IPv6 is the next generation internet, and India is the pioneer, Dr. Satya Gupta says. In an interview withCoinGeek Backstage, he talked about how IPv6 integrates with 5G and AI to usher in a new era of the internet and why this can only be powered by a universal blockchain network with unbounded scaling.

Indias success with IPv6 stems from necessity. The second-most populated country with over 1.4 billion people, Indias need for IP addresses outweighs most of its peers. As such, the government has ordered all service operators to switch to IPv6 by a set date.

India has the highest number of IPv6 users. In fact, more than half of all IPv6 users in the world are in India, Gupta told CoinGeeks Becky Liggero on the sidelines of theLondon Blockchain Conference.

While IPv6 is critical for the future of the internet, Gupta noted that it must integrate with other emerging technologies to be of real value. They include 5G andartificial intelligence(AI), with the latter grabbing all the headlines in recent years. Blockchain is the only network that can power this new internet, he added.

In hispanelat the conference, Gupta talked about how blockchain can bring trust and security to the IPv6 and IoT world.

Blockchain enables trust-as-a-service. The main thing IoT lacks is trust and security, and blockchain provides bothIf you then combine all four technologies, you can provide everything as a service, stated Gupta, whos the chairman of the Blockchain for Productivity Forum.

To illustrate the power of this new era of the internet, Gupta revealed that he created the concept of DeWi, or decentralized Wi-Fi. India has over 20 million Wi-Fi hotspots, and more spring up daily. He believes thatblockchaincan combine them all, allowing interoperability between all operators and easy roaming for consumers.

Payment companies can tap into this network and offer seamless payments, pushing financial inclusion in a country home to130 millionunbanked adults.

DeWi is just the start, Gupta says. With these four technologies, humanity can solve some of its most pressing needs and make a leap toward better living standards for all.

One world, one blockchain

Only blockchain technology can underpin this bold new world. However, there are over 10,000 networks today, and blockchain tribalism, as well as financial interests, have led to every group believing that theirs is the best network.

For the new internet to work, we need one universal blockchain, Gupta told CoinGeek Backstage.

The communications industryveterandrew parallels between blockchain and the internet. In the latters early days, there were several competing protocols, with every other major tech giant building its own. However, the internet only got off the ground after the world settled on TCP/IP as the one protocol to rule them all.

We must zero in on one network for the world, Gupta says. This is the only way to scale blockchain adoption.

Unification is a common theme this year, with this yearsG20theme being One earth, one family, one future.

Ive added one blockchain to the slogan, Gupta said.

For any one blockchain to become a global network, it needs to have a stable protocol that inspires confidence, must scale unbounded to support billions of users, and must keep its fees so low that everyone can afford to use it. Only theoriginal Bitcoin protocol, restored by Satoshi Nakamoto as BSV meets all the criteria.

The BSV blockchain has already won this race, and all thats left is spreading the message to everyone that a win for BSV blockchain is a win for humanity, Gupta concluded.

Watch BSV Stories Episode 8: Blockchain ticks all the boxes for Indias thriving e-commerce market

New to blockchain? Check out CoinGeeks Blockchain for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about blockchain technology.

Read more:

The new internet is here with AI, blockchain and IPv6, and India is ... - CoinGeek

In a groundbreaking announcement, Franklin Templeton, a renowned financial powerhouse overseeing a staggering $1.5 trillion in assets, has unveiled plans to venture into the world of cryptocurrencies. The companys bold move, disclosed in a recent filing, involves the launch of a Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) and aims to have it listed on the Cboe BZX Exchange. This strategic decision catapults Franklin Templeton into the expanding group of financial institutions eagerly seeking approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for Bitcoin ETFs.

The emergence of traditional financial giants like Franklin Templeton into the cryptocurrency arena signifies a significant shift in the financial landscape. With Bitcoins prominence skyrocketing in recent years, this move reflects the growing recognition of cryptocurrencies as a legitimate and valuable asset class. Lets delve deeper into this groundbreaking development and its potential implications.

