THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 5, BELOW--
Decentralized smart contracts have a number of advantages that can benefit criminals:
They enable fair exchange between mutually distrustful parties based on contract rules, removing the need for physical rendezvous, third-party intermediaries, and reputation systems.
The minimal interaction makes it harder for law enforcement – a criminal can set up a contract and walk away allowing it to execute autonomously with no further interaction.
The ability to introduce external state into transactions through an oracle service (e.g., Oraclize) broadens the scope of possible CSCs to include calling-card based physical crimes.
Even before smart contracts, just the pseudonymity offered by cryptocurrencies has been happily embraced by criminals, so there’s every reason to think the same path might be taken with smart contracts.
When autonomous smart contracts are combined with anonymous cryptocurrency, they provide opportunities to handle money in complicated ways that hackers can exploit.
Twice, money has been stolen from Ethereum contracts in heists that each involved more money than the largest bank robbery in the United States. The identities of the thieves remain unknown.
In the future, “criminal smart contracts” may emerge. These might be programmed to make automatic payments when specific secrets are stolen, when particular websites are hacked and defaced, or even for physical crimes ranging from vandalism to terrorism.
A person who wanted a particular crime to be committed could post a smart contract reward to be paid out to the criminal who actually does the deed.
Someone seeking to claim the reward would, before committing the crime, add an encoded message to the smart contract containing specific details only the criminal would know beforehand – such as a unique phrase or long string of numbers to be posted on a hacked website.
When the crime is committed, the person who did the deed would decode the added message, revealing the details that had been specified in advance.
The smart contract could then check the actual details of the crime and, if they matched, pay out the reward. The anonymity of the underlying cryptocurrency would hide the criminal’s identity.
Today, smart contracts cannot easily obtain trustworthy data from the internet about crimes like vandalism in a form that computer programs can easily understand.
So criminal smart contracts have not yet come about. But advances in crime driven by smart contracts will eventually emerge, aided by continuing improvements in anonymity technologies.
A smart contract is not really “smart,” and is not really a “contract.” Smart contract is a bit of a misnomer. It is more of an “automated blockchain transaction”. The smart contract carries out what it is programmed to do, and that’s it. It doesn’t think independently, nor does it provide any reasoned analysis.
Smart contracts suffer from what is termed the “oracle problem.” This refers to the fact it is extraordinarily difficult to take human reasoning out of the equation. At some point, someone (an “oracle”) is going to have to step in and say whether the terms of the contract were fulfilled or not.
For example, if payment Y is released when shipment X is delivered, how is the smart contract going to know that shipment X was exactly what was specified in the contract? (And that they were delivered undamaged, etc.) Somebody needs to look inside the box and say, “Yep, those are the widgets we’re looking for.”
Also, there’s a limit to what can be automated. Reps and warranties, third-party beneficiaries, how to address mistakes, the list of topics that can’t be automated is endless
A blockchain can be defined as a cryptographically-secured, distributed transaction ledger. The blockchain enables trustless peer-to-peer transactions by eliminating the need to rely on a centralized authority, like a bank or clearinghouse.
The blockchain eliminates the need to trust third parties by distributing a copy of the ledger memorializing all transactions to all (or substantially all) market participants. This feature, combined with the requirement that a majority of these participants agree on the validity of a new transaction before it can be added to the ledger, makes the technology incredibly secure.
Using the same complex cryptography and mathematics, the blockchain requires that market participants agree on which version of the ledger is correct. As such, absent the consensus of the participants in the protocol, past transactions cannot be modified.
As blockchain technology has matured, users have started to employ distributed ledgers to store and run smart contracts. Smart contracts, which are self-executing computer programs that exist on the blockchain, monitor and validate a condition to automatically determine whether the asset involved in that contract should be sent to one or more parties.
Smart contracts, like peer-to-peer transactions, generally cannot be modified, repaired, stopped, or removed once they are deployed onto the blockchain, absent extreme circumstances such as a "hard fork," which is a permanent divergence from the blockchain's previous version.
A hard fork is a radical change to the protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid (or vice-versa), and as such requires all nodes or users to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software.
A soft fork is a fork where updated versions of the protocol are backwards compatible with previous versions.. When a soft fork change is made, all nodes (whether upgraded or not) will continue to recognize new blocks and maintain consensus on the Blockchain.
The biggest risk in executing a hard fork is a situation where nodes running the new software are separated from the previous version, resulting in a fork of the Blockchain.
If half of the nodes are running the latest version and mining blocks, and the other half are running the older version and mining a different set of blocks, then you would have two different chains resulting in a fork of the Blockchain (which is different from a fork of the software).
