The DOI matches its DataCite record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 135 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Trust, but Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law
Open accessAbstract
The blockchain could be the most consequential development in information technology since the Internet. Created to support the Bitcoin digital currency, the blockchain is actually something deeper: a novel solution to the age-old human problem of trust. Its potential is extraordinary. Yet, this approach may not promote trust at all without effective governance. Wholly divorced from legal enforcement, blockchain-based systems may be counterproductive or even dangerous. And they are less insulated from the law’s reach than it seems. The central question is not how to regulate blockchains but how blockchains regulate. They may supplement, complement, or substitute for legal enforcement. Excessive or premature application of rigid legal obligations will stymie innovation and forego opportunities to leverage technology to achieve public policy objectives. Blockchain developers and legal institutions can work together. Each must recognize the unique affordances of the other system.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The article argues that blockchain’s cryptographic verification cannot by itself produce durable trust; it must be integrated with legal institutions and governance. It maps how distributed ledgers can supplement, complement, or substitute for law, and proposes hybrids such as safe harbors, modular contracts, oracles, and on-chain governance.
Key findings
- Blockchain systems can verify transactions without relying on a central intermediary, but the paper argues this is not the same as trust. The DAO episode—about 11,000 participants committing roughly $150 million in Ether, with a third taken—shows that code alone cannot resolve intent, theft, or governance disputes.
- The article identifies vulnerabilities beyond consensus: smart contracts, edge services and exchanges, and token issuers. It cites Mt. Gox’s collapse with over $400 million stolen, Bitfinex’s loss of nearly $70 million, a 2018 Japanese exchange theft of half a billion dollars, and 2016 data showing at least fifteen cryptocurrency theft incidents of $1 million or more, totaling over $600 million.
- It argues token sales create securities-like risks: 2017 ICOs raised over $5 billion, Telegram sought $2 billion, and almost no ICOs registered. The SEC treated The DAO tokens as securities, while Ripple paid a $950,000 FinCEN penalty and agreed to AML/KYC compliance.
- The paper proposes three relationships between blockchains and law: supplementing existing regimes (e.g., Corda, title records), complementing them (e.g., orphan works registries, artist rights), and substituting where legal enforcement is weak (e.g., a UN food aid trial tracking aid to 10,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan). It also discusses safe harbors and sandboxes, modular legal contracts, Ricardian contracts, oracles and arbitration, and on-chain governance.
Methods
- Conceptual and doctrinal legal analysis, not an empirical study. It synthesizes blockchain technical architecture—distributed ledgers, consensus, and smart contracts—with cyberlaw theory and regulatory examples.
- Uses case studies and regulatory episodes: The DAO hack and Ethereum hard fork, Silk Road, Mt. Gox, Bitfinex, Ripple/FinCEN, New York’s BitLicense, the SEC’s DAO report, and the UK FCA sandbox, among others.
- Main analysis compares legal and code-based trust mechanisms and categorizes interactions as supplement, complement, or substitute, then evaluates governance hybrids.
Limitations
- The paper states that blockchain is still early-stage and its development remains uncertain; it notes open research questions about consensus security and performance and says its proposals are exploratory rather than guaranteed.
- Evident from the text: published in 2018, so its regulatory and market examples predate later developments; it is normative and argumentative, relying on illustrative cases rather than systematic data; some cited estimates come from third parties such as Goldman Sachs and are not independently tested.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
206 Own interpretation · 128 Sources not found · 31 No basis given · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 No full text of the sources · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
In the paper
“Another major exchange, Bitfinex, was hacked in 2016, losing cryptocurrency valued at nearly $70 million.146”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [146]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“And in early 2018, a Japanese exchange reported a theft of half a billion dollars of cryptocurrency.147”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [147]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“And indeed, vulnerabilities have already been identified in high-profile Ethereum smart contracts.134”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Trusting Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [134]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2014, the most prominent Bitcoin exchange, Mt.Gox, collapsed after hackers stole a significant amount of currency, then worth over $400 million.145”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [145]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The danger of a 51% attack increases when mining network power decreases.129”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [129]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There has not, however, been widespread adoption of cryptographically-based private law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“States are beginning to move toward treating blockchainbased information analogous to more traditional records.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The difference is that, with current “computable contracts” (to use a term from law professor and software engineer Harry Surden) execution of the agreement is automated but enforcement is not.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [187]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, when Microsoft used its monopoly power in the late 1990s to threaten Internetbased startups, the U.S. Government intervened through antitrust enforcement to restrain it.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [194]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where they had a strong desire to regulate online activity, they found ways to do so.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Vermont made blockchain-based information admissible as evidence in court.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [185]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Users only got their money back because the supposedly immutable, unstoppable blockchain actually was not.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For Bitcoin, that means the system self-enforces financial transfers.84”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [84]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If one entity keeps the master ledger, it becomes a single point of failure for the system.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Ledgers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The benefits of cheating are less than the costs.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without a robust means of ensuring consensus, any Bitcoin participant could, for example, spend the same bitcoin multiple times (known as the double-spend problem), or claim it had more currency than it really did.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While there are many challenges to resolve about the legal treatment of Bitcoin and its progeny, the more fundamental question is whether they can displace traditional law entirely.They cannot.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“While it seemingly precludes traditional legal enforcement, a blockchainbased system's software enforces its own rules in a manner analogous to the legal system.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lawrence Lessig's 1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trouble with most approaches to consensus on digital systems is that it is easy to create multiple fake accounts.This is known as the”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was verification, but a breakdown in trust.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The DAO's software worked exactly as designed to replace legal enforcement and third-party intermediaries.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Even if some of them are untrustworthy, the system holds so long as the majority is honest.67”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: A majority of miners in the Bitcoin network are honest.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if most real users are honest, an attacker can dominate the network and impose its own false consensus on the system.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“And the scope of theft only increased after that, as cryptocurrency prices skyrocketed in 2017.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] 38. Robert Graham, Ethereum/TheDAO Hack Simplified, ERRATA SEC. (June 18, 2016), http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/06/etheriumdao-hack -similfied.html#.V2wGDOYrKV5 [https://perma.cc/9HLC-HRNM]. 253. There are already technical auditing firms that review smart contract code for bugs or security vulnerabilities. See Alyssa Hertig, Blockchain Veterans Unveil Secure Smart Contracts Framework, COINDESK (Sept. 15, 2016), https://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-veterans -unveil-secure-smart-contracts-framework/ [https://perma.cc/L2MB-442J]. Traditional auditing firms are also considering how they might part
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Social login, however, entrenches Facebook's control.111”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Avoiding Problems with Central Authority
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [111]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2017, the European Union imposed a $2.7 billion fine on Google for manipulating online shopping search results to benefit its affiliates.110”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Avoiding Problems with Central Authority
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [110]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are significant practical limitations in replacing human enforcement of agreements with software running on the blockchain.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Trusting Smart Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This is the reason, for example, that Latin American countries have seen some of the most aggressive adoption of bitcoin for payments.102 Citizens there are skeptical of the government and the financial system, after calamitous experiences with hyperinflation and currency devaluation.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Avoiding Problems with Central Authority
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [102]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Errors or security exploits in smart contracts are particularly dangerous because the blockchain directly carries value or rights to assets.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Trusting Smart Contracts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If such flaws exist, however, they will apply at least as strongly to the existing online transactional systems, which rely on the same cryptography.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [116]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [118]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A smart contract can have errors and security flaws, like any other software code.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Trusting Smart Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It meant that Ethereum transactions were not truly immutable, or immune from centralized interference.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Trusting Smart Contracts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if the wallet provider is hacked, the keys are vulnerable.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limitations of the blockchain create problems when it is positioned as the sole guarantor of enforcement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > III. LEDGERS MEET LAW
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A particular point of vulnerability lies in exchanges that trade cryptocurrencies for dollars or other government-backed fiat money.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If someone controls more than half of the mining power in the network, they can validate blocks of their choosing, even if they involve double-spending.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [114]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A more likely danger is flawed implementation of cryptographic techniques, such as reliance on random number generators that are not actually random.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“A system that invites abuse on this scale will inevitably lead to scams.157”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Trusting Coin Issuers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [157]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They also offer an almost perfect way to cheat people out of their money.153”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Trusting Coin Issuers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [153]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain-based systems are vulnerable.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Google's advertising revenues, now in the tens of billions of dollars annually, represent a direct cost of intermediation.108”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Avoiding Problems with Central Authority
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [108]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With smart contracts, a distributed ledger becomes functionally a distributed computer.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Smart Contracts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Basic vulnerabilities in these mechanisms cannot be ruled out, especially with advances in computing power.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, without regulation, there is a strong information asymmetry between investors, especially retail investors, and investment promoters.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Trusting Coin Issuers
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even when value is stored in decentralized systems, it is often accessed through centralized edge services.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [113]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fortunately, there is a mechanism that can work alongside the technical trust architecture of the blockchain.That mechanism is the law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > III. LEDGERS MEET LAW
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the Internet began to look more like society, it faced the same political and economic challenges as offline communities.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the former, there is almost always some known entity to sue, whether the action succeeds or not.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only difference between the attacker who tried to steal the funds and the miners who took it back through the hard fork was their motivations.191 That cannot be assessed by a computer.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The only difference between the attacker who tried to steal The DAO funds and the miners who took it back through the hard fork was their motivations.
