardware Oracle: Hardware oracles use IoT devices to track and verify real-world data before sending it to the smart contract.Why do we need Blockchain Oracles?Smart contracts have been designed to execute irreversible operations. This is why the information fed into the contract must come from a relatively trusted source. This is why, when data is coming from an external source, it can be a bit of a dilemma. However, on the flip side, it does increase the number of use cases exponentially.An oracle signs claims about the state of the world and uploads it to the blockchain. Blockchains seem to live in their isolated reality, completely cut off from the rest of the world. An oracle can connect the blockchain to the real world by providing it with relevant information. The information may be retrieved or aggregated from one or multiple trusted sources by one or multiple oracles. Let’s take a simple example to see how oracles work.Alice and Bob place a bet on who is going to win the NBA finals.Alice believes that LA Lakers are going to win, while Bob is betting on the Milwaukee Bucks.After agreeing on the payouts, they sign the deal by locking up their funds in a smart contract. The smart contract releases funds to the winner based on the results.Now, how exactly will the contract know who the winner of the match was? It depends on the oracle to feed it the relevant information.The oracle queries a trusted API to find out which team won relays this information to the smart contract. The contract then sends the funds to Alice or Bob, depending on the outcome.Without the oracle doing its job, the smart contract will have no way to know who the winner of the match was.Blockchain use cases#1 Prediction marketDecentralized prediction markets like Augur and Gnosis leverage the “knowledge of the crowd” to predict the future state of the markets. These markets must capture knowledge via multiple oracles or off-chain event settlements.#2 DefiThe combination of smart contracts and finance has ushered in the era of Decentralized Finance (DeFi). These products need access to trustless data feeds, which could be provided by oracles.#3 InsuranceIt could be possible to buy insurance products over the blockchain via oracles. Since the biggest issue in insurance is fraud, the decentralization of the blockchain and the reliability of oracles are a perfect combo to resolve this issue.#4 ShipmentOracles can replace the existing, centralized GPS systems to provide reliable location mapping for dApps to track shipments.#5 Putting the stable in “stablecoins”MakerDAO’s Dai stablecoin uses a network of multiple Oracles to report to it the price of Ether continually. They need to be constantly aware of the price so that they can know if they need to consolidate or liquidate their collateral to keep Dai’s price stable.How to maintain Blockchain Oracle’s reliability?There are four techniques that oracles can use to maintain its reliability:Multiple data sources.Multiple Oracles.Incentive mechanisms.Trusted execution environment.Multiple data sourcesIf your oracle is collecting info from multiple data sources, the probability of it receiving wrong information is low. However, the oracle itself can act as a point-of-failure.Multiple oraclesAnother approach is to use multiple oracles to collect info which negates the “single-point-of-failure” problem. However, the risk here is that there is a chance a majority of these oracles may have compromised sources of information.Incentive mechanismOracles can take a page out of Casper protocol and include a “stake-slashing” mechanism to ensure that the actors involved are incentivized to act honestly. The key here is to incorporate a form of tokenomics that forces the nodes in the oracle network to perform honest work and behave well. If they perform well, they get a reward, if not, then they can be punished via a slashing mechanism.Trusted execution environment (TEEs)TEEs allows an application to be executed in a secluded environment called “enclave” that provides it with hardware protection. The enclave:Ensures the integrity of the project.Keeps the operations confidential.It allows the application to read and write memory outside the enclave. In other words, it can prove its honesty and work integrity without having to spill exactly what they are doing.Promising blockchain oracle projectsThere are three oracle projects that we will be putting under the microscope. They are: ChainLink.Augur.RIF Gateways ChainLinkChainLink is a decentralized oracle network built on ethereum. It aims to be a secure blockchain middleware that intends to connect different smart contracts across blockchains. The network went live on May 30th, 2019. The company behind this is called “SmartContract.” Back in September 2017, ChainLink raised a whopping $32 million in its ICO. ChainLink plans on creating smart contracts to securely interact with resources external to the blockchain, such as cryptographically secure data feeds, as well as facilitating interoperability in-between blockchains. ChainLink is currently focussed on creating a decentralized network of oracles that are compatible with the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Hyperledger blockchains.ChainLink Network: On-Chain and Off-ChainThe ChainLink protocol uses both on-chain and off-chain components.On-Chain ComponentFilters the oracles based on the metrics requested
by a party to a smart contract.Collects the oracles corresponding to the SLA queries and sorts them using reputational and aggregation models.Provides a final collective result based on the query. Off-Chain ComponentThis component consists of oracle nodes that are connected to the Ethereum network. These nodes independently respond to the appropriate off-chain requests.The off-chain nodes which fulfill specific, pre-determined requirements, gather the information requested by these contracts.ChainLink acts as a low-cost middleman to re-route and allocate data.Off-chain nodes are rewarded with the native LINK token for their services.AugurAugur is a trustless, decentralized oracle, and prediction market platform. It leverages the wisdom of the crowd to speculate on and report the objective outcome of any event.Prediction markets are speculative markets that allow users to purchase and sell shares in the outcome of an event. Suppose you have specialized knowledge in a particular field. E.g. A basketball match. By considering various factors, you wager on a favorable outcome. How does Augur work?There are three kinds of people who use augur: The Reporters aka Oracles: They report on the outcomes of their fields of choice. When an event is near maturation, they report on the outcome. If they report wrongly or they do not report at all they risk losing 20% of their REP (native Augur tokens). The value of augur is directly proportional to the quality of the reporters. Why? Because if a lot of the reporters are dishonest, then no one will want to use augur, which will significantly decrease the demand. This forces all the reporters to remain honest.The Wagerers: They bet on the future of the markets based on the reports by the reporters.The Market Creators: They will be creating the markets for the reporters to report on and earn market fees as a result.The Reporting PeriodThe reporting is