A soft fork is a change to the software protocol where only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid. Since old nodes will recognize the new blocks as valid, a softfork is backward-compatible.
Hard forks is a permanent divergence in the the block chain, commonly occurs when non-upgraded nodes can’t validate blocks created by upgraded nodes that follow newer consensus rules.
Hard forks, are not compatible with legacy software versions, so the blockchain will split into two different paths if some node operators do not upgrade to the latest version.
This can potentially create a new cryptocurrency, which is what happened in 2016 when a minority group within the Ethereum community refused to follow the hard fork that returned funds stolen during the DAO hack.
Soft forks is a temporary divergence in the block chain caused by non-upgraded nodes not following new consensus rules. Soft forks are usually used to accomplish something useful like an upgrade to the system
Bitcoin is intrinsically a currency. It isn’t supported by any central bank or government, and it doesn’t have the same level of government backed assurance in the same way as the USD, GBP or EUR, for example.
It certainly has value because of its limited supply and underlying utility, but this is where the ‘currency’ aspect of it stops. Bitcoin is a decentralised consensus network.
The most important thing to remember is a hard fork isn’t the same as a stock split. When a company performs a stock split it is specifically breaking up the business (and therefore the business value) into two forms of shares.
This splits liquid and illiquid assets of a business, as well as things such as revenue stream and projected earnings over two separate companies or listed shares.
A blockchain fork wouldn’t fall under the same rules. Value from cryptocurrencies comes from a speculative expectation of utility and wider adoption at some point in the future, so when there is a split you can’t expect each chains price action to neutralise the price.
In today's traditional banking system, a court might order a bank to freeze at-risk funds before a would-be thief has the chance to abscond with them. In the blockchain's completely trustless world, there is no such authority to implement the court's protective measures.
Similarly, banks can often unwind or alter fraudulent transactions, such as those initiated by the victim of a scam. When settling a transaction on a blockchain, there is comparatively little that can be done once the transaction is broadcast to the network.
Short of convincing a substantial majority of users to coordinate a hard fork and change prior entries to the ledger to return the stolen funds, victims are out of luck.
The ineffectiveness of legal remedies is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the legal uncertainties associated with using blockchain technology.
Courts will soon have to grapple with the jurisdictional implications of assets that exist solely in the cloud, on hundreds of identical copies of a digital ledger, and are stored on computers throughout the globe.
For these and other reasons, anyone curious about the blockchain and its disruptive potential should consider the effect that existing, somewhat-incompatible laws could have on society's ability to regulate this emerging technology
I WILL MAKE A CRITICAL REVELATION—WHICH WILL TAKE IT TO 51.85%
NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED ME – CAPTAIN WHY DO YOU SAY " 4D VADAKAYIL BINDU THINKING"
THIS IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF THINKING
GO TO THE ONION CORE SIT AT THE BINDU SEAT AND LOOK OUTWARDS ALL AROUND, UP DOWN .
NEVER FORGET THE AXIS OF TIME
TIME HAS RAPED INNOCENT PEOPLE
BIG FISH IN IPL RAPED SMALL FISH WITH TIME AND GOT AWAY
TAKE THE CASE OF SREESHANT
THE BOTTOM DREGS OF THE SCHOOL CEREBRAL BARREL BECOME LAWYERS
THE BOTTOM DREGS OF THE LAWYER CEREBRAL BARREL BECOME JUDGES .
SUCCESSFUL LAWYERS NEVER AGREE TO BECOME LOW PAYING JUDGES
SO WE HAVE DOUBLE BOTTOM DREGS DECIDING –AND THEY CANNOT FIGURE OUT THE MEANING OF “ TIME STAMP INTEGRITY ”
HOWEVER BLOCKCHAIN VERIFIES IT ALWAYS
IN THE POST ABOUT SREESHANT READ ABOUT THE CHESS GAME - ON BOARD A SHIP-- CHEATING ON THE TIME AXIS
PEOPLE WHO SAILED WITH ME WILL VOUCH— CAPTAIN ALWAYS FACTORED IN TIME. HE MADE MATTERS "NO CONTEST" IN A JIFFY
CUNTS WHO CANT DO THIS— FALL PHUTT ON THEIR FACES.
FOR MY OWN MARRIAGE I FACTORED IN TIME
PICKLE JOHN MARRIES CHUTNEY MARY— AFTER THREE MONTHS HE CANT GET HIS PRICK UP , EVEN IF HIS CHUTNEY MARY WIFE IS GORGEOUS .