In the paper
“There are plenty of counter-examples, but there are enough cases of regulators and the regulated cooperating to allow growth and innovation.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Werbach, supra note 172
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And as the creators of The DAO discovered, taking the place of law is not as easy as it may seem.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The experience of the past twenty years suggests that governments and powerful private institutions will not so easily be disintermediated.172”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [172]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“At least ten Bitcoin companies announced they were ceasing business in New York as a direct result of the BitLicense.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [208]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Judges who believe an injustice or legally cognizable injury has occurred will not simply throw up their hands and defer to a distributed ledger.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Smart contracts are another domain in which blockchain-based approaches cannot escape the law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The requirements for covered entities were onerous.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The notion that activity on a blockchain cannot be subject to legal enforcement died with the arrest of Ross Ulbricht, if not before.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gibbs
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are certainly some parties to smart contracts who will refuse to appear in court but established firms are unlikely to do so.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Cross-border contractual disputes are a staple of modern business among multi-national firms.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A similar pattern seems likely for activity on the blockchain, where the stakes are high enough, governments will not simply defer their authority.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Issues of jurisdiction and choice of law are challenging but not insoluble.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many things that “just worked” in the early days turned out to be consequences of a small, close-knit, homogeneous online community.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Something similar is likely to occur for distributed ledger technology.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The notion that activity on a blockchain cannot be subject to legal enforcement died with the arrest of Ross Ulbricht,”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the knowledge that governments were operating to police abusive practices helped promote trust in the new and unfamiliar word of virtual transactions.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The flaw in this reasoning is the failure to distinguish contractual execution from enforcement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The problem, in FinCEN's eyes, was that Ripple did so without registering as a regulated money services business.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [203]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Regulation of the Internet was actually an important step in its widespread adoption.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [193]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Even when smart contracts fully execute agreements, parties aggrieved at the results will still resort to litigation.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [192]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The challenge is that a private, decentralized currency that is pseudonymous or anonymous makes it easier to engage in such illegal activity without consequence.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As distributed ledgers become more prominent, the simplistic view that they obviate the need for law will become increasingly untenable.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The Silk Road takedown showed that the blockchain is not an impermeable shield against legal enforcement.
- Rests on an assumption: The DAO attack showed the governance limitations of purely algorithmic systems.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The global distribution of blockchain development activity encourages jurisdictional competition among regions.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, digital rights management software limits use of content more tightly than copyright law, because it ignores safety valves such as fair use and the first sale doctrine.217”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [217]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One difference between the regulatory debates in the dot-com and distributed ledger eras is that the United States is no longer the dominant source of activity.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [224]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the Monetary Authority of Singapore made clear in an August 2017 announcement that initial coin offerings there would be subject to money laundering and terrorist financing restrictions.211”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [211]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The U.S. is still a very important driver of blockchain activity.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [218]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [227]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Distributed ledgers can complement and extend the existing trust architecture.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the countries where that capital comes from will not be shy about exercising jurisdiction.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where the blockchain powers new markets, it often does so in ways that are complementary to existing legal arrangements.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The Uniform Law Commission, which creates model codes that are widely adopted by state legislatures, adopted a model cryptocurrency law in 2017 that limits the scope of regulation.213”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [213]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [223]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, even jurisdictions keen to attract entrepreneurial businesses in fields such as cryptocurrency do not simply engage in a race to the bottom.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the primary financial regulator, established a Fintech Sandbox program that allows companies to experiment with new services.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [247]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies offer a shortcut to address this challenge of the unbanked.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [235]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Several billion people in the developing world lack access to bank accounts and the opportunities for easy payments and credit they bring.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hurdle for these systems is the human actors outside the ledger.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Something similar has already occurred in derivatives trading, where standardized master agreements and terminology under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) allows widespread automation of transactions even without the use of distributed ledgers.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 543
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [258]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2017, the United Nations World Food Program conducted a successful trial using the Ethereum blockchain to track food aid distribution to 10,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [236]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If there was a problem with the smart contract, one could turn to the legal contract for resolution.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Even if smart contracts can be enforced in court under basic principles of contract law, they serve a different function than the fundamentally remedial institution of contract.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [259]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A court or other decision-maker can use the conventional contract to understand the intent of the smart contract, which handles execution of the agreement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [266]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The program provided accountability in an environment where conventional legal enforcement is difficult.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It was particularly important to the spread of user-driven”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [245]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If there is no workable rule of law to begin with, rule of blockchain may be a significant improvement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only when the point is to ensure honor among thieves in a dark marketplace such as Silk Road is the blockchain in opposition to legal enforcement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Initiatives are underway in various parts of the world to use the blockchain as a solution, including Ghana and the country of Georgia.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [238]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: In many parts of the world, land title records are incomplete and challenging for ordinary citizens to interact with.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, where legal enforcement is weak, the blockchain can in some cases function as a substitute.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The cryptocurrency gave Uber leverage by establishing a trusted payment option outside traditional centralized channels.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [241]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Difficulties arise when the smart and legal contracts disregard one another, as in The DAO collapse.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A corrupt local land office that refuses to record information accurately on a blockchain, or that disregards the information it reports, can still do so.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the contractual mechanisms around blockchains become more standardized and modularized, the line between enforcement through law and code will blur.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 543
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One of the first initiatives to record land titles on a blockchain, an effort in Honduras involving the startup Factom, never got off the ground because of difficulties with the local partners.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [239]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“On the other hand, the CDA safe harbor was a significant factor in the rapid growth of online intermediaries.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [244]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That information must be provided to the smart contract through an external connection, either to an automated data source or a human arbiter.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The blockchain does not know stock prices.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Under BIP 9, miners can broadcast their willingness and readiness to adopt changes.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [280]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Even though Bitcoin lacks a formal governance structure, its developers have rigged a voluntary signaling mechanism called BIP 9.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [280]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Segwit is automatically activated on the Bitcoin network after a threshold of 80 percent network hashing power signaled for it.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [281]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many smart contracts will already need to interface with the outside world.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 74
- Probably not a substantial claim. 200
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“By 2016, there were already at least fifteen incidents in which cryptocurrency worth at least $1 million was stolen, with a total value exceeding $600 million.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [37] 37. ntrepreneurs [to found] the user-generated content sites we know and love today."). 246. See Peter Van Valkenburgh, Bitcoin Innovators Need Legal Safe Harbors, COIN CENTER (Jan. 24, 2017), https://coincenter.org/entry/bitcoin-innovators-need-legal-safe-harbors [https://perma.cc/C5ES-KZGN]. 251. Christopher D. Clack, et al., Smart Contract Templates: Foundations, Design Landscape and Research Directions 5 (Aug. 4, 2016) (unpublished manuscript), https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.00771.pdf [https://perma.cc/PQW8-8GCJ] (defining operational aspect as "the parts of the contract that we wish to automa sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages on enforcement (section 2.3.2, p. 4) and research challenges (section 3.2.3, p. 10) discuss smart-contract risks, not cryptocurrency theft totals. Searches for fifteen theft incidents, $1 million losses, and a $600 million total found no passage in our copy addressing those figures. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
In the paper
“The collapse of The DAO, noted in the introduction, illustrated this vulnerability.135 The transactions siphoning off funds were valid smart contracts according to the rules of The DAO, so they were subject to the same immutable execution as any others.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Trusting Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [135]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Smart contracts automate contractual enforcement by ceding all power to the decentralized network maintaining the ledger.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [188]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Internet advocates began to call for government intervention to enforce network neutrality rules and privacy protections.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [195]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Arizona passed a law declaring blockchain-based digital signatures as legally enforceable.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [184]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regulatory skirmishes over blockchain-based systems are already being fought.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Blockchains are vulnerable to selfish behavior, attacks, and manipulation.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36] 36. Kill It, ATLANTIC (Sept. 12, 2013), https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-law-that-gave-us-the-modern -Internet-and-the-campaign-to-kill-it/279588/ [https://perma.cc/HG7W-VJEB]. 245. See id. ("It was simple and intuitive to understand for entrepreneurs and . . . has functioned as a permission slip for . . .