Unlocking the World of Bitcoin ETFs

Franklin Templetons foray into the realm of Bitcoin ETFs holds considerable promise for both the company and the wider financial market. Exchange-Traded Funds are investment vehicles that enable investors to gain exposure to a specific asset or group of assets, much like traditional stocks. In this case, Franklin Templeton is seeking to offer an ETF backed by Bitcoin, allowing investors to indirectly invest in the worlds most famous cryptocurrency.

One of the key advantages of ETFs is their accessibility. Unlike buying and storing Bitcoin directly, which can be daunting for some, investing in a Bitcoin ETF is as straightforward as trading stocks on a traditional exchange. This user-friendly approach could open the door to a broader and more diverse range of investors who have been hesitant to enter the crypto space.

A Growing Trend in the Financial World

Franklin Templetons move follows a growing trend of established financial institutions exploring the potential of Bitcoin ETFs. The allure of these ETFs lies in their potential to provide investors with exposure to the cryptocurrency market while maintaining the familiar regulatory framework of traditional financial markets.

Several financial giants have already submitted proposals for Bitcoin ETFs to the SEC, signaling a strong appetite for this innovative investment vehicle. The approval of a Bitcoin ETF would represent a significant milestone in the mainstream acceptance of cryptocurrencies.

Navigating Regulatory Hurdles

While the prospect of Bitcoin ETFs is undoubtedly exciting, its essential to acknowledge the regulatory challenges they face. The SEC, responsible for safeguarding investors and maintaining the integrity of U.S. financial markets, has been cautious in its approach to approving cryptocurrency-related products.

The SECs primary concerns revolve around investor protection and market manipulation. To address these concerns, applicants for Bitcoin ETFs must demonstrate robust security measures and safeguards to protect investors from potential risks. Additionally, they must prove that the Bitcoin market is resistant to manipulation, a hurdle that has proven elusive thus far.

Franklin Templeton, like other applicants, will need to work closely with the SEC to address these concerns and gain approval for its Bitcoin ETF. The regulatory process may take time, but the potential rewards are substantial.

Bitcoins Unprecedented Rise

Bitcoin, often dubbed digital gold, has experienced an unprecedented surge in popularity and value over the past decade. Created in 2009 by an anonymous individual or group known as Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that operates on a blockchain, a distributed ledger technology. Its finite supply of 21 million coins and the absence of a central authority have fueled its appeal as a store of value.

In recent years, Bitcoins price has seen remarkable fluctuations. From its humble beginnings with virtually no monetary value, it reached an all-time high of over $60,000 per Bitcoin in 2021, drawing the attention of investors, institutions, and the media worldwide. This meteoric rise has sparked a wave of interest in cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology.

Potential Benefits of a Bitcoin ETF

The launch of a Bitcoin ETF could offer several advantages to investors and the broader financial market:

The Road Ahead

As Franklin Templeton embarks on this exciting journey into the realm of Bitcoin ETFs, it underscores the evolving landscape of finance. The blending of traditional finance with the world of cryptocurrencies represents a profound shift in how we perceive and utilize assets in the digital age.

However, its essential to remember that regulatory hurdles remain on this path. The SECs cautious approach reflects the need to protect investors and ensure the integrity of financial markets. As Franklin Templeton, alongside other applicants, works diligently to address these concerns, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the broader adoption of cryptocurrencies.

Closing Thoughts

Franklin Templetons decision to explore the realm of Bitcoin ETFs is a testament to the ever-evolving financial industry. The convergence of traditional finance and cryptocurrencies heralds a new era of investment opportunities and possibilities. As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, we can anticipate more financial giants making similar strides into the cryptocurrency space.

This groundbreaking move by Franklin Templeton signals a growing acceptance of cryptocurrencies as a legitimate and valuable asset class. Whether or not the SEC grants approval for Bitcoin ETFs, the journey of exploration and innovation in the world of finance is well underway, shaping the future of investment for years to come.

Post Views: 1,137

Read the original post:

Franklin Templeton Explores Exciting Territory with Bitcoin ETF - The Currency Analytics

The world has long been speculating about the true identity of Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. Meanwhile, some of the prime contenders have fallen silent, leaving intriguing questions about the potential involvement of the CIA.

