Blockchain - distributed ledger technology - is seen as heralding what some call the internet of trust because it provides an immutable chain of authority that is difficult to hack. Satoshi Nakamoto created an algorithm that required immense amounts of computing power to solve cryptographic problems that when resolved would create consensus throughout the blockchain community by rewarding miners with Bitcoin and prevent the "double-spend" problem. Trust, in either one's opposite party or intermediaries would be unnecessary. The cryptographic work made trust redundant. Unfortunately, Satoshi could not predict how the blockchain community would behave once the software was launched into the community. Trust became the core issue as different factions among developers and miners squabbled over changes to the software. Trust is also deeply implicated in the ways the community uses blockchain to raise money to fund developments through initial coin offerings (ICO). In this paper we trace how this these issues emerged in blockchain's short history. We use arguments over block sizes, transaction fees, and hard forks, and the process by which ICOs are run to exemplify our account. We contextualise our story by examining the history of blockchain. Blockchain seems so recent that it doesn't really have a history, but in fact it has a long history stretching back to the Austrian School of Economics. We argue that blockchain can trace its philosophical roots to the anarchy-capitalist strain of the Austrian school. Anarcho-capitalists believe in peer to peer contractual transactions as the foundation for society, They abhor collective action even that which includes the defence of the realm. Dyadic collaborations are sufficient for a society to survive by. Theorists such as Murray Rothbard and Leland Yeager promoted these views in the second half of the 20th century. Satoshi's paper was published in the Great Recession (2008) and incorporated this philosophy. As the blockchain community has developed distributed ledger technology these basic philosophical tensions have surfaced causing dissension and strife. It has all come down to a fundamental issue: who do you trust?
{"title":"Trust, Anarcho-Capitalism, Blockchain and Initial Coin Offerings","authors":"J. Flood, Lachlan Robb","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3074263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3074263","url":null,"abstract":"Blockchain - distributed ledger technology - is seen as heralding what some call the internet of trust because it provides an immutable chain of authority that is difficult to hack. Satoshi Nakamoto created an algorithm that required immense amounts of computing power to solve cryptographic problems that when resolved would create consensus throughout the blockchain community by rewarding miners with Bitcoin and prevent the \"double-spend\" problem. Trust, in either one's opposite party or intermediaries would be unnecessary. The cryptographic work made trust redundant. Unfortunately, Satoshi could not predict how the blockchain community would behave once the software was launched into the community. Trust became the core issue as different factions among developers and miners squabbled over changes to the software. Trust is also deeply implicated in the ways the community uses blockchain to raise money to fund developments through initial coin offerings (ICO). In this paper we trace how this these issues emerged in blockchain's short history. We use arguments over block sizes, transaction fees, and hard forks, and the process by which ICOs are run to exemplify our account. We contextualise our story by examining the history of blockchain. Blockchain seems so recent that it doesn't really have a history, but in fact it has a long history stretching back to the Austrian School of Economics. We argue that blockchain can trace its philosophical roots to the anarchy-capitalist strain of the Austrian school. Anarcho-capitalists believe in peer to peer contractual transactions as the foundation for society, They abhor collective action even that which includes the defence of the realm. Dyadic collaborations are sufficient for a society to survive by. Theorists such as Murray Rothbard and Leland Yeager promoted these views in the second half of the 20th century. Satoshi's paper was published in the Great Recession (2008) and incorporated this philosophy. As the blockchain community has developed distributed ledger technology these basic philosophical tensions have surfaced causing dissension and strife. It has all come down to a fundamental issue: who do you trust?","PeriodicalId":337884,"journal":{"name":"University of Westminster School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122259937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-27DOI: 10.13165/J.ICJ.2017.03.006
Radha D’Souza
Contemporary world order rests on a fault-line. On the one hand it is an interstate system founded on the legal equality of all states. On the other hand it establishes institutions that privilege a small number of states in economy and politics. This article examines the fault-line, which has widened in recent times and threatens to destabilise the order established after the end of World War II. The ‘world’ in World wars is because of the global scope of the inter-European wars. The world wars were fought over colonies, in colonial territories, with the manpower and material resources of the colonies. Yet dominant narratives about the world wars speak about the wars as a European war between European nations and write-out colonial questions, colonial contributions and more importantly for this article the colonial impulses in the writing of contemporary international law and establishment of international organisations. This paper examines the human, monetary and material contributions of India in World War II. Britain was the preeminent Empire during the world wars and India the ‘jewel in the British Crown’. India was crucial to British conduct of the world wars. At the same time racism and repression during the interwar period fuelled powerful anti-colonial movements in India. Those struggles ended the British Empire. The irony of racism against millions of people who fought and died for Britain presents many perplexing questions about the legacies of World War II for racism and international law. This article examines the responses of different European powers to the independence movements in India during the world wars and argues that the responses of different Empires of the time to the anti-colonial struggles holds the cues to understanding the widening fault-line in the international order today.