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if the math works perfectly, blockchains are systems designed, implemented, and used by humans.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Miners thus act purely out of self-interest, but in doing so, they fulfill a socially beneficial role.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“New bitcoin is only created through the reward mechanism, at a rate that declines over time.82”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [82]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjective intent remains relevant even when expressed through objective code.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Each block thus validated is cryptographically signed with the hash of the prior block, creating an immutable chain of sequential blocks.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [75]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Solutions require massive and growing computing power, which is sufficiently expensive to deter Sybil attacks.71”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [71]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet there are places the legal system cannot go, and sometimes the very formalization that law imposes is an impediment to trust.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal structures such as contracts, property, corporations, and judicial enforcement replace interpersonal trust with more structured rights, expectations, and remedies.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are points where law needs to adapt to recognize the potential of the blockchain, but the reverse is also true: the blockchain needs law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And they are less insulated from the law's reach than it seems.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This introduces complexity, delay, and possibilities for error.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Ledgers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wholly divorced from legal enforcement, blockchain-based systems may be counterproductive or even dangerous.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain is an ingenious solution for verification but to promote trust requires something more.”
- Also stated in: § I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE · plain
“That is where the legal system comes in play.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All systems of this type incorporate three primary features: distributed ledgers, consensus, and smart contracts.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > HOW THE BLOCKCHAIN WORKS The blockchain was first described in a paper distributed online in late 2008 by someone (or some group) using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.50 Many of the concepts in Nakamoto's paper were familiar to cryptographers, but the system was implemented in a novel and elegant way to create a private, decentralized form of digital cash, called bitcoin.The Bitcoin network was implemented in open source software in 2009 and has been operating ever since.Exchanges around the world sprung up to trade bitcoin for fiat currencies such as dollars or euros.A collection of developers works to improve the Bitcoin software-Nakamoto was last heard from in 2011-and "miners" around the world provide computing power to secure the network.One bitcoin now costs thousands of dollars to purchase on an exchange.51 Bitcoin was the first production of the blockchain system.In subsequent years, many others were created, differing from the Bitcoin network in various ways.Some of them, like Ripple, which facilitates cross-border currency exchange between financial services providers, are optimized for specific purposes.52 Others, like Ethereum, are designed as general-purpose platforms.53 These other blockchains still have a native cryptocurrency token that can be traded, but it is a means to an end.The primary purpose of their currencies is to incentivize activity.Another class of systems, called permissioned ledgers, have no cryptocurrency because they are designed for private groups of firms to share information or transactions. The leading two examples are Hyperledger-an open source project under the auspices of the 49.See Hoffman, supra note 43.50.See generally Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash System (unpublished manuscript), https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf[https://perma.cc/QGW4-W934](last visited Aug. 18, 2018).Nakamoto's identity has never been conclusively identified.51.Bitcoin (USD) Price, COINDESK, https://www.coindesk.com/price/[https://perma.cc/X2FK-F47J](last visited Sept. 3, 2018).52.See Nathaniel Popper, The Rush to Coin Virtual Money with Real Value, N.Y.TIMES (Nov.11, 2013), https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/the-rush-to-coin-virtual-money-with-real-value [https://perma.cc/5LMD-QNXC].53.See Nathaniel Popper, Move Over, Bitcoin.Ether Is the Digital Currency of the Moment, N.Y.TIMES (June 19, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/business/dealbook/ethereum-bitcoin-digital-currency.html[https://perma.cc/26SC-PH9P]. Linux Foundation 54 -and the R3 financial services consortium.55 All the platforms use slightly different technical approaches.They make design tradeoffs to optimize for factors such as performance, decentralization, regulatory compliance, anonymity, security, and functionality.In the future, there may be only one blockchain of consequence, or there may be dozens of significant platforms and thousands of minor ones.Bitcoin today remains the biggest platform in terms of market capitalization of tokens, but its dominance appears to be waning.In twenty years, it could be worth several trillion dollars, or zero.However the market develops, the blockchain architecture that Bitcoin pioneered is now well-established.All systems of this type incorporate three primary features: distributed ledgers, consensus, and smart contracts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The proof of work system is tuned dynamically to generate a valid solution to the hashing puzzle for a block roughly once every ten minutes.74”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [74]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If, on the other hand, each organization or computer keeps its own ledger (as with most corporate financial records), every transaction is recorded independently at least twice.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Ledgers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A public blockchain, such as Bitcoin's, records all transactions on the network and is totally transparent to all participants.77”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [77]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Consensus affirms the integrity both of each individual transaction and of the ledger as a whole.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [73]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the single distributed ledger replaces many private ledgers that must be reconciled for consistency, thus reducing transaction costs.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They may supplement, complement, or substitute for legal enforcement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And surprisingly, developers of blockchain-based systems will often need to incorporate both.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, one can have confidence in transactions without trusting the integrity of any individuals, intermediaries, or governments.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A blockchain is a kind of distributed ledger.58 It is”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Ledgers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Realizing its potential, however, will require a careful mapping of the respective roles of the”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reason the blockchain needs law is that both the blockchain and the law are, at their core, mechanisms of trust.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any participant in the network can maintain an instantiation of the ledger, yet be confident it matches all the others.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Ledgers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Nakamoto's response to Sybil attacks cleverly combined cryptographic 64 techniques with insights from game theory.65”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [64]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [65]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchains use complex technology, but their basic function is simple: providing a distributed yet provably accurate record.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maintaining that synchronization, called consensus, is the hard part, because there is no canonical master copy.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Ledgers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its impact will depend on its developers' ability to connect Satoshi Nakamoto's cryptoeconomic trust model with the formal structures and institutions of legal enforcement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The magic of distributed ledgers is to make certain activities trustworthy without the need to trust anyone in particular.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > II. HERE COMES THE BLOCKCHAIN
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The idea of smart contracts was introduced independently from blockchains, and well before Bitcoin was developed.86”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [86]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To achieve their monumental potential and avoid catastrophic failures, blockchain-based systems will need to integrate with the operations and institutions of the law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Distributed ledger technology allows participants to trust the outcome of a system without trusting any individual participant.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain could indeed become a transformative technology for business, government, and society on the scale of the Internet, but only if it reaches accommodations with law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Created to support the Bitcoin digital currency, the blockchain is actually something deeper: a novel solution to the age-old human problem of trust.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This Article defends the contrarian claim that law is the blockchain's destiny, not its undoing.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > I. INTRODUCTION: CODE'S REVENGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [119]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The most prominent platform for smart contracts today is Ethereum, which launched in 2015.88”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [88]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In 2011, DigiNotar, a Dutch certificate authority, was hacked.105 Fraudulent certificates were issued which allowed attackers to intercept and redirect traffic between users and Google's Gmail service.The damage was limited because Google and web browser vendors acted quickly to invalidate the fraudulent certificates, but the incident shows the risk of centralized systems.106”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Avoiding Problems with Central Authority