SO FRUSTRATED CHUTNEY MARY GOES ELSEWHERE FOR A STIFF PRICK – GANDHA GHATIYA OFFICE PEON BHI CHALEGA
BELOW: RAYMOND THE TATTU MAN !
MY READERS MAY FEEL THAT I BOAST
SO BE IT !
THE INCIDENT BELOW IS JUST ONE AMONG THOUSANDS
THE HARDEST THING IN THE WORLD IS TO THINK
IN THE EXAMPLE BELOW
WE HAD JAP OWNERS WHO WERE VERY ARROGANT AND THEY TREATED ALL LIKE SHIT
WHEN I WAS TO JOIN THIS FAST CONTAINER SHIP— I SAID “ IT WILL TAKE ME JUST ONE WEEK TO BUST THEIR JAP BALLS FOREVER”
CHECK OUT THE INCIDENT WHERE I TELL THEM, I CAN SEE ENGINE LOAD “EVERY SECOND “-- NOT THE WAY YOU JAP CUNTS DO BY DOING MATH EVERY NOON .
IT TAKES A CAPT VADAKAYIL TO THINK THIS WAY.
Trusted Timestamping, the process of securely keeping track of the creation and modification time of a document, is an indispensable tool in the business world.
It allows interested parties to know, without a doubt, that a document in question existed at a particular date and time
In blockchain each block contains a Unix time timestamp. In addition to serving as a source of variation for the block hash, they also make it more difficult for an adversary to manipulate the block chain.
"Network-adjusted time" is the median of the timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you.
Whenever a node connects to another node, it gets a UTC timestamp from it, and stores its offset from node-local UTC.
The network-adjusted time is then the node-local UTC plus the median offset from all connected nodes.
Imagine a digital medical record: each entry is a block. It has a timestamp, the date and time when the record was created. And by design, that entry cannot be changed retroactively, because we want the record of diagnosis, treatment, etc. to be clear and unmodified.
Only the doctor, who has one private key, and the patient, who has the other, can access the information, and then information is only shared when one of those users shares his or her private key with a third party — say, a hospital or specialist. This describes a blockchain for that medical database.
A timestamp is a proof that valid information of your property existing before any similar work was done. The timestamps show the integrity of any information that has been processed through the system.
Blockchain represents the most innovative version of the timestamp technology. It works independently of third-party agents by using a decentralized tamper-proof virtual ledger to facilitate a peer to peer network which records timestamps.
Blockchain has already been accepted by authorities from all over the world as a high level and superior timestamp technology based on the acceptable transactions recorded in the Blockchain ledgers.
One of the essential parts of the Blockchain is the block. This is the part responsible for preserving all kinds of value that stand for data sets.
During the process of setting up this system, the block is validated by the network through a complex cryptographic puzzle. It is then included as part of the Blockchain permanently.
All single files can be processed to represent their hash values by using a strong hash function which is described as the digital file fingerprint. The hash value and other hash values created are put into the block.
The block and its components are validated and endorsed on the blockchain. Whenever this process is carried out, the block is updated with a date and time value which supports the immutability of the blockchain.
This also applies to the content of the blockchain which includes the original files and hash values that can be verified by the rightful owner.
Land registry transactions are perfect for the blockchain -- this technology will allow investors residing in and around the world to verify property data that is backed by timestamp signatures enhancing the accuracy of data, the credibility of investment transactions and the transparency and clarity of the market.
THERE ARE LAXMAN REKHAS AND PARADOXES IN BLOCKCHAIN
I WONT REVEAL THEM NOW
WILL WATCH !
Capt. Ajit Vadakayil
October 20, 2016 at 4:02 PM
############### SUBJECT --- HAJAAAAAR RIDICULE BY COMMIES BECAUSE PURI SHANKARACHARYA SAID THAT COMPUTERS HAVE ORIGIN IN VEDAS #############
Boolean logic is fundamental to the design of computer hardware and programming.
Today when I think that BOOLEAN LOGIC was lifted from Rig Veda ( 10.129 ) ( the easier ones explained by simple four circles of catuskoti: "A", "not A", "A and 'not A'", and "not A and not not A") penned down 7000 years ago, after 30 milliniums on oral ( sruti ) route , my body hairs stand up.
JEW George Boole ( died 1864) was an English mathematician, philosopher and logician. He married the Mary Everest , the niece of Rothschild’s agent Colonel Sir George Everest the Surveyor General of India for 14 years from 1830 through 1843.
JEW Boole baby LIED that this amazing clear thinking theory is his own.
George Boole is NO genius--
He is an ordinary thief, stole from ancient India.