done in two phases. Within the first month of the completion of the event, the reporters submit their report to the network, which is tightly secured and kept away from the public. A month later, the second phase happens where the reports are shown in an open ledger, which is free for all to see. When that is done, we reach a final consensus.Aftermath Of The ConsensusThe wagerers get their appropriate reward for putting their bets.The reporters who reported honestly get fees from the wagerers.The reporters who didn’t report correctly get 20% of their REP deducted and that, in turn, goes to the reporters who reported honestly and accurately.RIF GatewaysRootstock (RSK) is a smart contract platform that is connected to Bitcoin´s blockchain through sidechain technology. Rootstock allows you to create applications compatible with ethereum (the web3/EVM/Solidity model) while still enjoying the security provided by Bitcoin’s blockchain. At its very core, Rootstock is a combination of:A Turing-complete resource-accounted deterministic virtual machine (for smart contracts) is compatible with the Ethereum’s EVM.A two-way pegged bitcoin sidechain (for BTC denominated trade) based on a strong federation.A SHA256D merge-mining consensus protocol (for consensus security relying on Bitcoin’s miners) with 30-seconds block interval. (for fast payments).Rootstock will also be using its tech stack – the Rootstock Infrastructure Framework Open Standard (RIFOS) to help build a healthy economic system on top of Bitcoin, sort of like a decentralized AWS. It’ll facilitate the use of blockchain technology by making it as simple for everyone as possible. Keep in mind the following features when it comes to RIFOS:As long as a product is compatible with the underlying protocols, developers can seamlessly integrate it within the RIFOS ecosystem.All the individual components of RIFOS have been designed to maximize the potential benefits for those who want to offer their infrastructure services within the protocol’s ecosystem.All the components are protected by the security provided by the bitcoin Network.Its protocols will include mechanisms to trigger network effects and economies of scale.Most of the services running in RIFOS will be consumed utilizing a single token (RIF). RIF Gateways brief overviewRIF Gateways provides a network of oracles to enable secure and tamper-proof interactions with the external world. It proposes an interface layer that unifies access to oracle services and cross-chain integrations, providing blockchains with an implementation-agnostic protocol for both internal and external data consumption. Here are some points about RIF Gateways to keep in mind:Builds bridges between blockchains.It allows data providers and consumers to engage in secure and standardized data transfers.Supports a wide range of data consumption, subscription, and payment models. RIF Gateways provides three distinct oracle services:Data services: To consume external data from the blockchain.Triggers service: Consuming external data from within the blockchain.Scheduler service: Request future execution of a blockchain transaction. #1 Data ServicesA data service provides a specific kind of external-world data. External data can come from a single data source or a network of multiple data sources. This is how it works:The creator and offeror of a data service is called “Data Service Provider.”Consumers can choose among different types of data services and then interact with the corresponding Data Service Provider’s smart contract for getting the external data.The Service Provider must implement the Data Service interfaces in their smart contracts.The Provider must periodically update their data since their consumer may need that data that’s latest or the one that was published a little time back.How does the interaction between the Provider and Consumer works?There are two methods that a consumer can use to consume the Provider’s data – a direct pull model or a subscription service.Pull modelConsumer pays for the data on a per-query basis. The requested data is taken directly from the provider. This is a more expensive and slower model.Subscription modelA consumer pays a fixed price for access. Serving a single piece of data to multiple customers allows the Service Provider to split the cost of fetching the external-world data among all the subscribers. RIF provides two subscription models:On-demand: Consumer asks the Provider for the value on an as-needed basis, as long as the subscription is valid.Push: Provider pushes the new data to the subscribers periodically.#2 Trigger ServicesA trigger service allows the Provider to procure information from within the blockchain and give it to the consumer for a price. The consumer can build their own notification solution on the API provided by the Provider. The features of the Trigger services are as follows.Each Trigger Provider should be associated with a unique domain name. This ensures ease of user accessibility.Providers must comply with a predefined interface that has been designed to be consumed by third-party applications.Consumers have the freedom to choose between a single Provider or subscribe to a set of Providers.Pre-defined triggersThe Provider can offer a notification service about certain smart contracts or events within the blockchain. He does so by notifying a fixed set of events emitted by the contract being observed.Custom triggersThe consumer can also build a trigger specifically for their own needs. They must specify to the Provider the source of the events they want to be notified about, eg. the smart contract address.Even a non-technical-user to create their own notification service.To trigger some action, the Provider allows consumers to specify which action is executed once a matching event is received.Consumers have the freedom to set the list of events which will be notified by the Trigger Provider.How does the interaction between the Provider and Consumer works?The trigger service offers the pull and subscription modelsPull modelThe consumer specifically requests a notification about one particular event.Subscription modelAs with Data Services, a consumer pays a predefined price for the
service. However, triggers only have the push subscription model.#3 Transaction scheduling servicesThe transaction scheduling service is a decentralized solution that allows a customer to program future executions of on-chain transactions. As with Data Services and Trigger Services, new scheduling service providers can join by registering a new scheduler service that will be discovered through the RIF Marketplace. Consumers may be internal/on-chain or external/off-chain.How does the interaction between the Provider and Consumer works?The scheduler service can also offer pull and subscription models.Pull modelThe consumer pays the amount required after he requests a single transaction schedule for a delegated execution. The execution can be scheduled for a specific time and a given “execution window.”Subscription modelConsumers can subscribe to delegate the execution of a specific function recurrently. The consumer pays a negotiated price for executing a function recurrently. RIF Scheduler Services protocol proposes just has the push subscription mode for delegating a repetitive execution. 