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [105]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [106]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And while permissioned blockchains, which have an additional layer of centralized trust over the participants in the network, may not need to worry about 51% of the attacks, they face more of the traditional information security concerns of centralized systems.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Token purchasers today are generally contributing money to blockchain-based projects with virtually no way to guarantee they get anything in return, and very limited information about risks.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Trusting Coin Issuers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In proof of work systems like Bitcoin, the only two ways to obtain cryptocurrency are through mining or by exchanging with someone else.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That power makes blockchain-based systems trustworthy, but it also leads to problems that code itself cannot solve.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Trusting Smart Contracts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ether, Ethereum's cryptocurrency, is now easily the second most valuable after bitcoin.90”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [90]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2016, authorities in Buenos Aires, Argentina forbade credit card companies from processing transactions for the ride-hailing company Uber, which was violating local regulations.Xapo, which offers a bitcoin-based debit card, was able to circumvent the ban 101 because it did not require a local connection to a traditional payment processor.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Avoiding Problems with Central Authority
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [101]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One of Bitcoin's value propositions is to serve as a residual store of value in many ways superior to gold, which today is a $7 trillion asset class. 103”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Avoiding Problems with Central Authority
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [103]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Quantum computers, for example, might be able to break encryption methods that the most powerful conventional computers cannot crack.125”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [125]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, these techniques have their own limitations and have survived less real-world exposure than Bitcoin.132”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [132]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Nakamoto's solution for consensus is remarkably robust, but it can be overcome by a 51% attack.126”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [126]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although there has been some effort to require licensing of cryptocurrency exchanges, the global nature of the market means many exchanges are effectively unregulated.148”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Trusting Edge Services
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [148]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain offers tremendous potential benefits.It also poses very serious risks and public policy challenges.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Smart contracts are essentially autonomous software agents.87”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [87]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [112]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given all the uncertainties and technical complexities of blockchain technology, most investors are unlikely to understand what they are getting into, even with extensive financial disclosure.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Trusting Coin Issuers
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are so many well-founded efforts underway, so many significant use cases, so much support from major enterprises, and so much capital flowing in that the blockchain is clearly more than a fad.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Shared Truth The second appealing aspect of the blockchain model is its potential for speed and efficiency.At first glance, this sounds odd.Bitcoin validates a block roughly every ten minutes, and currently has a theoretical limit of seven transactions per second.112 This is quite a small number: the Visa credit card network handles up to 10,000 transactions in the same period.113 The overhead of synchronizing the distributed ledger is so great that, according to one estimate by cryptographer Nick Szabo, the process operates 10,000 times slower than a conventional computer.114 Yet there is a hidden advantage of removing the need to trust the specific actors with which you interact.Trust is not transitive.I may trust my bank, but that does not mean I trust yours.For me to cash your check, our banks must enter into their own trust relationship.With many thousands of financial institutions processing billions of transactions across hundreds of jurisdictions, this pairwise structure quickly bogs down.Or more accurately, it works only with huge inefficiencies and transaction costs.Much of the time, transaction costs become further value-extraction opportunities for the trusted actors.Hence the massive revenues for providers of remittances and credit cards.115 The complexity of reconciling transactions between many interconnected trusted parties adds delay to the process.Stock trades, for example, typically settle after two days (a standard known as T+2).116 This ties up capital that could otherwise be deployed more efficiently. In the traditional system, every actor is individually responsible for keeping its ledger in sync with the virtual consensus.Yet it only has visibility (limited at that) into its direct partners.With the blockchain, every new block reconciles 112.See NARAYANAN ET AL., supra note 43, at 134 (validation every ten minutes), 95 (seven transactions per second limit).its transactions across the entire system.Each participant knows that its copy of the ledger is identical to every other.The truth-or what computer scientists call the network's "state"-is shared among them.Thus, while it may take much longer to record each transaction, the network as a whole updates more rapidly.Because this occurs through one synchronized process, rather than a potentially large number of separate transactions, costs may be significantly lower.117 Goldman Sachs estimates that the blockchain could save $11-$12 billion annually in settlement and reconciliation fees, just for securities transactions.118 Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.The Bitcoin development community is engaged in debates about mechanisms such as increasing the size of each block to improve performance.119 By contrast, the existing financial system has been optimized over an extended period for robust operation at massive scale.Predictions that the blockchain will soon sweep away the banking system as we know it are thus exaggerated.However, the potential for faster and more efficient reconciliation is a key reason major financial institutions are actively exploring permissioned blockchains. Finally, there are different ways to structure a distributed ledger.120 On public blockchains, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, anyone can operate a mining node and maintain a copy of the shared ledger.Because there is no way to verify the integrity of network participants, elaborate protocols such as Nakamoto Consensus and high-overhead distribution of all transaction information are necessary.Permissioned ledgers can do away with those limitations and operate more efficiently, but at the cost of reintroducing elements of central control.121 Different use cases will call for different solutions.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the blockchain entirely replaces reliance on people, companies, and governments with reliance on software code and cryptography, it will produce distrust.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > III. LEDGERS MEET LAW
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ethereum offers a Turing-complete programming language, meaning that in theory, any application that runs on a conventional computer can be executed on the distributed computer of its consensus network.89”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Smart Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [89]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recipients-Circle, Ripple, and Coinbase-were three of the best-funded startups in the space, reinforcing concerns that BitLicense would crowd out innovative small players.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The point is that these are not new questions.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Universal freedom, at the limit, is tantamount to anarchy: Thomas Hobbes' war of all against all.177”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [177]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its business model depends on its ability to develop partnerships with financial institutions around the world.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no way the classification controversy could have been resolved quickly in the 1990s because the technology was too immature and its implementation too limited.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In response to the FinCEN action, Ripple agreed to a $950,000 fine and committed to establish an AML/KYC compliance regime.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [204]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Ripple sanctions were a turning point for the cryptocurrency industry.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regulations were drafted in a way that seemed to cover many cryptocurrency businesses other than custodial exchanges, and the certification process was cumbersome.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are designed to prevent criminals and terrorists from using the banking system to support their activities.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike Bitcoin, which is a protocol implemented on a distributed network, Ripple is a for-profit company.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Xapo, a venturebacked Bitcoin wallet startup, relocated its headquarters from California to Switzerland ten days after the decision.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [205]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2015, FinCEN, the financial crimes enforcement office of the United States Treasury Department, announced a civil enforcement action against Ripple.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [202]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Broadly speaking, there are three major types of controversies: illegality, classification, and legal validity.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a truly decentralized network, there is no way to impose limits on money transfers to known terrorists, transactions selling children into modern slavery, or laundering of funds known to be stolen.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no good way to represent terms such as “reasonable” or “best efforts” in code.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As of early 2017, only three BitLicenses had been granted, despite dozens of applications.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [207]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The open question is how to deal with code that makes it quite difficult to engage in censorship or tampering, which also makes it easier to engage in terrorist financing or ransomware.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“No matter how fast they calculate, there are some things computers cannot do as well as humans.The same is true for smart contracts.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [190]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Particularly with the rise of permissioned ledgers and enterprise-grade systems on top of public ledgers, regulation as a facilitator of blockchain development is gaining currency.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Some companies saw the FinCEN action as a signal that the U.S. was not a hospitable jurisdiction for cryptocurrency companies.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [205]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Automating contractual enforcement is not as neat as automating execution.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain adds a new chapter to this story, but does not fundamentally change the balance of power.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Criminals and terrorists will try to exploit the blockchain, just as they exploit other technologies whenever possible.
