Source: https://fr.scribd.com/doc/296118021/Blockchain-Technology-Opportunities-and-Risks
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:18:02+00:00

Document:
adoption, the most prevalent example being virtual currency known as Bitcoin.
Vermont’s public recordkeeping outweigh the identifiable benefits.
an act relating to promoting economic development: On or before January 15. Making an addition to a blockchain ledger requires the approval of the network at large making retrospective changes essentially impossible. date. a Vermont delegate to the Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. or transactions that are cryptographically hashed. events. Blockchain technology’s most disruptive aspect is its ability to eliminate the need for third-party intermediaries in some transactions. the Department of Financial Regulation. the blockchain is a complete listing of all transactions. Much like a checkbook is a ledger of one’s personal financial transactions. and maintained through a “distributed” or “shared” network of participants using a group consensus protocol. and Carl Lisman. in consultation with Oliver Goodenough of the Center for Legal Innovation at Vermont Law School.3.2 However. whether financial or otherwise. escrow services. digital identification verification. the Commissioner of Financial Regulation. § A. a “system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust.).1 This report is compiled by the Office of the Vermont Secretary of State. etc. authenticated. unlike a checkbook. allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other 1 2 Act 51 of 2015. the Secretary of State. recipient and sender. amount. and the Attorney General shall consult with one or more Vermont delegates to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and with the Center for Legal Innovation at Vermont Law School. 2016. and together shall submit a report to the General Assembly their finding[s] and recommendations on the potential opportunities and risks of creating a presumption of validity for electronic facts and records that employ blockchain technology and addressing any unresolved regulatory issues. the blockchain is distributed among thousands of computers or “nodes” with a process for validating transactions that utilizes a groupconsensus protocol.3 of Act 51 of 2015. 4 . The technology is. and the Office of the Attorney General. in the words of its creator. but a small sample of the types of uses for this technology includes: transfer of digital securities.Introduction Pursuant to Section A. with each entry indicating the details of a particular transaction (withdrawal or deposit. and more. A blockchain is an electronic ledger of digital records. The theoretical and speculative applications for blockchain technology are too numerous to detail in this report.
a few key elements are characteristic of blockchain: 3 4  creation and maintenance of an electronic register of transactions. authenticators. 5 . what encryption algorithms are used.4 Instead. its impact will be affected most by its implementation. Finally. and jurists have covered at length and with greater technological proficiency the details of blockchain technology. (Nakamoto.”3 Because many industries rely upon guarantors. entrepreneurs.without the need for a trusted third party. the security of the blockchain is heavily dependent on its protocols– how it verifies transactions. the report addresses some of the possible economic opportunities connected with blockchain technology as well as risks associated with both the technology and its uses. Numerous scholars. they are often industries themselves). Just as the security of a lock is called into question if everyone in town has a copy of the key. please see Appendix A for resources. Without proper implementation. as with any tool or technology. Section 1: Blockchain Technology Overview This report does not attempt to provide an in-depth. and more. 2008) For a more thorough primer on blockchain technology. the efficacy of the blockchain will be compromised.  encryption of hashes (digests) of transactions. It also discusses current applications of blockchain technology and possible future applications – in both the context of private transactions and public records. the report explains the underlying building blocks that comprise blockchain’s technological foundation. Though each implementation may vary. and “trusted third parties” (in fact. blockchain technology is likely to be extremely disruptive. While the study group evaluated blockchain technology generally. academic study of the underlying technology of blockchain. Evaluating the soundness of blockchain technology is akin to evaluating the efficacy of a lock. This report provides a high-level summary of how blockchain technology works.
Each node has. Electronic Register of Transactions Any system that records data must have a format and location for storing it. and solves additional Figure 1: Nodes independently verify transactions before agreeing on those that are valid 6 . This chain is stored and continually added to by a network of computers. validation or verification of those transactions. For example. each of which is known as a node. and the register as a whole is the blockchain. and  timestamping those transactions. Once a node has verified the prescribed number of transactions. as described below. and some might possess a copy of the entire blockchain. To add a block to a chain. The blockchain is a continually-growing digital register of transactions. a copy of a certain number of the most recent blocks. parties broadcast to the network the details of the transaction. Each set of transactions (the number of which is prescribed by the protocol) is considered a block in the chain. and nodes verify these transactions. A register of transactions or other records is simply a list of every transaction that has been recorded by the system. The protocols which implement these elements in a particular blockchain influence the reliability of the information contained therein. at minimum. a municipality’s register of title and deed transfers and the aforementioned checkbook are registers.
in both public and private contexts. since the hash is merely a short digest of the original.computational problems dictated by the protocol.5 a short digest of the data. Furthermore. it can be decrypted to produce the original document. First is what is typically called encryption. Blockchain technology typically uses the encryption method known as cryptographic hashing. Any change. When a transaction is submitted. It rapidly becomes impractical or impossible to maintain the entire ledger if every 5 See Appendix A for examples of cryptographic hashes. however insignificant. In this way. If a document is encrypted using a mathematical formula. Other nodes add it to their chain as well. the contents of that transaction plus a few key pieces of metadata (including the timestamp and the parties involved) are encrypted using a mathematical algorithm. The output is known as a hash. However. it is important to distinguish between two types of the same technique. adding redundancy with little risk of corruption or errors. the blockchain grows mostly identically at each of the individual nodes. An electronic record run through the cryptographic hashing algorithm using a particular key (or set of keys) will always produce the same hash. that block can be added to the chain (see Figure 1). the translation of one piece of data into another using a mathematical algorithm so that the original data is obscured and can only be accessed by the intended recipient(s). The responsibility for storage of the transaction ledger is distributed to many individuals. Encryption pervades nearly every aspect of digital recordkeeping and the transaction of business of all kinds over the internet. Encrypting Data One of the fundamental pieces in digital security is the encryption of information. but it is possible to use the hash to verify a copy of a transaction or document maintained outside of the blockchain. in the document will cause the hash to be significantly different. which is essentially a one-for-one translation from one set of data to another. it is not possible to decrypt a hash maintained in the blockchain and produce the original document. 7 . Blockchain technology uses cryptographic hashing to save space.