World Economic Forum Warns Leaders to Brace for Long-Lasting Global Recession as Cybercrimes Surge

0
World Economic Forum Warns Leaders to Brace for Long-Lasting Global Recession as Cybercrimes Surge

The World Economic Forum (WEF) suggested that leaders around the world need to do more to ensure a quicker and more sustainable recovery for the global economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
 
Amongst the 350 top risk professionals in the world surveyed, these risk managers expect a prolonged global recession, as a number of areas of concern were identified in the report compiled by the Forum’s Global Risks Advisory Board, Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc, and Zurich Insurance Group.
 
Half of the respondents expressed expected bankruptcies and industry consolidation, and failure of industries to recover, and a disruption of supply chains. The World Economic Forum published a report on the importance of blockchain in supply chain disruption amid the pandemic. 
 
Saadia Zahidi, Managing Director of the World Economic Forum said, “The crisis has devastated lives and livelihoods. It has triggered an economic crisis with far-reaching implications and revealed the inadequacies of the past.”
 
With the onset of the new infectious disease, cybercrimes and the breakdown of IT infrastructure and networks have taken a swerve for the worst. The Forum concluded that around 500 million people would be at risk of falling into poverty, an anticipated fall of 13 to 32 percent in global trade, and a 1 percent of increase in unemployment, which could result in a 2 percent increase in chronic illness.
 
Levels of unemployment continue to grow, especially in the younger cohort, a lack of progress in reducing carbon emissions are also possible side effects of the pandemic as well. The US federal authorities found that a group of international fraudsters may have been attacking the US unemployment systems, funneling millions of dollars in payments that were intended to support those who were affected economically by COVID-19.
 
The Forum’s take on blockchain and digitization to address supply chain disruption
 
The World Economic Forum recently published a new blockchain deployment toolkit aimed to help governments, major institutions, and companies of any size to be able to maximize the benefits of integrating blockchain technology in the supply chain sector. The Forum also highlighted the importance of blockchain for addressing the disruption of supply chain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
The toolkit was tested by businesses for a period of time, to make sure it is user-friendly and can have an impact on companies in the future. Nadia Hewett, Blockchain Lead at the World Economic Forum said, “Not only are we now providing the toolkit and all the lessons in subsequent COVID blockchain activities to our partners, governments and private sector; while we developed the toolkit and other ongoing projects, we brought in partners to help co-create and design it with a user-centric approach in mind.”
 
The World Economic Forum believes with the accelerated release of the blockchain deployment toolkit will also help with the economic recovery post-pandemic. Hewett says that many countries will rely on digitization for its economic recovery, as digitization for trade could act as a way to reduce trade barriers, given all the geopolitical issues.
 
Feds suspect fraudsters attacked US unemployment systems costing millions
 
With the number of infections in the US growing at an appalling rate, so far, 1.5 million American citizens have been infected, with over 90,000 related deaths. The unemployment crisis in the country has surpassed the rate since the Great Depression, as the official US unemployment rate is at its highest in recorded history, at an alarming 14.7 percent.
 
The New York Times obtained a memo from the US Secret Service, indicating that the fraud scheme was coming from a “well-organized Nigerian fraud ring,” and could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in the American financial system.
 
These fraudsters may have leveraged detailed information about US citizens, including social security numbers, which have been obtained from previous cyber attacks. The attackers have also filed claims on behalf of people who have not been laid off, according to officials.
 
Risks of UK supply chains ahead of Brexit
 
Ahead of Brexit, the British are facing issues in disrupted supply chains due to the coronavirus pandemic. With just seven months to go before Brexit takes place, 82 percent of small to medium-sized manufacturers say that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected their supply chains. 
 