In the paper
“The practical implications in the case of Internet telephony involved more than a decade of contentious debates.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [199]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And sometimes the meaning of the contract is best understood in terms of the intent of the parties rather than the precise meaning of the terms they used.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There may be practical difficulties in identifying pseudonymous or anonymous counterparties, as well as in bringing legal actions against actors in other countries.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Dumb Contracts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A related concern is that code, by creating decentralized digital bearer instruments, creates an attractive target for thieves, both external and internal.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There seems to be an inherent conflict between the innovative scope of something like Augur and legitimate public policy considerations.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The Augur developers do not control what questions can be posted on the prediction market.
- Rests on an assumption: On a distributed platform such as Augur, administrators cannot delete illegal, offensive, or harassing material that users post, unlike on Facebook or Reddit.
In the paper
“Even when transactions are entirely digital, peer-to-peer, cross-border, and cryptographically secured, providers and users on the network can be identified and subject to territorial legal obligations.173”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. "No Sovereignty Where We Gather"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [173]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain effectively implements a decentralized security model, but this does not obviate the need for legal and regulatory involvement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Trusting Coin Issuers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The AML/KYC process, which typically requires financial services operators to verify physical identity documents such as passports and check against blacklists of individuals, can be onerous, especially for fast-moving and highly-computerized service providers.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The FCC was sensitive to concerns about preemptive and over-expansive regulation dampening innovation.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Classifying Cryptoducks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [200]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That does not mean they are necessarily accepted as valid within the regulated banking system or for other particular purposes.It only means that transacting with cryptocurrencies in not per se prohibited.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: No major Western government attempted to ban cryptocurrencies on the basis of illegal use, and most of the nations that did have since recognized the basic legitimacy of bitcoin and similar currencies.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that bitcoin can be used to pay for drugs does not by itself raise legal problems for the cryptocurrency; Russian rubles or bars of gold can do the same.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Regulatory Debates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In others, where the blockchain is purely supplemental, existing legal arrangements function normally without any special integration.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distributed ledger here would not take the place of standard copyright law, but it would extend it in a direction that it cannot easily go today.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [219]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizations do not just seek the least regulation; they seek the best regulation, among a slate of other factors.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second class of applications involves situations where trust based on the legal system is breaking down or insufficient.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [221]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often the problem in the current environment is that centralized arrangements cannot scale effectively enough, preventing desirable solutions.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If governed properly, blockchain-based solutions can overcome some of the limitations of legal enforcement, and vice versa.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A reliable and stable regulatory environment will be important for building trust in blockchain platforms that seek a large user base.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“U.S. dominance of the early Internet industry produced major benefits, both economic and in terms of global soft power.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The early leader is the canton of Zug, Switzerland, which combines a stable government, a central location in Europe, a welcoming environment for cryptocurrency companies, and very favorable tax policies.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [210]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One way for the blockchain to achieve more robust trust is, perhaps surprisingly, through the legal system.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many cases, however, affirmative steps must be taken to combine the best aspects of distributed ledgers and centralized law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether it is superior or inferior depends on the context.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Singapore is a hotbed of blockchain activity, due in part to its permissive regulatory attitude.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hoping to be the Silicon Valley of the crypto economy, countries ranging from tiny Gibraltar to Russia are creating new legal frameworks to attract blockchain startups, coin offerings, and other activity.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are the same reasons why all companies today do not domicile in offshore tax havens.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet the equally simplistic view that regulators can and should direct these systems the way they manage centralized equivalents is equally misguided.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Smart contracts could be used to ensure that those who use orphan works pay licensing fees to legitimate rights-holders who come forward (most likely vetted by an arbitration mechanism).”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of statutory damages for copyright infringement is a severe threat that scares away potential users of the material, even though in some cases it might actually be in the public domain.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are several mechanisms to hybridize the blockchain's distributed, algorithmic trust structures with the human-interpreted, state-backed institutions of law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [220]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Internet today is highly globalized, but in the 1990s, usage and startup creation were heavily centralized in the United States.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [222]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [228]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It bears repeating that major Internet companies did not locate in Sealand or island tax havens; they went to where the developers and customers were.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A blockchain-based registry would be available to all and would not give excessive gatekeeper power to any intermediary.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Orphan works are thus in legal limbo.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Initiatives are underway to decentralize control over digital rights using distributed ledgers, giving power back to artists, including Ujo Music, PeerTracks, and the Open Music Initiative.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [233]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those who wish to use them, for example, documentary filmmakers wishing to incorporate archival footage, cannot negotiate a license even if they wanted to.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both can also undermine it.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [225]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some contexts, no legal involvement will be needed.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The SEC's investigative report on initial coin offerings and The DAO was widely praised as measured and technically knowledgeable.215”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [215]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If there is to be a Lex Cryptographia, therefore, the salient challenge is to identify its strengths and weaknesses, relative to those of traditional legal mechanisms.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the legal system and software code can promote trust.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Blockchain Supplements Where the existing trust architecture is generally functional, the blockchain can operate as an additional layer subject to established legal rules.In such situations, the primary value proposition of the distributed ledger is the speed 216.See CODE VERSION 2.0, supra note 22, at 1. 217.LESSIG, CODE, AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE, supra note 22. and efficiency gain of a single shared data record.218 The blockchain replaces the error-prone messaging structures between participants but does not seek to upend industry structure.219 For example, in the United States, there are well-developed legal rules and established practices around real estate transactions.Title insurance is used to protect buyers against defects in land titles.220 The combination of formal rules and solid norms produces a strong environment of trust.However, there are significant inefficiencies in the system.Title insurance is still largely based on paper records, which must be exchanged among multiple parties.Goldman Sachs estimates moving to distributed ledgers could reduce title insurance premiums in the United States and generate two to four billion dollars in cost savings, thanks to improved efficiency and reduced risk.221 In this scenario, the existing legal obligations and centralized business arrangements bear the primary trust burden for the transaction.The blockchain steps in as a potentially superior record-keeping mechanism.Trust in the integrity of the data on the shared ledger is sufficient.The buyer's trust relationships with the seller and various intermediaries such as banks and brokers remain unchanged.Systemic concerns about the technical viability of distributed ledgers remain relevant as trust considerations.222 The other concerns and limitations of the blockchain as a trust infrastructure are less relevant because the shared ledger is not attempting to supplant legal recourse. Another example is Corda, a project of the R3 financial industry consortium.It uses distributed ledger technology to manage agreements between financial institutions, thus avoiding the costs of reconciliation.223 Only identified institutions can participate in the Corda network.224 The data structure for recording transactions is actually not a blockchain and does not use proof of work, although it employs a consensus-based distributed ledger with smart contracts. 225orda networks can explicitly invite in regulators, who can operate "supervisory observer nodes" with access to real-time information about transactions.226 This is an important point.If designed to facilitate regulatory oversight, rather than to exclude government as with the original Bitcoin protocols, blockchain-based systems can actually support more effective regulation.The real-time transparency of the shared ledger could allow regulators to identify and respond to problems before the consequences become dire.227 They could even build compliance mechanisms directly into the system.228 With supplementary distributed ledgers, all the work of establishing trust has already been done.The blockchain is used solely to protect the integrity of data on the shared ledger.This is the least ambitious mode of applying the blockchain and the least transformative.It is likely to be most comfortable for regulators and other government actors, because it does not ask them to change their roles or rules substantially.The risks are lower, but the benefits are concomitantly more limited.The blockchain as a supplement to existing legal regimes can promote efficiency and reduce transaction costs, but is unlikely to transform industry structures or produce breakthrough innovations.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no certainty that the United States, or any jurisdiction, will strike the appropriate balance between flexibility and protection in its regulatory approaches to blockchain-based systems.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, though, regulators who do nothing will be a greater threat to the development of the market than those who engage in thoughtful and evolving efforts to address public policy considerations.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The CFTC created a LabCFTC group to study cryptocurrencies and engage with the nascent industry.214”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Jurisdictional Competition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [214]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are three primary ways the two systems can interact: blockchain as supplement, complement, or substitute.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > IV. CONNECTING LEGAL AND BLOCKCHAIN TRUST
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast to the”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [249]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such scenarios are real, but they occupy a relatively small and shrinking portion of the distributed ledger landscape.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the two were definitely linked.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Embedding the distinction between possession and control in a legal safe harbor would remove uncertainty from the market and make the legal regime more consistent with technical realities.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Prior to Bitcoin, possessing money meant having the ability to do anything with it.