We look at Gavin Andresens potential connection to Satoshi Nakamoto and if the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a role.

Gavin Andresen was born in Melbourne in 1966 and later moved to the United States at six. While details of his early life remain guarded, we know he pursued studies at Princeton University. He graduated in computer science in 1988.

After completing his education, he began working as a graphics systems developer at Silicon Graphics, a major computer hardware and software company. His focus centered on the Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML), which enables the creation of a 3D universe.

In 1996, Andresen ventured into entrepreneurship after leaving Silicon Valley. He dedicated himself to his company while remaining engaged in third-dimensional software development for years.

From the early 2000s, he contributed to creating computer software for VoIP telephony, online gaming, and credit management.

His trajectory took a pivotal turn in 2010 when he discovered Bitcoin. Andresen established his crypto faucet and eventually joined the team of developers for the first cryptocurrency. There, he collaborated closely with Satoshi Nakamoto, playing a key role in developing an early token exchange system.

Following Nakamotos passing, Andresen took charge of the BTC team, reengineering the token by introducing Bitcoin Core, an optimized version of Nakamotos code. He later founded the Bitcoin Foundation and was president before retiring in 2014.

While distancing himself from the project in 2016, Andresen continued to offer advice before eventually leaving altogether. He went on to create Bitcoin XT, introducing changes to the tokens block size.

Andresens perspective on the original cryptocurrency shifted as he ardently advocated for Bitcoin Cash. He argues that Bitcoin Cash better embodies the vision set by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Read more: Bitcoin Cash(BCH) Price Prediction 2023/2025/2030

Andresen was often asked about the true identity of Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. He has refrained from speculation, possibly because he has never met Satoshi Nakamoto in person. Their interactions primarily occurred through email, hinting at a distant collaboration.

However, in 2016, Andresen publiclyendorsedCraig Wright as Nakamoto. However, Wrights evidence that proved him the real Santoshi Nakamoto was later debunked.

According to a report by The Guardian, this incident led to Andresens distancing from the Bitcoin project amid concerns that he could inadvertently provide Bitcoin code access to a scammer.

Andresen has never claimed to be Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto himself.

Meanwhile, no expert hasidentifiedGavin Andresen as Satoshi Nakamoto. But some in the crypto community have entertained the possibility due to the following reasons:

Andresens deepunderstandingof Bitcoins system and the politics associated with it.

The ease with which Nakamoto handed over the project to Andresen.

Speculation that Nakamotos disappeared after the CIA got involved. And his identity change was linked to the agencys awareness.

The notion that Andresen might have created Bitcoin while attributing it to another identity for personal protection.

Nevertheless, Gavin Andresens position remains controversial within the ecosystem. Some consider him the true father of Bitcoin, while others believe he undermined it by involving the CIA. The last email exchange with Nakamotosuggestedhis desire to hide no longer.

Is Gavin Andresen actually Satoshi Nakamoto? Has the creator of Bitcoin left anything on the table?

Our probability test can shed some light on the subject:

Cryptographic proof:Gavin Andresen did not use any tool, private key, or even account belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto. Even when the latter left him the keys to the project, or he was able to retrieve them himself.

Read more: What Is a Satoshi?

Technical Knowledge of Cryptography and Contributions:Despite his active contribution to the development and subsequent improvement of Bitcoin, there is no evidence that Andresen has any knowledge or skill in cryptography.

If he had a good understanding of it, his role after the departure of Satoshi Nakamoto would have essentially been to ensure the maintenance of Bitcoin and the fixing of bugs.

Communications and Language Matches:As a Bitcoin programmer and developer, Andresen is fluent in several computer languages, including C++, which was used to encode the first cryptocurrency.

It has often been accepted that Satoshi Nakamoto was from the Commonwealth. Originally from Australia, Andresen doesnt always use the same expressions as him. In addition, Andresen has often stood out from the creators formalcommunicationsthrough the use of colloquial terms.

Consistency of statements:Both Satoshi Nakamoto and the developer that interests us today agree on the need to maintain privacy. Andresen has repeatedly opposed central banks, centralized governments, and the oversight of financial systems.