 
Image via Shutterstock

Blockchain Evidence and Courts – A cross-jurisdictional analysis

0
Blockchain Evidence and Courts – A cross-jurisdictional analysis

Share and get +16 +16 This article will analyze the developments about Blockchain evidence and courts in the USA, China, Azerbaijan, the United Kingdom and Italy.A number of major jurisdictions across the globe have recently addressed the issue of the admissibility of evidence recorded on blockchain in courts. These developments have taken place in a number of ways; some jurisdictions have passed new laws to specifically regulate the legal recognition of blockchain evidence, others have amended existing laws, while certain jurisdictions have published statements clarifying their regulation under existing law.Blockchain Evidence and CourtsUSAThe Federal Government of the United States has not exercised its constitutional power to implement legislation regulating the admissibility of blockchain evidence in court. Thus, states enjoy residual power to implement their own legislation. The Federal Rules of Evidence establish a minimum requirement in what is referred to as the ‘best evidence rule’ which establishes that the best evidence must be used at trial. Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states “An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise”.Several states have regulated blockchain through introducing their own legislation and rules, particularly with regard to the regulation of cryptocurrency – or as termed by various legislators, virtual currencies. New York kickstarted legislative developments in the USA through the regulation of virtual currency companies, and eventually, several states followed suit, with 32 states implementing their own rules and regulations. The states of Illinois, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, New York and Ohio have passed or introduced legislation that specifically regulates the admissibility of blockchain evidence in court.IllinoisThe Blockchain Technology Act House Bill 3575, which was passed by the House of Representatives on the 29th May 2019 and came into effect in January 2020, regulates the use of blockchain technology in transactions and proceedings, provides limitations, and also defines terms such as blockchain and electronic record. The Act states that “a smart contract, record, or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because a blockchain was used to create, store or verify the smart contract, record or signature”.  Evidence of a smart contract, record or signature which was created, stored or verified through blockchain cannot be excluded in proceedings. Furthermore, where the law requires records to be in writing, electronic evidence recorded on blockchain is sufficient. Where a signature is required, submission of a signature recorded electronically on blockchain or blockchain evidence verifying the intent of a person to provide a signature is likewise sufficient.Certain limitations to the use of blockchain are also stipulated in the Act. A notable limitation is that where an agreement between the parties exists to conduct a transaction by using blockchain, and the law requires that such contract or record relating to the transaction is in writing, the legal validity of the contract may be denied if the blockchain containing the electronic record of the transaction is not in a form which may be stored and accurately reproduced for all parties. Another limitation is that where a notice or acknowledgement must be given in writing, this requirement is not satisfied by delivering or recording the notice or acknowledgement on blockchain where the notice is of cancellation or termination of a public utility, matters related to primary residences, health and life insurance policies, and recall of products.VermontHouse Act 868, ergo ‘An act relating to miscellaneous economic development’, passed on the 2nd June 2016 includes a section dedicated to the recognition of the validity of blockchain records and their admissibility in court. In essence, the Act brings digital records electronically stored on blockchain on par with Vermont’s rules of evidence, thus such records are admissible in court and have legal bearing. The Act states that a digital record electronically registered in a blockchain is self-authenticating if it is accompanied by a written declaration of a qualified person, made under oath, stating the qualification of the person making such certification and the date and time the record entered the blockchain, the date and time the record was received from the blockchain, that the record was maintained on the blockchain as a regular conducted activity, and that the record was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice. However, the presumption does not extend to the truthfulness, validity, or legal status of the contents of the fact or record. Such digital record is considered as a record of regularly conducted business activity, unless the source of the information, the method or circumstance lack trustworthiness. The Act also lays down several presumptions. Firstly, the record is considered to be authentic. Furthermore, the date and time of the record is the date and time that the record was added to the blockchain. The person presumed to have made the recordation is also the one which the blockchain establishes. Persons against whom electronically stored evidence is presented may challenge the authenticity of such records by producing evidence demonstrating that the “presumed fact, record, time or identity is not authentic as set forth on the date added to the blockchain”.While the law still requires an element of human verification, the provisions of this act are still significant as they affirm the evidentiary potential of blockchain records. The ramifications of this Act would be further magnified if states such as New York and California implement similar provisions, where this type of evidence is more likely to be utilized.VirginiaHouse Bill 2415 titled ‘Business records; electronically registered on a blockchain self-authenticating document’ was submitted as a bill on  the 1st September 2019 and has not yet been passed into law by the House of Representatives. The bill seeks to amend the Code of Virginia, and the provisions outlined in this bill are very similar to those contained in Vermont’s H.A. 868. The bill lays down that “in any civil proceeding where a business record electronically registered on a blockchain is material and otherwise admissible, the record shall be presumed to be self-authenticating and requires no extrinsic evidence of authenticity”. However, this presumption does not extend to the truthfulness, validity or legal status of the contents of the record. The presumptions established by the bill are identical to those laid down in Vermont’s H.A.868, regarding, inter alia, the authenticity of the record, the date and time, and the person who made the record. Another identical provision states that records meeting such requirements will be considered as records of regularly conducted business activity, unless the source of information lacks trustworthiness.WashingtonIn the State of Washington, Senate Bill 5638, an Act ‘Relating to recognizing the validity of distributed ledger technology’ was passed into law on the 26th April 2019 and came into effect on the 28th July 2019. The Act defines an electronic record as “a record generated, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means for use in an information system or for transmission from one information system to another”. Electronic records may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability on the grounds that they are generated, communicated, received, or stored using distributed ledger technology.Arizona & New YorkArizona House Bill 2417 was signed into law on the 29th March 2017 and amended the Arizona Revised Statutes by adding a new section on electronic transactions. Through this amendment, a signature secured through blockchain is considered to be in electronic form and constitutes an electronic signature, and records or contracts secured through bloc