Just like Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton and hundreds like them.
Mary Everest Boole wrote that her husbands logic was lifted from Indian logic.
QUOTE: Think what must have been the effect of the intense Hinduizing of three such men as Babbage, De Morgan, and George Boole on the mathematical atmosphere of 1830–65. What share had it in generating the Vector Analysis and the mathematics by which investigations in physical science are now conducted?--: UNQUOTE
There are quite a few different types of logic gate, the most common of which are called AND, OR, NOT, XOR (Exclusive Or), NAND (NOT AND), and NOR (NOT OR) seven basic logic gates ease the complexity of Boolean algebra and allow for simple application in electronics and circuit analysis.
Seven blind men and an elephant (Andhgajanyayah), addresses the manifold nature of truth. In Sanatana Dharma there is no place for DOGMA .
Vedic LOGIC was of seven types ( philosophy )
syād-avaktavyaḥ— in some ways, it is indescribable.
today the story of seven blind men and the elephant has been stolen by the white man--though he has no elephants in his own country . . TEE HEEEEE .
Using combinations of logic gates, complex operations can be performed. In theory, there is no limit to the number of gates that can be arrayed together in a single device. But in practice, there is a limit to the number of gates that can be packed into a given physical space. Arrays of logic gates are found in digital integrated circuits (ICs).
There are seven logic gates: NOT, AND, OR, NAND, XOR, NOR, XNOR
The AND gate is so named because, if 0 is called "false" and 1 is called "true," the gate acts in the same way as the logical "and" operator The output is "true" when both inputs are "true." Otherwise, the output is "false."
The OR gate gets its name from the fact that it behaves after the fashion of the logical inclusive "or." The output is "true" if either or both of the inputs are "true." If both inputs are "false," then the output is "false."
The XOR ( exclusive-OR ) gate acts in the same way as the logical "either/or." The output is "true" if either, but not both, of the inputs are "true." The output is "false" if both inputs are "false" or if both inputs are "true." Another way of looking at this circuit is to observe that the output is 1 if the inputs are different, but 0 if the inputs are the same.
A logical inverter , sometimes called a NOT gate to differentiate it from other types of electronic inverter devices, has only one input. It reverses the logic state.
Capt. Ajit Vadakayil
October 20, 2016 at 4:05 PM
The NAND gate operates as an AND gate followed by a NOT gate. It acts in the manner of the logical operation "and" followed by negation. The output is "false" if both inputs are "true." Otherwise, the output is "true."
The NOR gate is a combination OR gate followed by an inverter. Its output is "true" if both inputs are "false." Otherwise, the output is "false."
The XNOR (exclusive-NOR) gate is a combination XOR gate followed by an inverter. Its output is "true" if the inputs are the same, and"false" if the inputs are different.
Dimitri Mendeleyeev had admitted in writing that his PERIODIC TABLE is lifted from the Sanskrit alphabets of Panini.
Panini’s grammar includes early use of Boolean logic, of the null operator, and of context free grammars, and includes a precursor of the “Backus–Naur” form (used in the description programming languages) .
Panini lived 7500 years ago. The white invader kicked him forward in time as the Big Bang of the bible was only in 4004 BC.
Boolean Algebra served the basis of early transistors and capacitors used in early primitive form of the computer.
The tetralemma is lifted from ancient Indian math.
It states that with reference to any a logical proposition X, there are four possibilities:
\neg X (negation)
X \land \neg X (both) equiv.
\neg (X \lor \neg X) (neither)
The catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that involves the systematic examination and rejection of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition,
All things (dharmas) exist: affirmation of being, negation of nonbeing
All things (dharmas) do not exist: affirmation of nonbeing, negation of being
All things (dharmas) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
All things (dharmas) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation
The history of fourfold negation, the Catuskoti (Sanskrit), is evident in the logico-epistemological tradition of the 7000 year old Upanishads.
P; that is, being.
not P; that is, not being.
P and not P; that is, being and not being.
not (P or not P); that is, neither being nor not being.
George Boole and Augustus De Morgan make their pioneering applications of algebraic ideas to the formulation of logic (such as Algebraic logic and Boolean logic), from the Vedic sutras written down 7000 years ago.