e. and the computing costs to decrypt entire transactions would be very large.. and future blocks can be built upon the information contained therein. which is kept secret. Shamier. Examples of required information include the digital signature of the sender.6 This technique is an essential and proven technique for securing communications over potentially insecure channels and has been in use in the public and private sector for decades. use the public key to decrypt information required by the blockchain’s protocol to validate the transaction. those transactions can be added to the chain as a block. This ensures continuity of transactions and an unbroken transaction history. These keys are digital certificates stored on the user’s computer systems that allow for the encryption and decryption of data. and a private key. Individual network nodes receive this broadcast and begin the process of ensuring that it is valid in accordance with the protocol of that particular blockchain. The recipients. A sender uses his or her key to encrypt the transaction data. Verification of Transactions Each party to a transaction has two keys: a public key. which is known to the world. This technology is nearly identical to that used in many existing digital signature or e-sign technologies. and Adelman for a more in-depth analysis of public key cryptography. in this case all nodes in the network. A blockchain user or group of users will cryptographically hash the record of any transaction. reaching a consensus). This hash is then broadcast to the network as the evidence that a particular transaction has occurred or event has been logged. 8 . a sender generates a digital signature from his/her private key which can then be verified by anyone using his/her public key. (See Figure 2) 6 See the work of Rivest.encrypted document is fully registered. and that nothing else in the update is invalid. knowledge that the sender has not previously sent a conflicting update. Once a requisite number of nodes agree that a set of transactions is valid (i.
This is done to ensure that. Recording the timing of the transaction is essential to the nature of the blockchain. making the timestamps resistant to compromise. Individual timestamps are also encrypted and sourced from a trusted timestamp server. Similarly. When a node verifies a transaction. additional uses of the service. so nodes are typically compensated for their contribution of computing power. But verification involves significant computational work. This is done through a linking of the timestamp. the 9 . or another form depends on the protocol of the blockchain. Each block added to the chain is mathematically linked to the block before it. Timestamping The link that ties individual blocks together is the timestamp.Figure 2: New blocks are added to the chain. The chain is only appended. it checks it against (among other things) timestamps of previous transactions. and are linked to previous blocks The advantage of the distributed network is the individual work done by each node. the chain effectively ends and becomes useless as a service (as few incentives would remain for storage or verification). This timestamp references the timestamp of the previous transaction as well. this allows data stored in the blockchain to be placed in chronological order. effectively making a “chain” of transactions. as well as to those blocks following it. The compensation of nodes ensures continued participation. the hash of the previous block. Whether that compensation takes the form of monetary rewards. for example. never retrospectively edited. Should participation cease. the network will come to the consensus that the second transaction is invalid. if an individual transacts 1 unit at 12:00 and that same unit at 12:01 and tries to record both.
Furthermore. 2012. meaning that the records is what it purports to be. based on the above and on the controls on the recording of content and its transmission. the 7 8 (Gladney. as will be discussed. there are ways the use of this technology is vulnerable to compromise. creator and/or preserver) and on the reliability of the records system(s) in which it resides. The number of nodes (and attendant computing power) required to confirm an error or malicious attack would be impractical in a large blockchain like Bitcoin. consensusdriven nature of the blockchain it is nearly impossible for an attack to compromise the entire system. based on the competence of its keeper(s) through time (i. The blockchain is resistant to compromise due to the nature of the linked blocks. 7 A record that cannot be trusted effectively cannot be used. the network will validate it. and the controls on its creation. However. et cetera.8 Blockchain technology does not address the reliability or accuracy of a digital record. it will be accepted by the network and added to the blockchain. the time and date of its submission. Blockchain technology offers no assistance in terms of the reliability or accuracy of the records contained in the blockchain. and authenticity of the record. if bad data is used as an input. 2009) (Duranti & Rogers. but they are not fundamental vulnerabilities with the blockchain itself. accuracy. depending on the protocol. based on the competence of its author. Trying to forge a previously verified block would be akin to changing the shape of a brick in an ever growing stack – each subsequent brick would also need to be modified to fit with the previously one.e.hash of the entire chain. its completeness. as long as the correct protocols are utilized. it can address a record’s authenticity by confirming the party or parties submitting a record. is critical to the usefulness of the record. accuracy is defined as the correctness and precision of a record’s content. Because of the distributed. p. 525) 10 . free from tampering or corruption. Section 2: Application of Blockchain Technology to Records Record accuracy and trustworthiness. and the contents of the record at the time of submission. If a document containing false information is hashed as part of a properly formatted transaction. The measure of trustworthiness is primarily based on the reliability. and authenticity is defined as the trustworthiness of a record as a record. Instead. especially in the context of electronic records. Reliability is defined as the trustworthiness of a record as a statement of fact.
network is unable to distinguish between a transaction by an actual user and a malicious transaction by someone with unauthorized access to the user’s private key. each of these instances represents the creation of an electronic record that is encrypted. If the documents are different (due to forgery. Two issues complicate these 9 (ARMA International. or other problems) the hashes will not match. the blockchain can potentially provide an immutable registration of a record. Private recordkeeping may benefit. Where blockchain technology does provide an advantage is in its ability to evaluate the authenticity of records. to which future records can be compared for authenticity. verified. specifically the records of transactions. Whether the content of that transaction is the hash of a transfer of Bitcoin from one wallet to another. or a document registered for purposes of future verification. 2014) 11 . distributed. Any presumption of validity around records registered in a blockchain must be limited to authenticity. and more. efficiency of operations. Furthermore. a transaction that has been verified and added to a valid blockchain is mathematically secure. Section 3: Private Transactions and Existing Legal Structure Information is essential to any individual or organization for a multitude of purposes: proof-offact. and eventually added to an ever-growing ledger of other transactions. from utilizing blockchain technology to eliminate centralized recordkeeping or authenticity-verifying authority. The hash of a document existing outside the blockchain and the hash registered within the blockchain will be identical if the documents are identical. The statutory language set forth in Appendix B reflects this distinction between reliability/accuracy and authenticity. As explained above. error. Thus. corruption.9 Blockchain technology is a tool for the management of information. accountability and transparency. the network could obviously could not through its protocols determine whether a sender was reliable in terms of the veracity of their submitted information. a contract agreed to by two parties. through reduced costs. legal or regulatory compliance.