kchain are also considered to be in electronic form and to constitute electronic records. Furthermore, smart contracts may exist in commerce and contracts related to a transaction cannot be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability on the grounds that such contracts contain a smart contract term. Thus, legal certainty is provided regarding the enforceability and validity of smart contracts.In the State of New York, Assembly Bill 1683 and Senate Bill 4142 propose practically identical amendments to those presented in Arizona H.B. 2417 to the Electronic Signature and Records Act of the State Technology law. The Bills contain the same provisions regarding the recognition of electronic signatures and contracts secured through blockchain and the validity of smart contracts. A.B. 1683 is currently in Assembly Committee, while S.B. 4142 has passed Senate.OhioSenate Bill 300 was introduced in May 2018 and sought to amend the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, with the original text containing provisions stating that “a record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form”. The bill also stated that where law requires records to be in writing or requires a signature, electronic records and electronic signatures satisfy such requirements. Furthermore, the bill proposed the recognition of smart contracts having full legal effect and enforceability even if “an electronic record was used in its formation or…contains a smart contract term”.Some of these provisions included in Senate Bill 300 were incorporated into Senate Bill 200 which was signed into law on the 3rd August 2018. Through the promulgation of this bill, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act was amended to state that “a record or contract that is secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in electronic form and to be an electronic record”, and electronic signatures secured through blockchain technology are also recognized as electronic signatures. However, the provisions in Senate Bill 300 recognizing the validity of smart contracts were omitted from Senate Bill 200. Thus, while the provisions regarding electronic records and signatures are similar to those passed in Arizona, the State of Ohio does not currently recognize smart contracts as valid unlike the State of Arizona.ChinaThe Hangzhou Internet Court in China was the first court to accept evidence recorded on blockchain in June 2018 in the case Hangzhou Huatai Yimei Culture Media Co. Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co. Ltd. The plaintiff company had obtained a license to publish an article online from City Express Newspaper, which the website First Female Fashion Network, owned by the defendant company, republished without authorization. The plaintiff was authorized to enforce online infringements thus instituted proceedings in January 2018.The plaintiff had stored evidence of the copyright consisting of snapshots of the article webpages on a blockchain deposition service called Baoquan.com. The court examined the validity of the evidence presented by the plaintiff by analyzing the way Baoquan.com preserved the data, which consisted of obtaining a copy of the snapshot, source code of the webpage and invocation log and storing them in a package file. The package file’s hash value was then calculated and stored on the Factom and Bitcoin blockchains. The Court deemed this as reliable. The Court then proceeded to confirm that the hash values recorded on the two blockchains and the hash value represented by the plaintiff were identical, and the time stamps were also cohesive with the time when the webpage content was captured.The Court reiterated that blockchain is capable of providing secure electronic data and when examining the admissibility of this data as evidence, attention should be paid to the source of the data, whether the methods used for its collection and storage were reliable, and whether such evidence is associated with other evidence available.Through this judgement by one of the Internet Courts established in China, it is clear that China is laying the very foundations for admissibility of blockchain evidence in courts around the world.On the 7th September 2018, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts’. These provisions regulate the proceedings of the country’s three Internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing and Guangzhou which primarily deal with disputes involving online shopping, network service contract disputes, copyright infringement of work published online, and ownership issues of Internet domain names among others. Generally, the entire litigation process takes place online.Article 11 of the provisions regulate the admissibility of blockchain evidence and state that;“electronic data submitted by the parties concerned, if collected through electronic signature, trusted timestamping, hash value verification, blockchain and other evidence collection, and verified with retention and tamper-proof technical means or via the electronic forensics and deposit platform, which are able to prove its authenticity, the Internet Court shall confirm its authenticity”.This essentially confirms the decision taken by the Hangzhou Internet Court earlier in 2018, and extends the rules established therein to the other Internet courts.The Jiangsu High Court also issued ‘Guidelines on Implementation of the Most Stringent Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights to Provide Judicial Guarantees for High Quality Development’ in September 2019. These guidelines cover several issues, including the admissibility of blockchain evidence. Article 9 specifically states that evidence collected or preserved technologically should be recognized at law, and judges should recognize evidence stored on blockchain as valid if it meets the standard of proof.On the 30th October 2019, the Beijing Internet Court decided its first case instituted by the plaintiffs ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok against HuoPai Video. TikTok is a mobile application where users upload and share short video clips, which has gained popularity globally. Baidu Technologies developed a very similar application called HuoPai, and uploaded one of the videos originally uploaded on TikTok without permission and even offered its users the ability to download such video. ByteDance sued for an injunction and damages. The case was filed online and the hearing was also conducted online, and the Court even accepted digital evidence recorded on blockchain. The third party platform Zhongjing Tianping Technology had stored evidence which proved that the video had been stolen, thus the Court was able to find Baidu guilty of copyright infringement.AzerbaijanIn October 2018, discussions were underway among the Azerbaijani Internet Forum (AIF) for the Ministry of Justice to implement blockchain technology in several departments within its remit. Currently, the Ministry provides more than 30 electronic services and 15 information systems and registries, including “electronic notary, electronic courts, penitentiary service, information systems of non-governmental organizations”, and the register of the population, among others. Part of the AIF’s plans is to introduce a “mobile notary office” which would involve the notarization of electronic documents. Through this process, the registry’s entries will be stored on blockchain which parties will be able to access but not change, thus preventing falsification. Future plans also include employing smart contracts in public utility services such as water, gas and electricity.United KingdomThe Digital Architecture and Cyber Security at Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) announced plans to conduct a pilot project whereby DLT would be employed to securely store digital evidence in August 2018. £1.2 billion have already been invested in the modernization of courts in the United Kingdom, with the ultimate aim of digital transformation eliminating the use of paper to streamline the