Meanwhile, his involvement with the CIA continues to be debated. He often justified his actions by stating Bitcoin would make a better world. However, presenting the token to an intelligence agency can contradict the original libertarian vision of crypto. This is why some industry members suspect him of being an undercover agent whose mission was to bring down Satoshi!

Community recognition:While recognized within the crypto community, Andresens claim to Nakamotos identity remains marginal.

Therefore, by conducting a probability test, its unlikely that Andresen is Nakamoto, at a mere 10% probability rate.

Following the Trust Project guidelines, this feature article presents opinions and perspectives from industry experts or individuals. BeInCrypto is dedicated to transparent reporting, but the views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of BeInCrypto or its staff. Readers should verify information independently and consult with a professional before making decisions based on this content.

Here is the original post:

Satoshi Nakamoto: Deciphering Gavin Andresen's Connection - BeInCrypto

Two Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), 300 and 301, have overtaken the conversation in the Bitcoin community. Altogether known as Drivechain, these proposals would activate peer-to-peer trustless pegs between Bitcoin and up to 256 side blockchains (sidechains).

Prior to August, a tracker of tweets containing the word Drivechain averaged less than a half dozen results per day. Nowadays, there are suddenly thousands of daily tweets about Drivechain.

Sidechains using BIPs 300-301 are funded with BTC and withdrawable into BTC, yet they are entirely separate blockchains with independent rules, operations, and tokens. If the Bitcoin community were to activate these Drivechain BIPs, there could be up to 256 distinct sidechains, each denominated in BTC.

Each sidechain could operate any type of blockchain, including copies of existing ones or brand new ones. Indeed, there are already testnet versions of popular blockchains. For example, there are Monero and zCash sidechains in the Drivechain testnet.

Long-time Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr recently rebased Drivechains years-old code and submitted a formal pull request (PR) to Bitcoin developers. It remains a contentious, miner-activated soft fork proposal. Drivechain has failed to attract consensus for activation across the Bitcoin network for years. There is no proposed code for activation nor a Bitcoin Core software client that would support Drivechain in the near future.

The author of the BIPs, Paul Sztorc, has been working on Drivechain since 2015 when he proposed a whitepaper for Truthcoin, a Drivechain-powered prediction marketplace with two tokens, BTC-pegged CashCoins and speculatively-priced VoteCoins. Its worth noting that neither Truthcoin nor its tokens exist on any mainnets.

Sztorc formally proposed BIP 300 in 2017 and BIP 301 in 2019 to the formal Bitcoin devlist. Hes been promoting Drivechain ever since, and founded a company to promote it, called LayerTwo Labs, which raised $3 million in December.

LayerTwo Labs says the benefits of Drivechains include support for Turing-complete smart contracts, stablecoins, privacy features, low-fee payments, DeFi, and asset tokenization.

Drivechain would allow up to millions of altcoins with variable prices to vie for their sidechains BTC backing. For example, a Drivechain clone of BNB Chain on would allow millions of Drivechain-cloned BEP20 tokens to trade among speculators vying for a share of the BTC committed to the sidechain.

More conservative sidechains might choose to use only a single, BTC-pegged token. Others might choose to enable millions of speculative tokens. Again, each sidechain chooses its own operating rules.

If Bitcoin were to activate Drivechain, each sidechain would have to first attract 90% of the hashrate during the activation period in order to secure one of Drivechains 256 slots. Thereafter, the operators of the sidechain would have to attract mainchain BTC contributions in order to grow the value of their sidechain.

Read more: Bitcoiners respond to Mike Greens scarcity destroys value critique

Depositing into a sidechain is a quick, straightforward process. Deposits are easy because anyone can send BTC from a personal, single-signature wallet into a Drivechain wallet. Simple.

Withdrawing from a sidechain, however, could take as long as six months. Specifically, withdrawal finality requires at least 13,150 miner-upvoted blocks within 26,300 continuous Bitcoin blocks.