12 However. signatures. the blockchain does not store documents.S.13 While UETA may cover many of the transactions for which people currently contemplate utilizing blockchain technology.11 UETA provides a broadlydefined legal framework for parties who wish to conduct electronic transactions in Vermont. § 276. 2009) 9 V.S. A transaction under UETA is “an action or set of actions occurring between two or more persons relating to the conduct of business. commercial. Private individuals and organizations are often not well-equipped for the long-term preservation of their electronic records. In certain situations.g. e. although not specifically identified. a single party may wish to register some information in the blockchain.A. §§ 275. First. for example. and thus might not be covered by UETA. Such single-party registrations are not transactions within the meaning of UETA (although still constituting “transactions” in the blockchain sense). UETA’s recognition of electronic transactions is limited in some respects. only hashes. Blockchain-specific legislation could account for such records. a will or other document with long-term value. 277. as described above. Parties transacting business in a blockchain would need to preserve electronic documents themselves (which could be confirmed by comparison to the hashes in the blockchain).”14 Prospective uses for the blockchain are not limited to the transaction of business between two parties. 14 9 V.10 Second. ch. V. or governmental affairs.A.S. and contracts afforded by UETA. 10 (Gladney.S. 9 V. there will likely still be some transaction fees related to verification. while a blockchain may reduce costs.possible advantages. § 271(17) 11 12 . 20. 12 See 9. including by the application of other statutory requirements. it does not cover everything.A. would fall within the recognition provided to electronic records. 13 See.. The existing legal framework in Vermont for use and validity of electronic transactions and records is set forth in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”). Most uses of blockchain technology.A.
Section 4: Public Implications of Blockchain Technology Public records are essential to the state of Vermont both for the fulfilling its statutory responsibilities and for the public to inspect and monitor the actions of public servants.”) 17 1 V. § 317(b) 16 13 . It may also trigger pre-emption of Vermont’s version of UETA by the federal E*SIGN law.16 There is no indication that current law prohibits or in any way disfavors the use of blockchain for electronic transactions. it should be done outside of the bounds of UETA. § 274 9 V. evidence of a record or signature may not be excluded solely because it is in electronic form. Vermont defines public records concisely: "public record" or "public document" means any written or recorded information. but to the extent the legislature wishes to clarify this recognition.A.S. but creates no obligations for their use.S. Additionally. and must be managed according to the requirements set forth in Title 1.S. Therefore it is of the utmost importance for the State to use recordkeeping systems and implement records 15 9 V. State law makes this clear: “Officers of government are trustees and servants of the people and it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment. which is produced or acquired in the course of public agency business.A. regardless of physical form or characteristics.”17 Ultimately.S.A.18 Electronic data created or received by the state of Vermont in the course of business is a public record. in litigation. Subchapter 3. § 315(a) 18 1 V. Modifying the uniform statute may undermine both its uniformity and its approach to broadly address dynamic and changing technologies. electronic transactions and records are treated in the same manner as manual or paper records. and the inspection of records provides one of the primary means for ensuring this accountability.A.15 Under UETA.UETA is intended to be a broadly construed authorization with respect to electronic transactions. state government is accountable to the people. § 282 (“I n a proceeding. Chapter 5.
J. Records § 37 (2015) http://content.arma. Moreover. Because blockchain technology would likely result only in the registration of hashes.S.S. At present blockchain technology adds little in terms of public recordkeeping. A public officer. The records kept by the State are presumed reliable and accurate in terms of content. blockchain technology would be of limited value in conducting state business.20 Inserting an existing public record into any system employing blockchain technology could violate legal expectations relating to the custody and control of public records. and their preservation. The custodian is also responsible for delivery of such documents to his or her successor. management.19 There ought to be an unbroken chain of custody from the point of creation or receipt of a record through its active and inactive life until its final disposition. it will be presumed that it never existed. whether that is an agency or an individual acting in his or her capacity as an officer of that agency.sflb. the custodian of a public record is charged with the responsibilities of preserving and providing access to the records. at this time. The law presumes that a public officer will properly perform his or her duty as to the care. books. The need to preserve copies of electronic records for long periods of time is already essential to state business and strategies and tools are in place to address these needs. and control of records. Public records are held in the custody of the state. is the legal custodian of all papers. and if a particular paper is not found in a public office where. § 318 outlines the responsibility of the custodian in specific circumstances.management policies that produce and preserve trustworthy electronic records and safeguard against the risks of loss of those records. and records pertaining to his or her office.org/IMM/Libraries/SeptOct_2011_PDFs/IMM_0911_RIM_fundamentals_records_life_cycle. it ought to be.ashx 20 14 . effective records management policies and procedures by agencies should address the authenticity of records. 19 76 C. and to ensure that nobody alters or destroys them. Although 1 V. the state would still need to preserve original documents long-term. It is the custodian's duty to preserve the public records.A. In light of the very limited possible benefits and the likely significant costs for either entering into a private or public blockchain or setting up a state-operated blockchain. by virtue of his or her office. if in existence.