By combining Boolean logic with ancient Vedic mathematics, substantial amount of iteration were eliminated that resulted in 45% reduction in delay and 30% reduction in power compared with the mostly used (Digit Recurrence, Convergence & Series Expansion) architectures
Truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid. In digital electronics, Boolean logic refers to the manipulation of binary values in which a 1 represents the concept of true and a 0 represents the concept of false
MY SON WHO DID HIS COMPUTER SCIENCE MASTERS IN CORNELL USA, TOLD ME—THIS IS ALL THERE IS TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE CODING …
SO ALL CHUTNEY MARYs , PICKLE HOHNs AND WANNABE GORA GAANDS CAN CATCH AND SWING !
AND SWING GOOD . ...
capt ajit vadakayil
Below: Lamda Calculus is lifted from Vedic Math
The design of Turing-complete programming languages as a built-in feature of a Blockchain, makes the creation of more sophisticated logic possible.
All smart contract platforms in use today fall into roughly two broad categories that are divided along the lines of whether the platform is or isn't "Turing complete.
Turing completeness is a property of any programming language that allows a computer to simulate anything that our universe contains.
Turing-completeness is a property indicating that most programming languages are fully general. According to the Church-Turing thesis (a physics principle with substantial empirical evidence), every computation which can be physically carried out, even in principle, can be expressed and implemented in a Turing-complete language.
If a language is Turing complete, it can provide all of the logic we've grown accustomed to in our computers. Turing completeness enables a computer to 'loop' and process its own output in iteratively complex terms. This property is absent in nearly all public blockchains.
But with the modern advent of Ethereum, this feature is now available to aspiring blockchain coders. With Turing completeness, the possibilities for programming smart contracts are only limited to the amount of creativity and processing time for which a contract designer is willing to pay.
A major issue with Turing completeness is, perhaps ironically, their transparency implications.
As part of the requirements to evaluate a Turing-complete contract, the code to that contract must be publicly available. In Turing-complete blockchains, this code is presented at the time that its participants engage in an agreement.
Any system or programming language able to compute anything computable given enough resources is said to be Turing-complete. In simpler terms, it can simulate a computer and is said to be the most expressive.
Bitcoin, for instance, is not Turing complete as it only provides a very simple mechanism to distribute money. Ethereum, the so-called “World Computer”, allows rules to be written in any way that can be expressed by code and enables smart contracts
Given enough memory and time, a Turing-complete system should be able run any conceivable algorithm (also known as capable of universal computation).
In practice, Turing completeness is an idealization. Concretely, computers have a finite amount of memory and will only run for a finite amount of time before being turned off.
A Turing complete language is the one that can be used to simulate a Turing machine. In layman’s terms, what this means is that, a Turing complete language is expected to guarantee a solution to any solvable algorithm.
The conditions for Turing completeness of languages (that are not based on lambda-calculus or are exclusively functional) are as follows:---
-- Ability to run loops in which the number of iterations cannot be pre-determined. For this reason, theoretically we need infinite amount of space but, as we’ll see later, such cases don’t occur as we “run out of gas”.
-- Ability to take input, store it, and also iterate over it.
Turing completeness can also be proved by using the “cascading property” of Turing complete languages.
What this means is that, if a language is Turing complete and can be translated to/from another language, then the other language is also Turing complete. This is generally accomplished by making an interpreter for an already known Turing complete language.
In a smart contract, data needs to enter the blockchain from an outside source in order to be of use. The source of this information – whether it be the price of a commodity, or the outcome of a sporting event, needs to be broadcast by individuals.
These individuals are called "oracles".
In non-Turing complete smart contract platforms, these oracles are to be found in "multisig" contracts, where one of the parties is the oracle, and the other two parties are the contract participants. In a "two-of-three" multisig operation, for instance, the oracle merely enters a winner onto the blockchain without additional code attached.
In a Turing-complete model, the parties themselves broadcast the code onto the blockchain well in advance, and let the nodes on the blockchain determine the outcome at the time an oracle broadcasts the event outcome 'data'.
So what's the difference?
Well, in a Turing-complete model, a secondary contract can be broadcast alongside the primary contract for the sole purpose of 'corrupting' the oracle.
This means that participants in the Turing-complete contract can not only engage in a contract, but can also bribe the oracle with impunity, and without repercussion.
If we apply the concept of “Turing completeness” to a programming language, it is explained as follows: this language has all the necessary tools and means for the fullest work and the solution of any tasks.
The system, which works in this language, gets autonomy and some kind of independence. Most of the existing platforms that create smart-contracts are turing-incomplete.
In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer's instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any Turing machine.
A Turing machine is a mathematical model of computation that defines an abstract machine which manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules.
A Turing machine is a hypothetical machine thought of by the mathematician Alan Turing in 1936. Despite its simplicity, the machine can simulate ANY computer algorithm, no matter how complicated it is!