This lengthy, cumbersome process is purposeful, according to Sztorc. Withdrawals from a sidechain initiate from Drivechains anyone-can-spend wallets and require at least three months of cooperation by miners in order to settle those funds with finality back into the Bitcoin network. This long period of cooperation reduces the risk of transaction reversal, double-spending, and theft to near-zero.

A few years after its 2015 introduction, Sztorc changed the name of his peer-to-peer prediction marketplace proposal Truthcoin to Hivemind. He proposed a way to make cheap talk expensive through monetary wagers on real-world events.

Of course, there already are various forms of prediction markets, including PredictIt, Augur, and Polymarket. Hiveminds differentiated value proposition is its alleged unstoppability due to its Bitcoin-operated sidechain.

Truthcoins rebranding sparked yet another debate about Bitcoin sidechains. Some supporters say Satoshi Nakamoto first supported the idea of sidechains. Specifically, Satoshi suggested the idea of merge-mined blockchains that could coexist alongside Bitcoin, share mining power, and experiment with new features. Satoshi mentioned BitDNS as an example, an idea that became Namecoin, which still operates today. Vitalik Buterin ported Namecoin onto Ethereum with some modifications like the Ethereum Name Service (ENS).

However, Satoshi seems to have said very little about sending BTC back and forth between mainchain and sidechain, as Truthcoin developer Paul Sztorc proposed when he introduced BIP 300 in 2015.

BIP 300 and drivechains drew some early support from celebrities in the Bitcoin community like Roger Ver. Ver invested in the Truthcoin project in 2015. Their reasoning implies that sidechains could have at least partially solved the big block issue that caused the Bitcoin War of 2017.

Read more: Blockchain dev says DAOs dont work, elected leaders are the answer

Observers like Digital Cash Network and Human Events writer Joel Valenzuela opined that the current Bitcoin community had a bad habit of rejecting win/win solutions like Drivechains and accepting increasingly centralized and custodial solutions like Lightning Network.

Others call sidechains an unnecessary distraction, citing work on two-way pegged (albeit federated and non-peer-to-peer) sidechains like Liquid or Rootstock.

Skeptics also questioned the long-term fee model for sidechains, questioning why miners would not just steal the sidechains BTC backing outright.

Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr said the funds on a drivechain would technically belong to the drivechain miners, who could ignore the rules without a legal, contractual obligation to preserve the BTC for their real owners in the sidechain. He said the ability of miners to steal BTC from sidechains makes Drivechain different from protocols like the Blockstream-led Liquid. Blockstream selects Liquid functionaries, who sign literal contracts promising to follow functionary rules.

However, Sztorc countered that fees from operating reliable sidechains earning transaction fees for the long-term would benefit miners without them having to forcefully steal the sidechains BTC backing.

Got a tip? Send us an email or ProtonMail. For more informed news, follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Continue reading here:

Explained: How Drivechain captured the attention of the Bitcoin ... - Protos

When Tulip Trading first took legal action against a group of blockchain developers, arguing that they owe legal duties to their users that compel them to restore access to lost or stolen coins, much of the initial industry reaction was disbelief or even anger. To a certain (now shrinking) group of digital asset enthusiasts who have all bought into the idea that their industry exists outside the ambit of the law,Tulip Tradings suggestioncould only be seen as a non-starter.

But times are changing. Not only did Tulip Tradings lawsuit go on to getrubber-stamped by the U.K. Court of Appealas having a real prospect of success, but regulators around the world are starting to catch up to Tulips line of thinking, which is that blockchain developmentsuch as for BTCis not decentralized, as in fact managed by a tightly controlled group of developers with the exclusive power to make changes to their networks. This centralized power has caught the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which considers centralized power to be a crucial factor indetermining whether a digital asset is a security. According to Tulip Trading and others, such centralization also makes those developers fiduciaries, meaning they owe long-standing legal duties to their users.

A demonstration of this changing narrative comes from a recent episodeIn Early The Crypto Podcast,presented by law firm Shoosmiths and their Blockchain Litigation Lead Matt Green. Back in March, the podcast hosted Nick Smart, associate director for blockchain intelligence at Crystal Blockchain Analytics, to discuss theTulip Tradingcaseand its potential impact on the digital asset industry.