The efficiency of transactions that blockchain technology can provide may help to reduce counterparty credit risk which may reduce an institution’s balance sheet capital requirements under Dodd- 21 http://money. clearing houses. This delay can lead to credit and liquidity risks. Blockchain-authenticated trading (current bitcoin based system) takes minutes. reliable digital ledger that is constantly updated. For example. and exchanges with broker-dealers and banks. A standalone system could potentially authenticate transactions even faster. These benefits include reducing operations staff currently required to transact services through the use of a secure. The financial industry is beginning to accept the utility of blockchain technology and certain functions within the sector are already using blockchain-based technology for transferring ownership or custody of financial assets. Similarly.cnn. Systems that currently rely on a trusted middleman to support and/or guarantee the authenticity of a transaction today could efficiently be conducted using the blockchain. A November 2015 article on CNN. Currently. financial institutions that have custody over large financial assets are looking to the technology to help comply with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.com/2015/11/02/technology/bitcoin-1-billion-invested 15 . The amount of money the financial industry is investing in this new technology is evidence of the potential utility of blockchain technology to complete such functions.Section 5: Digital Currency / Securities Blockchain technology appears ideally suited to alter the way in which financial assets are currently transacted.com indicates that financial services firms have invested $1 billion in blockchain-related entities. securities clearing and trading operations take two to three days to settle a trade. affecting capital markets. financial services firms can minimize operational complexity with the use of the blockchain.21 Financial services companies cite many benefits of blockchain technology. Faster transactions reduce the risk of purchaser default. such as a blockchain. immutable.
25 While a user of Bitcoin (to purchase goods and services) is not under FinCEN’s regulatory authority.. Docket No. Vermont banking statutes already address and regulate certain virtual currency transactions.23 24 Similarly. 15-004-B. Inc. Distributed ledgers virtually eliminate credit and liquidity risk by requiring pre-funding.vermont. anticipating the value of the borrowed stock is likely to decrease. (March 11. Thus. A distributed blockchain system would essentially prevent such activity because virtually no delay would exist between accepting a trade and closing the transaction.” Short selling allows a person to borrow securities they do not own and sell them for cash value.fincen. BLU-BIN. an administrator or exchanger of Bitcoin is a Money Services Business (“MSB”) or “Money Transmitter” and must comply with FinCEN’s regulations including those relating to reporting and recordkeeping.” Businesses that sell stored value Bitcoins in Vermont are engaged in money transmission. The short-seller bets against the market. the Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued guidance on this subject on March 18.dfr. 2015) See In Re: PYC. Inc.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/FIN-2013-G001. 2014) 16 . 2015).26 27 The language set forth in Appendix B would not create or carry any presumption that the underlying activity supported by that record is legal. 22 23 (McKinsey & Company. found at http://www. 2013.22 A securities transaction system entirely based in the blockchain could essentially eliminate the illegal practice of “naked short-selling.pdf See FIN-2013-G001 (Jacobsen & Pena. This is accomplished by manipulating the time lapse of authenticating a transaction. the applicability of existing civil and criminal laws and regulations governing Bitcoin or other blockchain activities related to securities and money transmission would remain unchanged. in which the cash and collateral to be traded pre-exist prior to trading.Frank. at the federal level. as “money services.. Naked short-selling is the illegal practice of short-selling stocks that don’t actually exist. requiring a license.gov/reg-bul-ord/pyc-inc-blu-bin-inc 24 25 26 27 8 VSA §2502 (a) https://www.
This may result in additional legal and accounting work in Vermont. Risks The study group has identified only very limited risks to Vermont associated with express legal recognition of private records utilizing blockchain technology. but the nature of the blockchain is opposed generally to the centralization of these services. news organizations. and recognizing it for confirming authenticity of a document seems 17 . banks. To the extent that Vermont can be part of a process of economic and technological innovation that is likely to go forward with or without any legislative recognition. Vermont’s affirmative recognition of this technology may provide cachet that would attract businesses working in this area to locate here. The potential direct economic benefits might arise from businesses and parties that utilize the blockchain choosing Vermont law for their contractual relationships. and scholars recognize the potential of blockchain as a significant disruptive technology. The underlying principles that underpin this technology are well established.Section 6: Blockchain Benefits and Risks Benefits Blockchain technology is developing and expanding at a rapid pace. and the market for blockchain technology has had several new entrants. early acceptance of this technology may result in some economic benefit to the State. Possible increases in economic activity could be direct or indirect. but the study group has no concrete evidence of this. Indirectly. The study group does not doubt the potential economic impact of blockchain technology generally. the storage of the originals of electronic documents) locating in Vermont. As is discussed further in Appendix C. Private parties will likely utilize blockchain technology for recording transactions and verifying records. The group sees the greatest potential economic benefit as blockchain-related services (the nodes of networks. many new developments occurred. It is not clear that legislation set forth in Appendix B would successfully lure such activity to Vermont. During the drafting of this report.
and audit transactions with a system where participants trade directly. but with its broader use. because use of Bitcoin as a payment system is not subject to the regulatory scheme of more traditional payment systems. in fact. because Bitcoin is not backed by a single government or organization (but instead is decentralized) it is subject to significant volatility.well-founded. Additionally. Consumers holding Bitcoins risk experiencing wide swings in the value or purchasing power of the Bitcoin they hold. it will likely be utilized by some to engage in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act. Any regulation that results in additional costs may. dissuade companies from locating in Vermont. the true economic benefits of blockchain transactions are the potential reduction in transaction costs to the participants. some risks associated not with the technology itself. Because Bitcoin is currently the most commonly utilized and understood use of blockchain technology. it is worth noting general consumer risks associated with it. blockchain is not subject to any unique regulation. enforceable by the State or by private individuals.S. The individual economic gain must be balanced by the inevitable losses in employment in those areas where people are no longer needed to perform all of the back-office work.A. however.28 These transactions would remain subject to consumer protection laws. Currently. Ch. First. Consumer Protection There is no indication that blockchain technology itself creates new consumer protection concerns. There are. While the state may see some small gains in first-mover legal work and a potential blockchain tech startup. It could replace all of the current procedures that process. any attempt to regulate blockchain may actually make Vermont a less hospitable environment. Market Disruption One effect of blockchain technology could be a massive disintermediation of the financial system. reconcile. 63 18 . When the technology serves as a platform for conducting commercial transactions. there may be additional risks related to returns 28 9 V. Moreover. record.