The brain is a biological structure made of organic molecules, whereas computer chips are inorganic objects manufactured by etching circuits on the surface of silica chips.
Thus the human brain, occupying volume, is a volumetric entity whereas a computer, as electronic circuitry on the surface of silica chip, is an areal entity. This explains the vast processing power and exceptional capabilities of the human brain.
Turing machine is a mathematical model of a hypothetical computing machine which can use a predefined set of rules to determine a result from a set of input variables. It is provable that all computers presently known can be modelled on Turing machines.
A Turing machine as a formal construct which can be depicted by a reading and writing tape-head moving on a beginningless and endless tape made of discrete cells which are eigther blank or have one of a finite set of symbols printed within.
The head is controlled by a program which tells it to read each cell, depending on the entry in the scanned cell and the internal state of the machine, which itself can be changed based on the data on the tape.
Every part of the Turing machine is finite; it is the potentially unlimited amount of tape that gives it an unbounded storage space.
Again, a computer is Turing complete if it can solve any problem that a Turing machine can, given an appropriate algorithm and the necessary time and memory.
When applied to a programming language, this phrase means that it can fully exploit the capabilities of a Turing complete computer. The ability to run any algorithm is a necessary condition for a computer to be called Turing complete.
For this reason, a basic calculator is not Turing complete and neither is a scientific calculator that only evaluates specific functions.
In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer’s instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any single-taped Turing machine. .
A classic example is lambda calculus. Lambda calculus is a formal system in mathematical logic for expressing computation based on function abstraction and application using variable binding and substitution.
The lambda calculus can be thought of as the theoretical foundation of functional programming. It is a Turing complete language; that is to say, any machine which can compute the lambda calculus can compute everything a Turing machine can (and vice versa).
Compared to a Turing machine (to which lambda calculus is equivalent in computing capability), lambda calculus puts the emphasis on software, not caring about the details of the machine evaluating it.
The lambda calculus in its pure form is untyped and has no concern about the types of expressions at all – it’s all about computation in the form of variable substitution.
Lambda calculus is a notation for describing mathematical functions and programs. It is a mathematical system for studying the interaction of functional abstraction and functional application.
It captures some of the essential, common features of a wide variety of programming languages. Because it directly supports abstraction, it is a more natural model of universal computation than a Turing machine is.
The simplest interesting kind of value is a Boolean. We would like to define terms that act like the Boolean constants TRUE and FALSE and the Boolean operators IF, AND, OR, NOT, so that all these terms behave in the expected way, obeying the boolean abstraction.
There are many reasonable encodings into lambda calculus. The standard approach is to define TRUE and FALSE functions that return the first and second of their two arguments, respectively:--
TRUE = λx.λy.x
FALSE = λx.λy.y
Alonzo Church defined the boolean values ‘true’ and ‘false’ in lambda calculus as:-
Given a predicate (a function that returns a boolean value) p, the statement that would usually be written ‘if p then E1 else E2’ becomes simply pE1E2.
The various boolean functions are :--
a and b=(a)(b)(false)
a or b=(a)(true)(b)
a xor b=(a)((b)(false)(true))(b)
Lambda calculus is a universal model of computation that is just as powerful as other realizable models such as Turing machines --which we can easily prove by implementing a Turing machine using lambda calculus
In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively.
Boolean logic is especially important for computer science because it fits nicely with the binary numbering system, in which each bit has a value of either 1 or 0.
It's important to realize that the tokens TRUE and FALSE are not part of the lambda calculus.
We are just using them as abbreviations for the terms λx.λy.x and λx.λy.y.
Decentralized governance depends impart upon decentralized enforcement of contracts. A blockchain cannot know in advance every contract that might be beneficial and the politically centralizing requirement of hard forks to support new smart contracts limits the ability to organically discover what works.
Ethereum is one of the most turing-complete systems. But the founder of the platform argues that it is not focused on this completeness, but rather on storing of the status in the blockchain.
But such a feature of the system as Turing-completeness is often necessary for it, because it provides the most acceptable compatibility, and also ease of use.
IBM and Samsung have developed a system called ADEPT (Autonomous Decentralized Peer To Peer Telemetry) that uses design concepts of Bitcoin to construct a distributed network of Internet of Things.
The ADEPT utilises three protocols-BitTorrent (file sharing), Ethereum (Smart Contracts) and TeleHash (Peer-To-Peer Messaging).
ADEPT uses blockchains to provide the backbone of the system, utilizing a mix of proof-of-work and proof-of-stake to secure transactions.. With ADEPT a blockchain would act as a public ledger for a large amount of devices. This would eliminate the need of a central hub and would “serve as a bridge between many devices at low cost.”