Green and Smarts analysis of the case misses the mark in some respects, but far from the kind of spin you get from the Legal Defence Fund (which is supporting the defendants inTulip), they provide an honest take on the case and why success for Tulip might be more likely than most have assumed.

A few early points of clarity

At the top of the conversation, Green frames his questioning about the case as a conversation about whether the claimants case should go ahead based on the facts. It should be mentioned up front that this case is inarguably going ahead: it has been reviewed by the U.K. High Court and approved by the Court of Appeal, and a three-judge panel decided that the claim had sufficient merit to proceed to trial.

Smart also gets a little careless with the parties names in the case: the claimant is not Dr. Craig Wright but a company he controls called Tulip Trading Limited. It was that companys property that was stolen, and it is that company that is making the claim.

Nonetheless, the hosts recognize that there has been a lot of noise around this case by detractors of Dr. Wright. At one point, Smart remarks on the vocal opposition to Dr. Wright

Could he be one of the group that wereSatoshi Nakamoto? If Satoshi was a group of coders that made this, could he be one of the group? I think possibly- he was around. Could he be an early adopter of the technology? He also could be an early adopter, which I think could be the case.

Lots of accusations get put around him by his detractors that hes not intelligent. Hes a very clever man, and we cant take that away from him.

Claim: You cant own Bitcoin. FALSE

Another point of confusion on the part of Smart isownership of Bitcoin. When explaining that it was Dr. Wrights private keys that were destroyed in the hack, he mentions that the key doesnt give you the Bitcoins because no one really owns them.

In fact, this is one of the points that the Tulip Trading case was praised in the U.K. Law Commissions 2023 report on digital asset law. There, it was said that one of the certainties the case had brought to the law even at this early stage was that it recognizes that crypto-tokens can be things to which personal property rights can relate, that they can be rivalrous and that their characteristics are manifested by the active operation of software.

Its an elementary point for those outside the industry (and many inside of it, too). All the legal rights that apply in any other contextlike property rightsapply to digital assets. Legal precedent may need to be set to tease out precisely how preexisting law should apply. Tulip Trading has demonstrated this as far as property rights in digital assets go, but this principle should be kept in mind any time somebody tries to argue that the industry somehow exists outside the law.

Claim: The case is an attack on open-source. FALSE

The hosts make another critical mistake by saying that the Tulip Trading case is aboutopen-source software. It isnt: the term open source doesnt appear anywhere in Tulip Tradings initial lawsuit or in the High Court andCourt of Appeal judgments.

The case is solely focused on thelegal duties owed by blockchain developers to their users. If any open source project is affected by this lawsuit, its because that project happens to fit the description of the Tulip Trading defendants.

Theres no need to guess where the hosts got this idea. Jack Dorseys Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund has been pushing this narrative for months. For instance, LDF lawyer Jessica Jonas appeared at the Bitcoin 2023 event in Miami and said the case was about whether open source developers should owe a fiduciary duty to people who use their code.

This is a lie. The case explicitly concerns blockchain developers, irrespective of whether their development is open source or not. Compare Jonas language to that used by the court of appeal to describe the case:

The question in this appeal is whether the developers who look after bitcoin may arguably owe fiduciary duties or duties in tort to an owner of that cryptocurrency, wrote Lord Justice Birss in delivering the unanimous opinion of the court.

That is what the case is about: nothing more, nothing less.

Bold as the LDFs lies are, its easy to see why the LDF and the developer defendants try so hard to reframe the case in this way. As shown by theEarly In Cryptodiscussion, the proposition at the core of Tulip Tradings case isnt outlandish or unreasonable. Who could disagree that owners of digital assets need some avenue for redress if those assets get stolen? So the Legal Defense Fund cynically tries to engage the sympathies of the much larger open source community, hoping they can be convinced that open source development is under attack and needs defendingand by the way, wont you donate to the Legal Defense Fund to help?

Should blockchain developers owe legal duties?

The open-source issue is, therefore, a convenient distraction for the developers and their backers.

In reality,Tulip Tradingis set to determine a legal issue that is key to the development of digital asset law: Are blockchain developers fiduciaries with respect to those using and relying on them?