an individual has no recourse. and emerging technology. 2015) While not fundamental to blockchain technology. Social Security numbers. The only way to identify someone online in some of these blockchain systems is through the use of a private key. Based on current implementations of blockchain technology. Conclusions and Recommendations Blockchain technology is a sophisticated. a malicious party could masquerade convincingly as the user until a private key is deactivated. if a private key is lost or stolen. the time and date of its submission. the current implementation of this technology is commonly utilized by individuals to engage in illegal activity because of the anonymity associated with the transactions. A private key is essentially an additional source of personally identifiable information (like credit card numbers. especially in the case of Bitcoin.com/articles/2013-11-18/are-bitcoins-the-criminal-s-best-friend30 19 . and the contents of the record at the time of submission. Integral to the technology is the maintenance of private keys by participants. Essentially this creates an additional identity theft risk. it is important to consider that blockchain technology does 29 See (Cohen. It provides a reliable way of confirming the party submitting a record to the blockchain. At worst.and transaction reversals. there are limited consumer protection concerns related to the broader use of blockchain technology. there is a great financial incentive to manipulate or otherwise steal computing power (typically in cloud computing environments). as there are potentially significant rewards in the verification of transactions and the addition of blocks to the blockchain.29 30 In addition to the fraudulent or illegal activities conducted using Bitcoin. Also. eliminating the need for third-party intermediaries in certain situations.bloombergview. This type of criminal behavior has the potential to cause significant losses in the private sector if blockchain technology continues to expand. However. or bank account numbers). At best. a person who loses a private key will be required to obtain a new key to add to the blockchain. interesting. the loss or compromise of a private key is complete loss of control over one’s blockchain transactions. Bitcoin. The Federal Trade Commission has identified some of these general risks related to engaging in transactions using Bitcoin. http://www.
not verify or address the reliability or the accuracy of the contents. the group has also not identified any risk inherent in blockchain technology that would warrant withholding the recognition of validity set forth in the legislation. Regarding economic advantages to legal recognition of blockchain technology. Vermont is currently a hospitable environment for commerce related to blockchain technology even though the State has not recognized this technology in statute at this time. While the committee does not doubt that blockchain technology and the industry forming around it demonstrate significant economic activity and interest. 20 . and moreover. not outweighed by the costs and challenges of such implementation. though clearly in the early stages of adoption. the most prevalent example being virtual currency known as Bitcoin. However. Further study is required before considering it for the regular business of the State. and additionally blockchain technology provides no storage for records. The study committee has not identified any specific legal or practical benefits from the legislation set forth in Appendix B. but instead the hashes thereof. It is the belief of the study committee that the benefits of adoption of blockchain technology by state agencies is. Blockchain technology is already in use in the private sector. at this time. any application would certainly need to support rather than replace the existing records management infrastructure. it is unclear what steps Vermont could take to lure any of that activity to the state.
.arma. Computer Law & Security Review. & Rogers. Jul/Aug). (2014). What Every Lawyer Should Know About Bitcoins. (2012. pp.. February). Lemieux. R.consumer. 120-126. A. A. Utah Bar Journal. W. 21 .org/bitcoin. (1978.. McKinsey Working Papers on Corporate & Investment Banking / No 12.. & Hellman. (2009). 27(4). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.org: http://www. (2015. Trusting Records: Is Blockchain Technology the Answer? McKinsey & Company.pdf Rabin. Long-Term Preservation of Digital Records: Trustworthy Digital Objects. 403-409. & Leonardos.org/docs/sharepoint-roadshow/the-principles_executivesummaries_final. 522-531. Vol. Kiayias.. K. Rivest. A. The Bitcoin Backbone Protocol: Analysis and Applications. L. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. F. M. Beyond the Hype: Blockchains in Capital Markets. J. 22(6). Gladney. ACM 21(2). L.doc Cohen. & Adelman. 401-435. (2014. Garay. (1976). Duranti. H. Nakamoto.gov/blog/paying-bitcoins Diffie. O. 40.ftc. Retrieved from www. McKinsey & Company. Shamir. E. B.. Trust in digital records: An increasingly cloudy legal area. Foundations of Computer Science 1983. New directions in cryptography. Retrieved from https://bitcoin. 644-654. Jacobsen. L. October).References ARMA International. & Pena. Before paying with bitcoins. (1983). (2015). C. S. Randomized byzantine generals. N. June 22). (2015). Retrieved from FTC Consumer Information: http://www.arma. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. The American Archivist. M. (2008). (2015). V. Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles..
and the hash changes. An example of a block in the Bitcoin blockchain: Block BlockHash # of Transactions Height Block Reward Timestamp Merkle Root Previous Block Difficulty Bits Size (bytes) Version Nonce Next Block #125552 00000000000000001e8d6829a8a21adc5d38d0a473b144b6765798e61f98bd1d 4 125552 (Mainchain) 50 BTC May 21. adding the aforementioned hash to the text) produces this result using the same algorithm: 9cff70c1351e000c8676432c5f1fa629b61da9ec01658a5dfd5f239313178eb1 There is no known way to reverse-engineer the original content from the cryptographic hash.48777434 1a44b9f2 1496 1 23 2504433986 125553 .Appendix A A cryptographic hash (using the SHA-256 algorithm) of the text of this document: acfa1ddcce49724dcf8c422fb52fe6510b30bedb32709cc699b5e0e7b8c91d0d Even making a minor change in this document (for example. take the square root. Reversing the hash would be akin to asking: What numbers added together equal the number 238.284? Imagine a document consisting of a set of numbers: 05 14 23 46 71 90 Hashing a document is performing a mathematical operation to them.g. add 5. If given the sum. the sum of the above numbers is 249. and the mathematical operation is hundreds of degrees more complicated than a simple summation (e. take the sum. except the original input is thousands or millions of numbers. divide by 20. For example. Hashing an electronic document is like this. 2011 1:26:31 PM 2b12fcf1b09288fcaff797d71e950e71ae42b91e8bdb2304758dfcffc2b620e3 125551 244112. it is impossible to tell with any degree of accuracy what the original numbers are. Change one of the numbers. with 200 more steps).