Without the need of a central control system, all of these devices could communicate with one another autonomously in order to manage software updates, bugs, or manage energy.
ADEPT systems could enable autonomous vehicles to reorder consumable stock when supplies run low, with payments being made automatically upon delivery.
The IoT is a network of devices that can communicate with each other over the internet. When those devices can also configure and maintain themselves we refer to them as smart devices/smart objects.
The Internet of things (IoT) is the network of physical devices, vehicles, and other items embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and network connectivity which enable these objects to collect and exchange data.
The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of connected devices (also known as “smart devices”) and other items embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity which enable these devices to exchange data.
The IoT allows devices to be sensed or controlled remotely across network, creating opportunities for more integration of the physical world into computer-connected systems, and resulting into revenue, improved accuracy and efficiency in addition also reduced human intervention.
These IoT devices have sensors attached to them which generates large amount of data which later on used by other platforms to predict and take action.
IoT is a major role player in varies platforms such as Smart City, and Smart Energy Management Systems. These IoT devices collect useful data with the help of various technologies and then autonomously flow the data between other devices.
Home automation is one of the great example of currently used IoT devices in the market, these smart automation systems does various jobs like controlling the lights, heaters (smart thermostat), ventilation, air conditioning systems and appliances such as washer/dryers, robotic vacuums, air purifiers, ovens, or refrigerators/freezers that use Wi-Fi for remote monitoring.
IoT devices and applications is based on hardware boards, sensors, cloud based 3rd party services etc., Organization should do details analysis before setting up IoT solutions against all possible known technical challenges and use findings to form stable and robust IoT strategy.
The Internet of things (IoT) is the network of physical devices, vehicles, and other items embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and network connectivity which enable these objects to collect and exchange data.
Each thing is uniquely identifiable through its embedded computing system but is able to interoperate within the existing Internet infrastructure. Experts estimate that the IoT will consist of about 30 billion objects by 2020..
The IoT allows objects to be sensed or controlled remotely across existing network infrastructure, creating opportunities for more direct integration of the physical world into computer-based systems, and resulting in improved efficiency, accuracy and economic benefit in addition to reduced human intervention..
When IoT is augmented with sensors and actuators, the technology becomes an instance of the more general class of cyber-physical systems, which also encompasses technologies such as smart grids, virtual power plants, smart homes, intelligent transportation and smart cities.
Environmental monitoring applications of the IoT typically use sensors to assist in environmental protection by monitoring air or water quality, atmospheric or soil conditions, and can even include areas like monitoring the movements of wildlife and their habitats.
IoT devices can be used to enable remote health monitoring and emergency notification systems. These health monitoring devices can range from blood pressure and heart rate monitors to advanced devices capable of monitoring specialized implants, such as pacemakers, Fitbit electronic wristbands, or advanced hearing aids.
The IoT can assist in the integration of communications, control, and information processing across various transportation systems. Application of the IoT extends to all aspects of transportation systems (i.e. the vehicle, the infrastructure, and the driver or user).
Dynamic interaction between these components of a transport system enables inter and intra vehicular communication, smart traffic control, smart parking, electronic toll collection systems, logistic and fleet management, vehicle control, and safety and road assistance.
In Logistics and Fleet Management for example, The IoT platform can continuously monitor the location and conditions of cargo and assets via wireless sensors and send specific alerts when management exceptions occur (delays, damages, thefts, etc.).
There are several planned or ongoing large-scale deployments of the IoT, to enable better management of cities and systems. For example, Songdo, South Korea, the first of its kind fully equipped and wired smart city, is on near completion.
Nearly everything in this city is planned to be wired, connected and turned into a constant stream of data that would be monitored and analyzed by an array of computers with little, or no human intervention .
The IoT is especially relevant to the Smart Grid since it provides systems to gather and act on energy and power-related information in an automated fashion with the goal to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity.
Using advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) devices connected to the Internet backbone, electric utilities can not only collect data from end-user connections but also, manage other distribution automation devices like transformers and reclosers
In the business world, chip-making giant Intel refers to the IoT as being a "robust network of devices" that are embedded with electronics, software and sensors. These allow the devices to both exchange and analyze data.
IoT is no longer just the next phase of the Internet—it’s fundamentally reshaping the Internet as we know it. With IoT, the Internet has been transformed into a real-time conduit of unimaginable amounts of data that can be analyzed to make better decisions, improve performance, and grow profits..