Smart recognizes that this might seem like an enormous departure from the status quo within the digital asset industry. But as Smart indicates, the law of fiduciariesisthe status quoand the suggestion that it should apply to blockchain developers is not an outrageous one.

I sometimes feel that cryptocurrency or cryptoassets generally have this idea of financial Dawinism, [which is] If you lose your money to a hack or a scam, well you werent cut out for this life in the first place. Which is lovely, but what if its your fund manager with your pension? I think you might have a different opinion.

And to Smart, the case for what Tulip Trading advocates is clear. Its also necessary for the continued survival of the industry:

Deep down, if anyone is a victim of crime, they want a policeman. They want to have justice. I think for the industry as it rapidly matures in the wake of ongoing scandals, its important that we do think about consumer protection If you want your product to be taken seriously and you want it to be the future of currency and everything else, you do need to think about these things.

Claim: The case is about the centralization of blockchain development. TRUE

At its core, the Tulip Trading case is about themyth of decentralizationin digital asset projects such as BTC. Fiduciary duties exist in situations where a person has undertaken to act on behalf of another in circumstances that give rise to a relationship of trust and confidenceoften as a result of somebody entrusting property to them. One of the most prominent objections to applying these duties to blockchain developers is to say that they are an unfixed, fluctuating group of volunteers who act more as passive stewards of theirblockchainsthan active managers and developers. In that vein, they are often referred to as decentralized. As a result, blockchain users cant be said to have entrusted anything to the developers, nor are of sufficient proximity to them, to qualify for either duty.

Right in time, this illusion is beginning to lift, despite what BTCs supporters would say. The SEC is closely examining the centralization of digital asset projects and has made that question the central part of itsHoweyanalysis to determine which assets are securities offerings and which are not. Earlier this year, The New York Attorney Generaltook action against an ETH-based digital asset on the same basis.

Both Green and Smart recognized the existence of this myth. Green read from a February Wall Street Journal article titled Bitcoins Future Depends on a Handful of Mysterious Coders:

Known as maintainers, coders serve as stewards of Bitcoin Core, an open program that keeps the cryptocurrencys digital ledger up to date with thousands of computers that make its network. Bitcoins current worth and future potential rest partly in the hands of Bitcoin Core maintainers: a group who are chosen by their peers and often vague about their whereabouts.

A loose network of donors pay most maintainers salaries. At least once, the maintainers secretly patched a bug that crypto proponents say could have destroyed the cryptocurrencys value.

Smart says he doesnt know how much that description fits with Tulip Tradings argument. The truth is it fits perfectly. Tulip Tradings lawsuit has identified these factors as clear demonstrations of the centralized control sitting atop all things to do with BTC, namely, that BTCs success depends on the work of a small number of identifiable individuals (which, incidentally, sounds a lot like aHowey test factor, doesnt it?); that these individuals are paid for their work; and that these individuals regularly exercise their power to make changes to the network, even surreptitiously (which should destroy any argument that these individuals are merely effecting the democratic will of the community).

In other words, BTC blockchain development is highly centralized. How else can the continuous, drastic, and even covert tinkering with the underlying protocol be explained?

Claim: Tulip Tradings requests are impossible. FALSE

Tulip Trading is ultimately asking that the court order the developers to restore access to the private keys, such as via a patch.

The crucial point missed by the hosts is that Tulip Trading is not asking for the blockchain to be rewritten in any way. All that is proposed is that a new transaction is added to the blockchain, which appends the previous illicit transaction: the earlier transactions remain transparent and auditable, as do the steps taken to undo them. The integrity of the blockchain, therefore, is unaffected.

Nonetheless, the developers have focused much of their defense on arguing that the relief asked for by Tulip Trading is impossible.

However, history shows that such a patch is feasible or even trivial:Bitcoin originally even had such functionality nativelybefore BTC developers stripped it out. Bitcoin Association for BSV, which was one of the initial defendants targeted by Tulip Trading,has already demonstrated this: they settled the case early on, agreeing to make the changes requested by Tulip Trading. As such, a preview of how Tulip Tradings proposal might work is already available.