courts’ processes and facilitate access to information.Through this innovative system, a digital audit trail would be created which provides a record of the ways in which digital evidence is created, accessed, and modified, and by which entity and from which location, which would enable a thorough examination of the event which led to such evidence. The project aims to harness the integrity and decentralization provided by DLT for improved “evidence sharing, identity management and ensuring citizens have maximum control over their own information”. The implementation of DLT would also reduce the cost and time taken up by the process of storing evidence, while preventing the tampering of evidence.In November 2019, the legal treatment of cryptoassets and smart contracts was ascertained through the publishing of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s (UKJT) legal statement following consultation earlier in the year. UKJT, which forms part of the LawTech Delivery Panel, confirmed that smarts contracts have legal contractual force under English law, which requires the agreement of two or more parties intending to create a legal relationship through such agreement and who will each derive some form of benefit from such contract. These requirements may very well be satisfied by smart contracts, however, the Courts would enquire into each individual case, and more specifically the “parties’ words and conduct”, to determine whether these requirements were in fact satisfied when presented with a smart contract – just as it would enquire with any other contract. The statement reads that “in principle a smart contract can be identified, interpreted and enforced using ordinary and well-established legal principles”, both where code is used to define the parties’ contractual obligations or simply to create an agreement the meaning of which is found externally. The statement also confirms that both unilateral smart contracts such as those involving Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), as well as lesser-used bilateral smart contracts, are recognized at law. Finally, where the law requires a written signature, this requirement can be satisfied by using a private key. On a practical note, when it comes to interpretation by the courts, it is clarified that smart contracts will be treated in the same way as other contracts, with the judges focusing their interpretation on the parties’ intentions as to what the nature of their obligations ought to be; however, expert evidence may be needed to interpret computer code.ItalyIn January 2019, the Italian Parliament passed Law No. 12/2019 which confirmed the legal validity of smart contracts and DLT. The law defines DLT as:“technologies and information protocols that use a shared, distributed, replicable, simultaneously accessible, architecturally decentralized registry on a cryptographic basis, such as to allow registration, validation, updating and archiving of data, both in clear and further protected by cryptography, that are verifiable by each participant, are not alterable and not modifiable”.The law states that the storage of a computerized document on DLT has the same legal effects as an electronic time stamp  under Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, also known as the eIDAS Regulation. The Regulation defines an electronic time stamp as “data in electronic form which binds other data in electronic form to a particular time establishing evidence that the latter data existed at that time”. Article 41(1) of the Regulation states:“1.   An electronic time stamp shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements of the qualified electronic time stamp.”However, Article 41 goes on to state that only qualified electronic time stamps “enjoy the presumption of the accuracy of the date and the time it indicates and the integrity of the data to which the date and time are bound”. In order for an electronic time stamp to be considered qualified, the following three requirements must be satisfied as set out in Article 42 of eIDAS:“1.   A qualified electronic time stamp shall meet the following requirements:(a) it binds the date and time to data in such a manner as to reasonably preclude the possibility of the data being changed undetectably;(b) it is based on an accurate time source linked to Coordinated Universal Time; and(c) it is signed using an advanced electronic signature or sealed with an advanced electronic seal of the qualified trust service provider, or by some equivalent method.”Therefore, a qualified electronic time stamp would have to be made by an authorized certification body such as a qualified trust service provider, which is not common practice in most blockchains. This requirement runs counter to one of blockchain technology’s most important characteristic – decentralization – however, this categorization would only be required if the evidence presented is challenged to demonstrate the accuracy of the data presented. One can perhaps debate the possibility of expanding on the part relating to ‘equivalent methods’ in order to include trusted technologies such as DLT.Law No. 12/2019 also provides a definition of smart contracts, and states that where the law requires a written contract, smart contracts satisfy such requirement once the contracting parties are identified digitally.Through these clarifications, data stored on DLT as well as smart contracts are granted legal validity and are admissible in a court of law in Italy.The Future of Blockchain EvidenceIt is evident that several major jurisdictions are making noticeable developments towards granting blockchain evidence, particularly smart contracts, legal validity in an effort at providing more legal certainty on the regulation of blockchain technology. Out of the five countries analyzed, four countries have specifically amended legislation in this regard, with most laws providing similar definitions of smart contracts, DLT, cryptoassets and digital signatures. However, while these legislative developments set the foundation for the admissibility of blockchain evidence, in most jurisdictions courts are yet to give practical application to these provisions. China is an exception to this observation, with its Internet Courts hearing two separate cases where blockchain evidence was admitted and even affected the judgement given. With rapid developments in the industry seeing the increased dependability on DLT for a variety of transactions, even by national authorities such as Azerbaijan’s registries, courts will eventually be faced with numerous scenarios where parties will seek to support their claims with blockchain evidence. To this end, legal certainty must be ensured in every jurisdiction seeking to keep abreast with these technological developments. 