- Rests on an assumption: An online service such as PayPal, where a user parks funds, has the power (absent legal or regulatory obligations) to steal it or send it to terrorists.
- Rests on an assumption: On a blockchain, many actors such as miners, DApps, and wallet software providers touch the records of transactions, but without the private keys governing user accounts, they lack any such capabilities.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Several groups are building solutions using the mutual hashing of smart and legal contracts, including a subgroup of the R3 consortium led by the British bank Barclays, 263 the Monax Burrow software now part of the Hyperledger open source project, 264 and OpenLaw.265”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [263]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [264]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [265]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Grigg called this structure the Ricardian contract because it was developed for the Ricardo system.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [261]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regulation of intermediaries such as registries may obviate the need to specify legal terms for every associated smart contract.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The skills required of lawyers would have to change, with the field becoming more like legal engineering.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Modularizing Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [252]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As blockchain-based systems become more familiar, a combination of customer, common law, and model legislation is likely to develop to address common situations.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain developers cannot ignore the law, but neither can governments disregard the growing significance of the blockchain.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > MAKING LAW MORE CODE-LIKE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One way to bridge the gap is for law to adapt.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > MAKING LAW MORE CODE-LIKE
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Legal code audits could also be implemented to ensure the contracts match the parties' intent, analogous to the security audits widely used by firms engaged in software development.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Modularizing Contracts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [253]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, a smart contract can be self-executing but not fully self-enforcing, thus avoiding the ambiguities and limitations of automated code-based enforcement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this approach, the human and smart contracts explicitly reference one another through digital signatures.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast to The DAO terms of service, which privileged the algorithmic contract over the human-readable explanations, this approach makes each dependent on the other.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To make this contract drafting process more analogous to the formalized coding that goes into a smart contract, the contractual clauses can be represented as components that are assembled into a digital document using a markup language.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Modularizing Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Private law can be made more code-like as well.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Modularizing Contracts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The simplest way to make blockchain-based systems more consistent with legal enforcement is literally to connect the two.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with the contract system today, forms will be widespread for business-to-consumer and low-value agreements.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Such”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [251]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many cases, the costs of dispute resolution will so far exceed the potential recovery that”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if artists have the technical capacity to control their output, they may not have the practical ability to do without the marketing and distribution power of the music industry.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as regulators and lawyers can adapt to the blockchain environment, distributed ledger systems can become more hospitable to legal enforcement.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > MAKING CODE MORE LAW-LIKE
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In parallel, the smart contract included the cryptographic hash string of the legal contract text.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [260]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contractual integration links the substantive terms of a legal agreement with those of a smart contract.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The alternative approach is to pair smart contracts and legal contracts explicitly.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Information security expert Ian Grigg first explored this idea in 2004, before the advent of cryptocurrencies, as part of the Ricardo digital transaction platform for financial instruments.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [260]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The legal code included the cryptographic hash string of the computer code, which guaranteed that it was referencing the proper smart contract.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [260]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When firms can take sufficient steps to police themselves, the safe harbor incentivizes them to do so.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Based on this history, Coin Center has proposed a new safe harbor for blockchain-based startups.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [246]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For that reason, the initiatives likely to move forward first are in relatively stable countries such as Georgia, and very stable ones such as Sweden, even though the need might be greater in the developing world.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, there may need to be mappings between the apparatus of legal enforcement and the technical framework of distributed ledgers.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Welldesigned sandboxes can make it easier for startups to write that running code and give regulators visibility to understand the public policy concerns that may arise.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three main pathways being explored are to integrate the terms of legal and smart contracts, to integrate traditional legal enforcement mechanisms into smart contracts, and to integrate law-like governance processes into blockchain platforms.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > MAKING CODE MORE LAW-LIKE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with the supplemental applications, these blockchain-based solutions leave conventional law (in this case, the copyright system) in place.However, they extend it to new applications that are untenable through existing trust architectures.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And of course, communities will use the blockchain to substitute for law when their goal is to evade legal responsibilities.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. Blockchain Substitutes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sandbox can be constructed to apply to organizations at early stages of development and disappear when they mature.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Safe Harbors and Sandboxes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A different approach is to take some aspects of enforcement out of the automated system of the smart contract.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Like Szabo's original notion of smart contracts, Ricardian contracts were largely a theoretical construct prior to the blockchain, and in particular, Ethereum's successful implementation of blockchain smart contracts.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [262]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By standardizing and reviewing the elements of the smart contract ahead of time, such mechanisms should cut down on the errors that led to failures such as The DAO hack.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 543
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no reason, however, that the two mechanisms cannot coexist.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Ricardo defined its contracts as having three components: legal code (the human-readable text of a contract), computer code (the executable steps of s smart contract), and parameters (the variables that influence how the computer code executes).”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [260]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every smart contract will not require a bespoke human-negotiated contract alongside it.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Contractual Integration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These ventures still face the challenge of entrenched power dynamics.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Blockchain Complements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Or they could be used to create a regular outlet for private dispute resolution, the way so many business-to-consumer form contracts today push disputes into arbitration.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Even more speculative-yet under development today in some blockchain-based projects-are computational courts, or as they are sometimes called, computational juries.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [276]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While BIP 9 thus enables a crude voting mechanism for controversial Bitcoin protocol upgrades, it leaves much to be desired as onchain governance.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Andreas Antonopoulos and Pamela Morgan proposed a decentralized arbitration and mediation network (DAMN) in 2016.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [275]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They may operate more like industry standards bodies or open source projects, where rule changes occur through collective agreement rather than the hierarchical edicts of corporate management.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Augur proposes to address such unethical markets through the same reporting process it uses to verify outcomes of predictions.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: One reason real-money prediction markets such as Intrade have been shut down by regulators is that they can be used in illegal or unethical ways.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systems that have well-structured mechanisms for considering and implementing changes to consensus rules or other technical attributes are not fundamentally decentralized.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This would help address extraordinary cases such as The DAO attack.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Those reporters must also post a bond.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The thresholds for approval are arbitrary.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They could be designed to operate only in extreme cases, with high barriers through the design of the multisignature (or”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Agreement does not necessarily presume trust. An insight of game theory is that even non-communicating parties may converge on common points by independently choosing the most likely or familiar option.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > References
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23] 23. THOMAS C. SCHELLING, THE STRATEGY OF CONFLICT 54- 55 (1960). The creators of both smart contracts and Ethereum make reference to these Schelling Points. See Szabo, Public Networks, supra note 85;
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further growth will depend partly on technical advances, partly on adoption patterns, partly on the business innovations built on top of distributed ledger platforms, and partly on resolution of the governance challenges to the blockchain's trust architecture.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > V.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At a time when trust in centralized power structures is waning, the blockchain's”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > V.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Like the Internet, the blockchain is a foundational technology, 285 whose impacts could reach into every corner of the world.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > V.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [285]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“decisions could, in some cases, be directly executed on the blockchain and would apply on a peer-to-peer basis, blockchain arbitration systems would be different than any current example.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Smart contracts could by default incorporate arbitration mechanisms or rollback provisions.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When someone creates a contract, such as a prediction that the President will be impeached within a certain period of time, they post a bond in Rep.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To move forward, though, law and distributed ledgers need each other.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > V.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [283]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Prediction markets can produce highly accurate forecasts by aggregating the wisdom of the crowd based on financial incentives.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > References