org/bitcoin.. 1-10. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp.For more technical resources on blockchain technology. Nadia Heninger. "Elliptic curve cryptography in practice. and Eric Wustrow. 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on. Michael Naehrig. pp. Jonathan Moore. and Nikos Leonardos. 281-310. IEEE. 157-175. and Roger Wattenhofer." In Peer-toPeer Computing (P2P). pp. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Decker. S. 2015. Aggelos Kiayias. (2008). Alex Halderman.pdf 24 . Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2014. Bos. please see: Garay. "Information propagation in the Bitcoin network. Joppe W. "The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. 2013. Retrieved from https://bitcoin." In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015. Nakamoto. J. Juan. Christian." In Financial Cryptography and Data Security.
the presumption established in this section shall apply to a fact or record maintained by blockchain technology to determine: (1) contractual parties.Appendix B Possible Statutory Language for Blockchain Recognition The Committee is providing the following language as an example of what could be considered as an enactment for providing recognition of the validity of blockchain approaches for the purposes of establishing the authenticity of records. and status. record . (b) Presumptions and admissibility: (1) Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility in a Vermont court is not required for a record maintained by a valid application of blockchain technology. chronological. A person against whom the fact operates has the burden of producing evidence sufficient to support a finding that the presumed fact. and transfer of money. and decentralized consensus ledger or database. §11. provisions. property. peer-to-peer network. (2) the ownership. execution. 25 . validity or legal status of the contents of the fact or record. The Committee views this as a possible starting point for the normal processes of legislative drafting. “blockchain technology” means a mathematically secured. and other legal rights and duties. (c) Without limitation. contracts. instruments. BLOCKCHAIN ENABLING (a) In this section. A presumption does not extend to the truthfulness. (B) the date and time of the recordation of the fact or record established through such a blockchain is the date and time that the fact or record was added to the blockchain. whether maintained via Internet interaction. or otherwise. effective dates. time or identity is not authentic as set forth on the date added to the blockchain. but the presumption does not shift to a person the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the underlying fact or record is itself accurate in what it purports to represent. negotiation. and (C) the person established through such as blockchain as the person who made such recordation is the person who made the recordation. assignment. (2) The following presumptions shall apply: (A) a fact or record verified through a valid application of blockchain technology is authentic.
business trust. or (2) the legality or authorization for any particular underlying activity whose practices or data are verified through the application of blockchain technology. or instrumentality.(3) identity. public corporation. statutory trust. participation. unincorporated nonprofit association. common-law business trust. estate. trust. record keeping. and status for interactions in private transactions and with a government or governmental subdivision. and (6) the authenticity or integrity of records of communication. or instrumentality. The provisions of this section shall not create or negate: (1) an obligation or duty for any private party. participation. joint venture. management. or instrumentality to adopt or otherwise implement blockchain technology for any purpose authorized in this section. 26 . whether publicly or privately relevant. (4) identity. limited liability company. limited partnership. government or governmental subdivision. or governmental subdivision. agency. limited cooperative association. and status in the formation. agency. (d) (5) the authenticity or integrity of a record. agency. partnership. and governance of a business corporation. general cooperative association. nonprofit corporation. association. or any other legal or commercial entity. government.
In both a lead and a feature article. But Faces Implementation Challenges. including legal recognition. record-keeping is an essential element. This discussion will first review the economic potential of blockchain technology as a general matter. General Economic Potential of the Application of Blockchain Technology News Reports In the last few months. citing news reports. widely available. policy analysis treatments. issue of the Economist magazine. and reports of investment activity in the field. Perhaps most prominent was the cover story in the October 31. Vermont Law School. would help to liberate that activity. entitled “Blockchain in the Corporate Environment Has Big Potential. What is more speculative is whether or not a move by Vermont to fill this legal void can result in the migration of blockchain-based economic activity to Vermont. In a July 15. repeated by several of the reports on the blockchain. There is widespread conviction that blockchain technology is likely to be a significant contributor to global economic activity in the near and extended future. we have been contacted by a number of companies with interest in what Vermont is considering. 2015. 2015. there have been numerous in-depth evaluations of the blockchain in highprofile and respected news reports.Appendix C Opinion of and provided by Professor Oliver Goodenough. As the process of this Committee has gone forward. the Economist enumerated the potential for the technology to transform any activity where valid. and will then turn to the possibilities for economic development in Vermont. that a clearer institutional structure. many aspects of our economy. There is also a perception.” the Journal describes initiatives such as an experiment by the NASDAQ to 27 . blogpost. and went on to note that this includes many. The Wall Street Journal has had a series of articles describing how companies from major banks to imaginative start-ups are making serious commitments to blockchain-based operations.
though. “That comes from a recognition that. 2015. ‘Wow.use a blockchain approach in creating a limited marketplace for trading private securities. are more money and resources being spent on the technology than on Wall Street — the very industry that Bitcoin was created to circumvent. But the innovations that helped turn Bitcoin into the most popular virtual currency are now being viewed as a potentially enormous disruptive force for several industries. The Journal goes on to conclude “assuming these challenges can be overcome. the Vermont statutory initiative being considered here could provide a potential solution to a portion of that challenge.” Other Journal articles describe blockchain exploration and implementation by a number of financial institutions and technology companies. Nowhere.nytimes. the chief digital officer at Barclays.” is worth quoting in moderate length: “Most people still think of Bitcoin as the virtual currency used by drug dealers and shadowy hackers looking to evade the authorities. the British global bank. “There is so much pull and interest on this right now. including accounting.” said Derek White.’”31 31 http://www. which has a team of employees working on about 20 experiments that explore how the technology underlying Bitcoin might change finance. we can use this to change the fundamental model of how we operate to create our future. music and law. The implementation challenges noted in the article include some technological aspects. The New York Times has also noted blockchain potential for driving the next wave of innovation in the financial field. article “Bitcoin Technology Piques Interest on Wall St. blockchains present an enormous opportunity for the world’s banks and financial institutions.html?_r=0 28 . and that those assets can be legally enshrined in computer code as a smart asset. The summation of the expectations about Blockchain set out in an August 28. how are they governed by law? As noted above. but a principal focus is the lack of a legal framework for blockchain based transactions: While it seems technically very likely that Smart Contracts can be programmed to execute the lifecycle events of a financial asset. which have moved quickly to make investments in it.com/2015/08/31/business/dealbook/bitcoin-technology-piques-interest-on-wall-st.