Bill Gates’ COVID Conspiracy Grows In Italian Parliament, Allegations of Population Control by Political Anti-Vaxxer

0
Bill Gates’ COVID Conspiracy Grows In Italian Parliament, Allegations of Population Control by Political Anti-Vaxxer

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought many subjects to the forefront: our reliance on oil, manufacturing in China, the need for digital dollars, the frailty of our global supply chain, and our lack of preparation to deal with the outbreak.
However, perhaps the strangest topic online and the most unavoidable has been the conspiracy theory chasing Bill Gates and his foundation’s efforts to produce a Covid-19 vaccine. The accusations range from him directly being the cause of the pandemic, to being the head of an Illuminati like circular cabal bent on controlling the world through microchips, and now an insidious plan to depopulate the planet of billions of people.
Where we Came In
We are a blockchain news site, while we absolutely love discussing technologies that may appear to border on fantasy, it has never been our intention to dive into the realm of conspiracy and allegations. However, while this conspiracy began for us as a simple write up on a cutting-edge Microsoft crypto mining patent, the story was bigger to some people than we ever could have imagined and has now taken on a life of its own.
In an effort to put this story to bed once and for all, as far as we are concerned, we have decided to look a little more closely at the allegations and perhaps shed some light, for some, on why they may be getting carried away with their perceptions of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their effort to combat the coronavirus.
The Devil’s Patent
In March 2020, Microsoft filed a patent with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for a new system that proposes using sensors, not microchips, to detect and calculate the amount of energy and time spent on a pre-determined activity, like engaging with an advertisement. The sensors apparently are capable of gauging both physical and brain activity and convert that sum into data which can be used by computers to solve computational problems and create new blocks.
What we did not really pay attention to, at the time, was the peculiar patent number of the Microsoft technology – WO/2020/060606. This number, however, did not slip past the Oscar-winning Russian director, Nikita Mikhalkov. A devout Christian, Mikhalkov immediately noticed that the last few numbers of the patent seemed to include the devil’s number, “666” in the application.
Appearing on Russian TV, Mikhalkov said, “The 060606 part is somewhat alarming. You probably understand this, right? Is this a coincidence or an intentional selection of such a symbol, which in the Apocalypse of John is called the ‘number of the beast’ – the 666.”
While Gates has been commended by most for his proactive efforts, Mikahlkov has claimed that the coming COVID-19 vaccination distributed by the Bill Gates Foundation will be a trojan horse for a microchip, in an insidious scheme to enslave the world.
The Oscar-winning director is so confident in his claims that he went on to name Herman Graf, the Head of Russian bank Sberbank, as a co-conspirator, and his arguments have been convincing enough for former Tennis champion and now Russian politician Marat Safin—who has shown public support for the director’s theory.
The Obvious Possible Explanation
Perhaps unknown to both Mikhalkov and Safin, is that patent filing numbers are simply generated according to the guidelines of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. And both of these men do not ever contend with Microsoft’s US patent number, which was published in the United States as US20200097951. We assume it is because there are no numbers linked to biblical prophecies or ‘Satan’ in this filing. 
The first numbers ‘2020’ simply represent the year, and the rest is simply the order it was filed in. Not too much to this one. 
Plandemic and the Anti-Vaxxer Virologist
A week ago, a clip from a soon to be released documentary called ‘Plandemic’ went viral on YouTube before being removed. The clip featured a disgraced virologist named Dr. Judy Mikovits accusing a sinister corporate-controlled “circular cabal” led by Bill Gates himself, of creating the coronavirus pandemic.
Mikovits is adamant that this group she refers to as a “circular cabal” is led by Microsoft Founder turned philanthropist Bill Gates and she even goes on to accuse Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of burying her research which allegedly proved that vaccines weaken people’s immune systems and made them more vulnerable to the coronavirus.
In the viral clip from Plandemic, Mikovits insists that her research was buried and she even goes as far as saying that wearing a mask actually activates the coronavirus. She alleges that Dr. Fauci, who is the face of the Trump administration’s outbreak containment efforts, has censored her warnings to the public. Unfortunately, a little fuel was added to this fire when Trump himself began to publicly question the origins and spread of COVID-19, suggesting it was man-made.
The Obvious Possible Explanation
Prior to the clip of Plandemic being released, Mikovits had already authored and published a book entitled the ‘Plague of Corruption’ which frames herself as the brave whistleblower being held at bay by an Illuminati-like ‘deep state’ organization.