But as Smart points out, there is precedent even beyond that.

In 2016, the Ethereum DAO was hacked. And lots of Ethereum was stolen, and basically the developers of Ethereum united and said were going to apply a patch which reverses the change that the money was stolen.

So, generally speaking, what hes asking for isnt beyond the realms of the possible.

Smart points out that a potential difference is that such a patch depends on consensus, but thats more or less Tulip Tradings core point. Changes to Ethereum were supposedly based on consensus, and yet the developers in charge designed and forced through their own solution (to fork the network) anyway.

As legal academic Angela Walch wrote in her widely-cited paperIn Code(rs) we trust: Software Developers as Fiduciaries in Public Blockchains:

The passion, drama, and anger surrounding the Ethereum hard fork show how much was at stake for the Ethereum community, investors in ether, and those who built applications and companies atop the Ethereum blockchain. Yet only a small number of developers and miners in this decentralized system decided what the resolution of the DAO hack would be, in effect determining the financial fortunes of all those relying on the Ethereum blockchain, whether or not they had invested in the DAO.

Smart also observes that this drastic network change supposedly brought about by the decentralized exercise of power remains a highly controversial chapter in Ethereums history to this day. Because, of course, it wasnt decentralized at all. It was the identifiable coreEthereum developers exercising their exclusive power over the network.

Even looking beyond blockchain projects, there is an established track record of courts intervening in cases where peer-to-peer networks are breaking the law. In those cases, the fact that the networks were peer-to-peer did not save them.

Take MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster as an example. There, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distributors of peer-to-peer software (in an analogous position to the ever-tinkering BTC developers) were directly liable for the infringements that they enabled. In that case, there was no patch that could have made the Grokster software compliant, so they were forced to shut operations entirely. The blockchain developers facing Tulips lawsuit are luckier. A patchcanbe created to make their services compliant, and if they dont want their networks to end up like Grokster, they must implement it.

Tulip Tradings demands are not just reasonabletheyre desirable

In any case, Smart acknowledges that the concerns at the core of Tulip Tradings casewhich Dr. Wright has talked about at lengthare important.

Like him or not, it doesnt really matter. When he talks about this idea that cryptocurrency is not anonymous, and what kind of cryptocurrency do you really want, this idea that as you said the description of these people as shadowy, elusive, people behind the scenes [Dr. Wright] says who do you really want running your money? Do you want a group of people who you never know and have no claim against and can do nothing to them if they wrong you?'

After which, the host appears to get the point: Is what hes proposing really that radical?

Smart reluctantly admits that no, its not radical at all. But he then perfectly encapsulates how critics of Tulip Tradings lawsuit descend into non-sequitur and emotional arguments when confronted with legal reality. He laments that the BTC developers are feeling the heat of the law (which is what one tends to feel when operating outside the bounds of the law) and says that if you got someone to fix your plumbing and then found out weeks later it had flooded your house, you wouldnt take them to court (you certainly would). Instead, says Smart, youd resolve it between you.

One has to think that given more time to think of a response, Smart would never have said this last point. All you need to do to illustrate why the legal system really is the only option is to ask why the scores of people who have had their digital assets stolen havent simply gone to the developers to resolve it between themits because those developers would tell their users to take a hike.

Which is precisely why the law has the power to step in.

All of the other concerns expressed by Green and Smart focus on the impact that legal intervention would have on the price of these coins: this is irrelevant. The value of BTC is not important to the law. If by finally enforcing long-established legal rights in the digital asset context causes certain coin values to drop, such bloated valuations were on borrowed time.

Whats more, if any digital asset is ever to realize its true value, lawsuits like the one brought by Tulip Trading are necessary growing pains. Maybe its true that success for Tulip Trading would lead to price crashes in the short term, but that would only be true because its necessary to unlock growth in the long term. The industry cannot prosper outside the ambit of the law.

Watch: Digital Asset Recovery on Bitcoin Explained

New to blockchain? Check out CoinGeeks Blockchain for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about blockchain technology.

The rest is here:

The conversation is starting to change around legal duties for ... - CoinGeek