Its article “Blockchain Technology Underpinning Bitcoin Used to 29 .co. The report joins the conclusion that the distributed ledger techniques of the blockchain are “a key technological innovation. For instance. The December.” The full report is available at http://www. it is worth noting that there are several subject specific online news sites dedicated to the blockchain and its sub-topics of bitcoin and other onlinecurrencies.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q3digitalcurrencies bitcoin1.com/docs/McKinsey%20Blockchains%20in%20Capital%20Markets_2015.bankofengland. 2015 report was entitled “Beyond the Hype: Blockchains in Capital Markets. a recognition statute like that under consideration could be an important element in providing such a framework. The report calls in several places for industry to work with regulators to create a strong legal framework for blockchain use.https://blog.http://cointelegraph. A partial list includes:  Blockchain . very recently published a working paper analysis of blockchain.blockchain. the widely recognized business consulting company.com/  The CoinTelegraph .https://www. disruptive potential.com/  CoinDesk . serious policy analysis has recognized the potential of blockchain. Again. although it sees the development of widespread implementation as a process that will stretch over several years.com Policy and Economic Analysis In addition to this recognition in the press.In addition to these “mainstream” discussions.com/  Cryptocoins News .pdf In the Untied States.pdf Serious practice resources such as Bloomberg BNA’s Electronic Commerce & Law Report explore non-financial applications.cryptocoinsnews. the Bank of England issued a report on blockchain approaches in its Quarterly Bulletin for the third quarter of 2014.” It joins with other analysis to predict that blockchain technology will have widespread.coindesk.http://www. McKinsey & Company.theblockchain. A copy of this working paper is available at http://www.
coindesk. 30 .com/goldman-sachs-the-blockchain-can-change-well-everything-201512?r=UK&IR=T 33 http://www. Digital Art” notes that “the blockchain offers promising solutions for document authentication in legal disputes and for preventing digital art forgeries. In an "Emerging Theme Radar" note sent to its clients in early December 2015.34 Even discounting for customary financial world hyperbole. The website CoinDesk reported on July 19. Goldman Sachs underscored this spreading enthusiasm: “While the Bitcoin hype cycle has gone quiet. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are betting that the underlying technology behind it.typepad.com/news/115595/1-billion-invested-so-far-in-bitcoin-blockchain-infrastructure. there is clear evidence that significant investment is being made in blockchain based businesses. and the limitations of the current Federal rules to provide this.com/10-vc-firms-bullish-on-bitcoins-potential/. it's safe to say that venture capitalists are certainly captivated. 32 http://www.com/files/blockchain-article. the website CoinTelegraph had upped the number with the headline “$1 Billion Invested So Far in Bitcoin & Blockchain Infrastructure”. the Blockchain.32 The world of start-up and venture level investment has also been hot.digitalcurrencycouncil. can change.” . The article is available at http://lawprofessors. We note that the proposed Vermont legislation would help to provide just such a standard. 34 http://cointelegraph. A partial listing can be found at the Digital Currency Council’s library page at http://www.com/library/ Investment activity The commitment of money to a sector is a good read of its value and helps indicate the scale of activities that Vermont may be able to take a piece of. many large financial institutions are making bets of internal investment on blockchain approaches. 2015: “With more than $800m so far invested in bitcoin and blockchain technology startups since 2012.” The piece points out the need for a legal standard of admissibility.. well everything. As is noted above.Authenticate Documents. Academic analyses are growing in number.businessinsider.”.pdf.33 By November. and that the rate of investment is growing..
the potential for benefit from enabling private sector blockchain activity based on Vermont statutory recognition could be direct and immediate. the costs and risks of such an enabling approach should be limited. luckily Vermont is not such a location. this early and critical benefit from adopting a blockchain approach has relatively little immediate need in Vermont government and would be disruptive and problematic on many levels while the technology is at its current stage. as the Economist put it. That said.Potential Economic Benefits for Vermont All of this global attention is interesting. but the key questions for this report are how Vermont could benefit economically from the blockchain. Weighing the speculative potential for growth against these limited concerns is a classic exercise of legislative determination. such as property. as the technology develops. As is explored in detail in a prior discussion in this report. We also note that there is already discussion around the 31 . The Committee believes that. we can anticipate that it will have utility in our governmental functions. The literature is particularly focused on the ability of blockchain to provide assurance of record authenticity. Governmental Adoption of Blockchain technology Much of the literature on blockchain application points to functions that are at least partly governmental. but such uses are not currently of sufficient benefit to Vermont for any adoption to be mandated or recommended. As stated previously. although also speculative hard to quantify. units such as the Secretary of State’s office should keep tabs on its growth and its potential for ultimate deployment. being a Trust Machine. This function is critical in areas of the world with high levels of systemic corruption. and how would the proposed legislation assist in that? The two possible tracks include: (i) the potential benefits from a direct adoption of blockchain technology for Vermont governmental functions and (ii) the potential benefits from a legal recognition of blockchain for private uses. such as the evidentiary recognition that forms the basis of the language considered here. company and voter registries. and as such. there may be eventual benefits of the direct use of blockchain in governmental functions. or. By contrast.