{"title":"Victor’s Law?: Colonial Peoples, World War II and International Law","authors":"Radha D’Souza","doi":"10.13165/J.ICJ.2017.03.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13165/J.ICJ.2017.03.006","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary world order rests on a fault-line. On the one hand it is an interstate system founded on the legal equality of all states. On the other hand it establishes institutions that privilege a small number of states in economy and politics. This article examines the fault-line, which has widened in recent times and threatens to destabilise the order established after the end of World War II. The ‘world’ in World wars is because of the global scope of the inter-European wars. The world wars were fought over colonies, in colonial territories, with the manpower and material resources of the colonies. Yet dominant narratives about the world wars speak about the wars as a European war between European nations and write-out colonial questions, colonial contributions and more importantly for this article the colonial impulses in the writing of contemporary international law and establishment of international organisations. This paper examines the human, monetary and material contributions of India in World War II. Britain was the preeminent Empire during the world wars and India the ‘jewel in the British Crown’. India was crucial to British conduct of the world wars. At the same time racism and repression during the interwar period fuelled powerful anti-colonial movements in India. Those struggles ended the British Empire. The irony of racism against millions of people who fought and died for Britain presents many perplexing questions about the legacies of World War II for racism and international law. This article examines the responses of different European powers to the independence movements in India during the world wars and argues that the responses of different Empires of the time to the anti-colonial struggles holds the cues to understanding the widening fault-line in the international order today.","PeriodicalId":337884,"journal":{"name":"University of Westminster School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115514022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article aims to examine the extent to which Russian investigations into economic and financial crimes are influenced by such factors as systemic problems with Russian gatekeepers, the absence of a formal corporate whistle-blowing mechanism and the continuous abuse of the law by the Russian business community. The traditional critical approach to the quality and effectiveness of Russian economic and financial investigations does not produce positive results and needs to be reformulated by considering the opinions of entrepreneurs. The author considers that forcing Russian entrepreneurs, regardless of the size of their business, to comply with Russian laws and regulations may be a more efficient way to develop the business environment than attempting to gradually improve the Russian judicial system. It is also hardly possible to expect the Russian investigatory bodies to investigate what are effectively complex economic and financial crimes in the almost complete absence of a developed whistle-blowing culture. Such a culture has greatly contributed to the success of widely-publicised corporate and financial investigations in the United States and Europe. The poor development of the culture of Russian gatekeepers and the corresponding regulatory environment is one more significant factor that permanently undermines the effectiveness of economic investigations and damages the investment climate.
{"title":"Businessmen v. Investigators: Who is Responsible for the Poor Russian Investment Climate?","authors":"D. Gololobov","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2706237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2706237","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to examine the extent to which Russian investigations into economic and financial crimes are influenced by such factors as systemic problems with Russian gatekeepers, the absence of a formal corporate whistle-blowing mechanism and the continuous abuse of the law by the Russian business community. The traditional critical approach to the quality and effectiveness of Russian economic and financial investigations does not produce positive results and needs to be reformulated by considering the opinions of entrepreneurs. The author considers that forcing Russian entrepreneurs, regardless of the size of their business, to comply with Russian laws and regulations may be a more efficient way to develop the business environment than attempting to gradually improve the Russian judicial system. It is also hardly possible to expect the Russian investigatory bodies to investigate what are effectively complex economic and financial crimes in the almost complete absence of a developed whistle-blowing culture. Such a culture has greatly contributed to the success of widely-publicised corporate and financial investigations in the United States and Europe. The poor development of the culture of Russian gatekeepers and the corresponding regulatory environment is one more significant factor that permanently undermines the effectiveness of economic investigations and damages the investment climate.","PeriodicalId":337884,"journal":{"name":"University of Westminster School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116711643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：