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Kenneth J. Arrow et al., The Promise of Prediction Markets, 320 SCIENCE 877 (2008). 180. TAPSCOTT & TAPSCOTT, supra note 43, at 84. 183. See Jeff John Roberts, Companies Can Put Shareholders on a Blockchain Starting Today, FORTUNE (Aug. 1, 2017), http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/blockchain-shareholders-law/ [https://perma.cc/D89K-MJMH]. 184. See Stan Higgins, Arizona Governor Signs Blockchain Bill into Law, COINDESK (Mar. 31, 2017), https://www.coindesk.com/arizona-governor-signs-blockchain-bill-law/ [https://perma.cc/T2JJ-RMAJ]. 185. See Vermont State to Recognize Blockchain Data in the Cour source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some oracles are just traditional data feeds designed with interfaces for smart contracts to process them in an automated way.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, just as the Federal Arbitration Act directs courts to accept private arbitration decisions when fraud is not involved, legislation could create similar legal force for appropriately designed blockchain dispute resolution systems.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [278]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Wikipedia is a great example of how a novel organizational approach combined with massive user participation can transform a market.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [279]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Instead of arbitrators resolving disputes, these mechanisms employ the wisdom of the crowd through prediction markets.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [276]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any of these voluntary mechanisms could be baked into blockchain applications, or even in some cases legally mandated.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process is designed to produce verified outcomes without having to trust a specific central authority.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Too much law could stifle the blockchain or drive it underground, yet so could too little law.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > V.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As Wright and De Filippi point out, oracles could be extended to dispute resolution by courts or private actors.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [270]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, new international arbitration networks might need to be developed that were tuned to the needs of blockchain disputes, much as the World Intellectual Property Organization created the Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP) to handle trademark disputes over Internet domain names.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [273]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The full range of incentives and governance mechanisms could be used to encourage compliance with desirable approaches.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [282]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, a call option to buy a security at a certain price can be executed algorithmically on the blockchain, with payment in bitcoin or another cryptocurrency.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The distributed nature of the blockchain may call for new enforcement mechanisms that are themselves distributed.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [272]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Thomson Reuters, one of the largest business publishing firms, is making some of its data feeds available in a manner designed to function as smart contract oracles.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [268]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Distributed ledgers are the first foundational technology in twenty years whose potential impact matches that of the Internet.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > V.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They win additional Rep if the prediction is correct and lose the bond if incorrect.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To be truly transformative, these systems would have to evolve their governance using the same decentralized approach they use to enforce it.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 3. On-Chain Governance
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The reports can be challenged, and if a second randomly selected jury agrees with the challenge, the reporter providing incorrect information loses her bond.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A randomly selected group of reporters (analogous to a jury) are tasked with verifying the outcome.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are limitations to these systems.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2018] WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW 549 centrally by those who propose the upgrades.Even more important, BIP 9 only signals; it does not enforce policies.Debates about scaling Bitcoin still require agreement among a critical mass of network participants.There are several efforts underway to create true on-chain governance.A project called Rootstock is trying to create a smart contracts layer on top of Bitcoin, with a built-in process giving both miners and users power to make binding votes on network changes.Decred and Tezos are building entirely new blockchains with governance mechanisms baked in.These systems use various algorithms to allow network participants to vote on changes to the protocol, which are automatically implemented when adopted.Decred successfully executed a change to its algorithm for allocating these voting tokens using the governance mechanism in Spring 2017.282 Tezos, which raised $200 million in one of the largest initial coin offerings, has generated tremendous interest for its governance approach.283 There are limitations to these systems.They internalize many aspects of the rules governing distributed ledger systems.However, they rely on hardcoded rules for democratic voting to carry out changes.This may be a very good way to govern; it may even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the best possible among a set of bad options.284 It is not perfect.Any governance structures that are imperfect will eventually need to be modified by someone.Moreover, humans need to define the rule changes that network participants vote on, and code the software to implement them if adopted.The on-chain governance systems make the blockchains operate more like a human-based legal or governance regime, but they still leave gaps that traditional institutions must fill.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Augur uses a system in which participants in the marketplace purchase a token called Rep.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This system mimics a legal arbitration process.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 2. Oracles and Computational Courts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The Augur Ethereum-based prediction market is developing this approach internally.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
A majority of miners in the Bitcoin network are honest.
“Even if some of them are untrustworthy, the system holds so long as the majority is honest.67”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bitcoin is designed to be censorship- and tamper-resistant.
“Bitcoin is also designed to be censorshipand tamper-resistant.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Once a transaction is recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain, it cannot easily be changed.
“And once a transaction is recorded, it cannot easily be changed, a property known as immutability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Proof of work is expensive, requiring specialized computing hardware and large quantities of electricity.
“Proof of work is expensive, literally.It requires specialized computing hardware and large quantities of electricity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Miners will not be incentivized sufficiently out of altruism.
“Miners will not be incentivized sufficiently out of altruism.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Distributed ledgers are active, not passive; they must ensure that recorded transactions are actually completed to match the consensus.
“Distributed ledgers are active, not passive.In other words, they do not simply record information passed to them.They are part of a consensus system, so they must ensure that recorded transactions are actually completed to match the consensus.83”
The paper relies on this without support.
All intermediaries impose costs.
“Moreover, all intermediaries impose costs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Intermediaries shape markets to serve their own interests.
“Intermediaries also shape markets to serve their own interests.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Trust is not transitive.
“Trust is not transitive.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems face significant scaling challenges.
“Bitcoin and other blockchain-based systems do face significant scaling challenges.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Bitcoin consensus ledger has not been successfully hacked since its very early days.
“The Bitcoin consensus ledger has not been successfully hacked since its very early days.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sophisticated attackers have tried to hack the Bitcoin consensus ledger.
“Sophisticated attackers have tried.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been significant bugs discovered in the open source Bitcoin code, although they were addressed prior to any lasting damage.
“There have been significant bugs discovered in the open source Bitcoin code, although they were addressed prior to any lasting damage.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The blockchain world has attracted some of the world's foremost experts in cryptography, who are working actively to prevent such failures.
“And the blockchain world has attracted some of the world's foremost experts in cryptography, who are working actively to prevent such failures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Token purchasers today are generally contributing money to blockchain-based projects with virtually no way to guarantee they get anything in return, and very limited information about risks.
“Token purchasers today are generally contributing money to blockchain-based projects with virtually no way to guarantee they get anything in return, and very limited information about risks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Augur developers do not control what questions can be posted on the prediction market.
“The Augur developers do not control what questions can be posted on the prediction market.”
The paper relies on this without support.
On a distributed platform such as Augur, administrators cannot delete illegal, offensive, or harassing material that users post, unlike on Facebook or Reddit.
“On Facebook or Reddit, administrators have the ability to delete illegal, offensive, or harassing material that users post.Not so on a distributed platform such as Augur.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No major Western government attempted to ban cryptocurrencies on the basis of illegal use, and most of the nations that did have since recognized the basic legitimacy of bitcoin and similar currencies.
“Contrary to fears, no major Western government attempted to ban cryptocurrencies on this basis, and most of the nations that did have since recognized the basic legitimacy of bitcoin and similar currencies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Billions of dollars of derivatives trades are executed each day with no human intervention.
“Billions of dollars of derivatives trades are executed each day with no human intervention.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The only difference between the attacker who tried to steal The DAO funds and the miners who took it back through the hard fork was their motivations.
“The only difference between the attacker who tried to steal the funds and the miners who took it back through the hard fork was their motivations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-border contractual disputes are a staple of modern business among multi-national firms.
“On the latter concern, cross-border contractual disputes are a staple of modern business among multi-national firms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most people do not buy drugs online and pay to access streaming media services.
“Most people do not buy drugs online and pay to access streaming media services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Criminals and terrorists will try to exploit the blockchain, just as they exploit other technologies whenever possible.
“Criminals and terrorists will try to exploit the blockchain, just as they exploit other technologies whenever possible.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Governments will overreact and propose rules with collateral damage to legitimate operations.