pdf 32 . it is encouraging that the activity is predicted to be large. As noted in several of the articles discussed above. New Hampshire has had similar success in laws that provided a better framework for trust company activity. This potential can be envisioned in 35 See.nhbar. Joseph F. electronic transaction law extension There is a significant. and that. the lack of such explicit legal recognition is cited as an inhibiting factor on growth in this sector. has the potential to seize a first-mover advantage on those aspects of blockchain rules that can be fostered by state-level legal recognition.35 In perhaps the most prominent example from a century ago. Of course. There are examples of how providing low cost legal pathways can work to a state’s advantage. so far. McDonald. including evidentiary recognition. In the blockchain context. Governments can increase the rate of growth—in ways that benefit all citizens—by creating systems of rules that are both encouraging of and responsive to new technologies. technologies and rules. no other state has seized the opportunity to create this recognition.g. if hard to quantify.. Migrating Trusts to New Hampshire: The Why and the How.”. e. In Vermont. Vermont. that its proponents are calling for legal recognition as part of creating a certain regulatory environment. and Vermont could possibly be a participant.possible establishment of a blockchain network specifically devoted to governmental function. available at https://www. therefore. the often cited (but hard to replicate) example is captive insurance.org/uploads/pdf/bj-winter2010-vol51-no2-pg34. there are many examples where such moves have not attracted commerce to a state. The prominent development economist Paul Romer describes the relationship of rules and technology in growth: “Economic growth is driven by the coevolution of two sets of ideas. III. potential for economic development in Vermont from creating a legal infrastructure of recognition and regularization of blockchain activity. Delaware’s enabling corporation laws led to an activity with huge impact for its economy and state finances. Legal recognition for private uses.
we are not aware that any governmental authority has given specific recognition to blockchain and its related consensus ledger techniques as a valid way for establishing the factual existence of the record. and the related data of its time of creation and the entities which created it. 33 . even when the transactions have only limited contact with the jurisdiction being elected. By “situs of choice” we mean that parties in a private arrangement that involves blockchain validation would elect to have at least that portion of their activity governed by. The likelihood of such choice of law adoption would be increased by the development and promulgation of model choice of law and choice of litigation venue language.two principal ways: the direct benefits of making Vermont the elective legal location for blockchain commerce and the less direct benefits of creating an “attractor” for locating blockchain-based product and service development in Vermont and for tech-related business more generally. Such a directed election of law is often given effect in private transactions under customary Choice of Law rules. particularly when the payments are coming from outside the state. would be available for adoption by blockchain services and transaction parties anticipating blockchain recordation of their contracts and other records. The validity of a transaction under such an election would ultimately be a question that would need to be answered by a Vermont qualified attorney. Vermont law. A change in Vermont law to give such recognition could. therefore. clean work. Such model language. and financial communities working on blockchain applications would be a further helpful step. Vermont as the elective legal situs for Blockchain commerce So far. and adjudicated under. The most immediate result of such elections would be an increase in work for the legal community in Vermont. best suggested by our State bar or by attorneys wishing to specialize in this field. provide an incentive to make Vermont the legal situs of choice for blockchain-based activity. Publicizing this into the broader legal. Contributing to the income of Vermont lawyers is good. who would be involved both at the stage of formation of the arrangement and in the context of disputes that rely on a Vermont court for adjudication. technical.
tech business center. See http://www. Vermont would have the potential to develop other aspects of its law that would make more and more of it an attractive election for other aspects of the contents of the transactions being recorded. it could extend to various aspects of blockchain centered contracting. Steps like blockchain recognition could only help support this. As blockchain activity expands. particularly if the virtuous circle of growing expertise creating growing activity and vice versa were to take hold. The election could lead to ancillary applications of Vermont law to other legal aspects of the arrangement. Such a circle of reinforcement could include complementing and re-invigorating our existing e-corporation work. the legal choice alone could make Vermont an attractive location for many aspects of a blockchain business.forbes. Vermont’s UETA law could become even more blockchain friendly and could be elected for financial transactions. While electing our state’s law to govern all or a portion of a transaction does not in itself necessarily create a taxable nexus for Vermont. providing both direct jobs in blockchain related activities and 34 . to the degree that the link to the underlying activity grows strong enough. such a nexus can develop. including legal or technological services. in February 2015. would directly increase our tax base. Forbes magazine listed Burlington as one of the top 10 most innovative tech centers in the United States. if small.com/forbes/welcome/ While it did place ninth. For instance. Those aspect of the business actually located in Vermont.And because the surety of the application of Vermont law grows with the depth of contact of the activity with Vermont. Creating an attractor for locating Blockchain based product and service development in Vermont Vermont already has significant recognition as a growing. The importance of Global Foundry (formerly IBM) shows what this looks like at the extreme end of the success of having technology business located in Vermont (although that original location decision was based on factors other than legal attractiveness). Tax revenues could grow. Ultimately. In addition to e-corporations. it came in ahead of Boston as the highest ranked city east of the Mississippi River. we also foresee the possibility that Vermont’s financial sector would be able to bring portions of the clearing or other blockchain-based functions to Vermont. For instance.
etc. it appears that such legislation could be reasonably adopted as part of an overall policy of fostering business-driven economic growth.com. we do know. more startups. Natalie Kitroeff.. some of which are already leaders in such tech sectors as gaming and cybersecurity.36 Given the low costs and risks we foresee for blockchain recognition in the private context. Bloomberg. and that in other jurisdictions steps to create legal institutions friendly to that spiral have had positive effects. that Vermont. 36 E. adding courses and research projects on blockchain. available at http://www.positive fallout from the buzz and perceived “coolness” of such legal responsiveness to technological advances. Silicon Valley Is the World's Innovation Capital Because of a Technicality. We could also anticipate our colleges and universities.. For instance. All of this is particularly hard to predict with certainty. has a start along this spiral of tech-related economic development.com/news/articles/2015-03-17/silicon-valley-is-the-world-s-innovation-capital-becauseof-a-technicality 35 . 2015.bloomberg. California’s restrictions on non-competition clauses is often cited as a factor in the growth of the computer industry in Silicon Valley. etc. however.g. March 17. and in particular Burlington. which would in turn lead to an educated workforce.

References: § 276
 V. 
 V. 
 § 271
 V. 
 § 274
 V. 
 V. 
 § 315
 V. 
 § 282
 § 37
 § 318
 V. 
 §2502
 V. 
 V. 
 §11