As reported all & # 39 beginning of this week a draft law was approved for the definition of various encrypted technologies. Through the definition of terms such as "intelligent contract" and "blockchain", it is hoped that the wheels of justice run smoothly when the encrypted cases pass through the courts, without being thwarted while the refined lawyers discuss the minutiae. The initiative seems well intentioned, given that the proliferation of ICO scammers and crypts is likely that words like "blockchain" will be pronounced in court with increasing regularity in the years to come. Unfortunately, the definition of the California state blockchain sucks.
"Blockchain technology means distributed ledger technology that uses a distributed, decentralized, shared and reciprocal ledger, which can be public or private, authorized or unauthorized or driven by tokenized economy or tokenless cryptography," begins, which seems logical enough . It is attached to clause (c) of Section 1633.2 of the California Civil Code that things are released. It reads:
Data on the ledger are protected with cryptography, immutable, controllable and provide an uncensored truth.
Truth or Word Salad?
Blockchains does not understand the truth. As an inert and intangible device, a blockchain can not serve as a referee for what is true and what is false. The only logic that can be understood is that which is sent as one and zero to determine the status of a specific data input. Blockchains are unable to preserve the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Because public chains are unlicensed, anything can be digitized and stored on them. In block 366186 of the bitcoin core blockchain, for example, there is a transaction encoded with the message "9/11 inside job." The Earth is flat. "According to the California Civil Code, that message constitutes the truth without censorship. It may seem impertinent to choose an extreme example of the mendacity of the blockchain, but it is just examples like this that truculent lawyers will take a breath for the waters and have a delayed or abandoned case.
A blockchain fails spectacularly to provide an uncensored truth. Nor is it immutable, as chain rollbacks are always possible. Almost in every single aspect, the California definition fails miserably. And what happens if a legal case that is heard does not involve a conventional blockchain but a DAG – can the same definition still be applied? So many questions. So few concrete answers.
Stop trying to define Blockchain
Ian Calderon, member of the Democratic and the California Assembly, who pushed the law on the DLT, no doubt had good intentions. But in trying to provide clarity, it may have inadvertently made things worse. His biggest mistake was perhaps the attempt to define the blockchain in the first place. After all, all we know about blockchain comes from Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin and its accompanying whitepaper – where the word "blockchain" does not appear once.
The words "block chain" are buried in the Bitcoin code, but it is so close as Satoshi never came to term very much vilified. California could also define blockchain as "an extremely slow and energizing database", "overhyped internet buzzword", "distributed bullshit ledger" or "meme clinging to douchebags that completely lose the Bitcoin point". Whatever a blockchain, it's not what the state of California thinks it is. And this is the uncensored truth.
Do you think the definition of the California blockchain is air tight? Let us know in the comments section below.
Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Blockchair and Twitter.
Disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Bitcoin.com does not endorse or support opinions, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers must exercise due diligence before taking any action related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.
January 14, 2019
January 14, 2019
January 14, 2019