“Governments will overreact and propose rules with collateral damage to legitimate operations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Silk Road takedown showed that the blockchain is not an impermeable shield against legal enforcement.
“The Silk Road takedown showed that the blockchain is not an impermeable shield against legal enforcement, and the DAO attack showed the governance limitations of purely algorithmic systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The DAO attack showed the governance limitations of purely algorithmic systems.
“The Silk Road takedown showed that the blockchain is not an impermeable shield against legal enforcement, and the DAO attack showed the governance limitations of purely algorithmic systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Today, digital rights management systems are controlled by intermediaries and distributors, not the creators themselves.
“Today, digital rights management systems are controlled by intermediaries and distributors, not the creators themselves.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many artists have difficulty receiving sufficient compensation.
“As a result, many artists have difficulty receiving sufficient compensation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Several billion people in the developing world lack access to bank accounts and the opportunities for easy payments and credit they bring.
“Several billion people in the developing world, for example, lack access to bank accounts and the opportunities for easy payments and credit they bring.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many parts of the world, land title records are incomplete and challenging for ordinary citizens to interact with.
“In many parts of the world, land title records are incomplete and challenging for ordinary citizens to interact with.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prior to Bitcoin, possessing money meant having the ability to do anything with it.
“Prior to Bitcoin, possessing money meant having the ability to do anything with it.”
The paper relies on this without support.
An online service such as PayPal, where a user parks funds, has the power (absent legal or regulatory obligations) to steal it or send it to terrorists.
“An online service such as PayPal, where a user parks funds, has the power (absent legal or regulatory obligations) to steal it or send it to terrorists.”
The paper relies on this without support.
On a blockchain, many actors such as miners, DApps, and wallet software providers touch the records of transactions, but without the private keys governing user accounts, they lack any such capabilities.
“On a blockchain, by contrast, many actors such as miners, DApps, and wallet software providers touch the records of transactions, but without the private keys governing user accounts, they lack any such capabilities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most business contracts are essentially modules that lawyers string together and customize.
“Most business contracts are essentially modules that lawyers string together and customize.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Smart contracts are good at setting forth anticipated conditions and consequences ex ante, and then ensuring the consequences occur upon fulfillment of the conditions.
“Smart contracts are good at setting forth anticipated conditions and consequences ex ante, and then ensuring the consequences occur upon fulfillment of the conditions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Legal contracts are good at cleaning up the mess when, inevitably, things do not go according to plan.
“Legal contracts are good at cleaning up the mess when, inevitably, things do not go according to plan.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The blockchain does not know stock prices.
“The blockchain, however, does not know stock prices.”
The paper relies on this without support.
One of the biggest problems with blockchain networks as governance institutions is that it is difficult to change their foundational rules.
“One of the biggest problems with blockchain networks as governance institutions is that it is difficult to change their foundational rules.”
The paper relies on this without support.
These are still early days for the blockchain.
“These are still early days for the blockchain.”
The paper relies on this without support.
One reason real-money prediction markets such as Intrade have been shut down by regulators is that they can be used in illegal or unethical ways.
“One reason real-money prediction markets such as Intrade have been shut down by regulators is that they can be used in illegal or unethical ways.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > Consensus
“The Bitcoin network today is thousands of times more powerful than the world's 500 most powerful supercomputers combined.”
§ TRUST, BUT VERIFY: WHY THE BLOCKCHAIN NEEDS THE LAW > 1. Trusting Ledgers
“Today, that would be equivalent to several hundred of the world's fastest supercomputers, running non-stop.”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [9]9. Trevor I. Kiviat, Beyond Bitcoin: Issues in Regulating Blockchain Transactions, 65
- [22]22. see generally, Swanson, supra note 85 at 4-5. 121. See Richard Gendal Brown, Towards Deeper Collaboration in Distributed Ledgers: Thoughts on Digital Asset's Global Synchronisation Log, GENDAL.ME (Jan. 24, 2017), https://gendal.me/2017/01/24/towards-deeper-collaboration-in-distributed-ledgers -thoughts-on-digital-assets-global-synchronisation-log/ [https://perma.cc/Q9BP-V8K2]. 122. Vlad Zamfir (@VladZamfir), TWITTER (Mar. 4, 2017, 4:40 AM), https://twitter.com/vladzamfir/status/838006311598030848?lang=en [https://perma.cc/Z94J-VNDB]. Zamfir felt the need to explain himself the next day in a longer post. See Vlad Zamfir, About My Tweet from Yesterday.., MEDIUM (Mar. 5, 2017), https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/about-my-tweet-from-yesterday-dcc61915b572 [https://perma.cc/P6BL-ECND]. 123. Agreement does not necessarily presume trust. An insight of game theory is that even non-communicating parties may converge on common points by independently choosing the most likely or familiar option. See
- [24]24. Vitalik Buterin, SchellingCoin: A Minimal-Trust Universal Data Feed, ETHEREUM BLOG (Mar. 28, 2014), https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/03/28/schellingcoin-a-minimal-trust-universal-data-feed/ [https://perma.cc/ZHA6-WSH9]. 145. See Robin Sidel, Eleanor Warnock & Takashi Mochizuki, Almost Half a Billion Worth of Bitcoins Vanish, WALL ST. J. (Feb. 28, 2014) https://www.wsj.com/articles/mt-gox-to-hold -news-conference-1393579356 [https://perma.cc/C8E5-AG7A];
- [29]29. FED. COMM. L.J. 203, 207 (2013). 200. See id. at 231. 201. See Camila Russo, Ethereum Co-Founder Says Crypto Coin Market Is a Time-Bomb, BLOOMBERG (July 18, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07 -18/ethereum-co-founder-says-crypto-coin-market-is-ticking-time-bomb [https://perma.cc/H3ZB-6CPC] (quoting Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, stating that, "If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, the SEC will say it's a duck."). 202. See Sarah Todd, Fincen Fines Ripple Labs Over AML, Says Firm 'Enhancing' Protocol, AM.
- [35]35. WAKE FOREST L. REV. 345, 359 (2014). 244. See, e.g., Derek Khanna, The Law that Gave Us the Modern Internet-and the Campaign to
- [40]40. LEGALESE, http://legalese.com [https://perma.cc/2TUM-7SXM] (last visited Sept. 2, 2018). 258. See INT'L SWAPS & DERIVATIVES ASS'N., The Future of Derivatives Processing and Market Infrastructure [hereinafter ISDA WHITE PAPER] (Sept. 2016), at 15, https://www2.isda.org/attachment/ODcwMA==/Infrastructure%20white%20paper.pdf [https://perma.cc/KE4P-BZDS]. 259. See Werbach & Cornell, supra note 25, at 318. 260. See generally Ian Grigg, The Ricardian Contract, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST IEEE WORKSHOP ON ELECTRONIC CONTRACTING 25 (2004). 261. See id. at 25. 262. The Ricardo platform that Grigg was building never took off. 263. See Clack et al., supra note 251, at 12;
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Treiblmaier, H. (2018) · Supply Chain Management · doi:10.1108/scm-01-2018-0029 · Cited by 737
Chang, V. I. C., Baudier, P., Zhang, H., Xu, Q. A., Zhang, J., & Arami, M. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120166 · Cited by 615
Blockchain critical success factors for sustainable supply chain
Yadav, S., & Singh, S. (2020) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104505 · Cited by 317
Decentralized autonomous organization
Hassan, S., & De Filippi, P. (2021) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2021.2.1556 · Cited by 383
Potential of blockchain technology in supply chain management: a literature review
Gurtu, A., & Johny, J. (2019) · International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijpdlm-11-2018-0371 · Cited by 380
Metadata
- Authors
- Werbach, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Werbach, Kevin
- ORCID
- Werbach, Kevin
- Venue
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal
- Publisher
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 487
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3125186743
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 13
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Berkeley technology law journal
- UC Berkeley
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Law › Digital Transformation in Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- blockchain, trust, blockchain regulation, blockchain governance, Bitcoin, legal enforcement, innovation and regulation, public policy, law and technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