Mikovits has received a lot of support, unfortunately, due to her training as a virologist. But in her excuses regarding her lack of legitimate support, she and her following have consistently failed to mention that her research has never been successfully replicated in other laboratories—meaning it has failed the scientific research standard of peer review. This is basically the reason why anyone’s research would be disregarded, and another point many do not want to contend with is that Mikovits does appear to have a notorious anti-vaxxer history and her research also appears to be driven by her agenda allowing her to draw the conclusions she would like to see. If this were not the case, her research would have held up. But it didn’t.
Mikovits down. 
Italy Calls for the Arrest of Bill Gates
The most recent in the line of allegations came less than a week ago, this time by Italian politician Anna Cunial who took to the house floor to call for the arrest of Bill Gates as she believes he is on a mission to depopulate the world by up to 15%.
Cunial alleges that Gates has been working on depopulation and dictatorial control plans on global politics, aiming to obtain control over agriculture, technology, and energy. Cunial’s allegations appear to fit in with Mikovits’ own accusations, alluding to a powerful deep-state government that Gates himself controls. She subscribes to the claim circulating on social media, that Gates owns the “patent” for the SARS-CoV2, a virus that wasn’t even discovered until January 2020. The theory goes that this entire pandemic is just to create a need for a vaccine from which Gates will subsequently profit.
Cunial points to  Event 201 which took place in Davos Switzerland, and officially served as a simulation for the prevention and control of such a pandemic. She quotes Bill Gates from the day of the simulation, who she claims said, “If we do a good job on vaccines, health, and reproduction, we can reduce the world population by 10-15%, only a genocide can save the world.”
Cunial goes on to put an unsupported, by anyone of substance, spin on some of the Gates Foundation’s achievements, “With his vaccines, Gates managed to sterilize millions of women in Africa. Gates caused a polio epidemic that paralyzed 500,000 children in India, and still, today with the DPT vaccines, Gates causes more death than the disease itself.”
The Obvious Possible Explanation
First, let’s dispel the myth that Italy is out for the arrest of Gates. No, the Italian authorities have not been as compelled as the red-eyed Youtube users and underground chat scene to take up arms against the philanthropist. 
While Cunial’s argument was lengthy and quite articulate on the Italian parliament floor, and she did cover all her bases mentioning everything from the Bilderberg Group to Monsanto GMOs—Cunial’s argument seemed to really fall down when she kept returning to Gates’ motivations as simply being to control-everything.
She is especially disturbed and perplexed with Gates’ ability to have predicted the pandemic after only spending a decade speaking to the most intelligent minds the world has to offer on the subject. It seems for his accusers, Gates’s most significant and obvious flaw has been his long campaign to prevent these diseases and to continue to pursue vaccines for diseases that really should no longer exist and have a larger impact on the third world and developing nations. 
The reality at this point is that Cunial has never seen a vaccine that she liked, and so far she has not published or provided any hard evidence for her accusations, which may sound powerful when spoken but really falls apart quite quickly when any actual research goes into them. She claims money and control to be his main motivations, “The Italian contribution to the International Alliance against the coronavirus will be 140 million Euros of which 120 million Euros will be given to Gavi Alliance the no-profit created by the Gates Foundation. This is just part of the 7.4 billion funds by the EU to find a vaccine against coronavirus which will be used.” 
Again lets layout these motivations for the alleged evil of Bill Gates logically—yes, Cunial is actually saying that Gates is in pursuit of money and control?
Unless you have been living under a rock since the 1990s, you are probably aware that Gates is the founder of a little company called Microsoft and this has made him incredibly rich. In fact, rich beyond our, and definitely Cunial’s, narrow comprehension. 120 million Euros is definitely a lot of money, but not really to someone who has over 100 Billion USD and change, and is still earning exponentially. Gates and his family for generations upon generations will never ever be in need of money. 
Additionally, there are a lot of easier ways to make money than selling vaccines, which have to go through very extensive testing and regulatory requirements. Vaccines also do not even have anything close to the profit margins of other non-essential medications like a Viagra or even a basic health supplement.
As far as global control goes, again perhaps Cunial has not visited an actual office in the last 30 years, but Microsoft’s technology is more than likely the glue that holds most offices together. Gates does not need to infiltrate us with his technology, we are already on board. If he wanted to infiltrate us, he could do it the next time Windows tells you it’s time for an update.