The main purpose of IoT devices is to generate real-time data that we can then analyze and use to create desired business outcomes. This requires us to rethink how to architect, monetize and secure our connected systems – rather than simply connecting as many devices as possible.
IoT and its real-time data have now become the foundational launchpad of the next generation of disruptive technologies—machine learning (ML), drones, autonomous vehicles, blockchain and so many more. IoT and its vast amounts of streaming data require the evolution of cloud architectures to distributed cloud—or fog computing—to provide real-time or near-real-time analytics at the edge of the network or on devices themselves.
This cloud 2.0 must focus on real-time processing at scale. IoT must focus on securing all of the “things” we use in our lives and businesses—from smart thermostats to connected vehicles, to military drones.
Traditional closed operational systems in factories or buildings are now open and connected, and consumer device vendors need to learn the importance of comprehensive risk management.
Blockchain technology is the missing link to settle scalability, privacy, and reliability concerns in the Internet of Things. Blockchain technologies could perhaps be the silver bullet needed by the IoT industry.
Blockchain technology can be used in tracking billions of connected devices, enable the processing of transactions and coordination between devices; allow for significant savings to IoT industry manufacturers.
This decentralized approach would eliminate single points of failure, creating a more resilient ecosystem for devices to run on. The cryptographic algorithms used by blockchains, would make consumer data more private.
The decentralized, autonomous, and trustless capabilities of the blockchain make it an ideal component to become a fundamental element of IoT solutions. It is not a surprise that enterprise IoT technologies have quickly become one of the early adopters of blockchain technologies.
Blockchain’s use lies in a specific, tailored approach to IoT applications to maintain security. And if it truly does reduce the cost and complexity of doing business across a network of people and goods, --- this technology will soon become a no-brainer for business.
Blockchain opens the door to a series of IoT scenarios that were impossible to implement without it.
Blockchain technology prevents individuals and groups from making transactions of assets they no longer have. This ensures that blockchain-backed assets cannot be spent more than once.
Irrespective of the particular nature of an application, IoT typically depends on a central cloud server/gateway for device identification, authentication and data transfer.
Now, as the domain of internet usage expands across industries – establishing such gateways is likely to prove problematic, particularly in remote areas where the connectivity or signal strength is poor.
A blockchain is, by definition, decentralized, and it does away with the need for such centrally located servers. Instead, data resides in all the ‘nodes’ of the distributed, trustless network – ensuring smoother, autonomous operations.
Nearly one-fifth of the yearly security budgets of organizations will be accounted for by IoT security expenses in 2020. Concerns over the reliability of ‘connected systems’ have been rising – with reports of data hacks, digital identity thefts and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) becoming rather alarmingly frequent.
Blockchains can easily add an additional layer of security to IoT – since they do not have vulnerable centralized servers, which have been traditionally viewed by malicious agents as single points of attack.
With blockchain technology, a mesh network can be created – and risks of ‘data impersonation’ and ‘device spoofing’ will be kept at an arm’s length. The distributed ledger is immutable, ensuring that data/transaction records cannot be modified or deleted by unauthorized hackers.
Even if someone goes through the trouble of altering each stage in the overall chain, the process would be too costly and troublesome.
A distributed, decentralized control would facilitate higher latency and throughput levels, while ruling out chances of security breaches. The blockchain technology enables IoT devices to exchange protected, trustless messages among smart devices – making them truly ‘autonomous’.
Smart contracts, pre-specifying the rules of the transactions (generally as ‘if-then’ condition statements) can be created between two parties easily, ensuring that operations can be managed remotely – and without the interference of a human agent/centralized brokerage system.
For instance, a ‘smart irrigation’ system can be ‘instructed’ to release/stop the flow of water by the field sensors. The trustless messaging system powered by blockchains can be just like the communications in a bitcoin network.
The absence of a central control unit also reduces the required processing times and speeds up data exchanges – establishing accelerated data exchanges. The distributed ledger system offers easy scalability, and can deliver improved security to the expanding sets of smart gadgets.
What’s more, it also become fairly simple to locate a compromised device (for instance, captured in a botnet or infected with malware), and prevent it from putting the health of the entire system (which can be a smart home, an enterprise setup, or even a smart vehicle network) at risk.
Additional devices can be supported in a blockchain infrastructure, without any significant need for extra resources. Blockchain transactions take place after mutual trustless consensus of all the interested parties in the network. A single, secure record of all the transactions is maintained in the distributed ledger.
Since tampering with these records is, for all practical purposes, impossible – potential confusions over the ownership of digital assets are ruled out. The level of transparency of the recordkeeping is further enhanced by the fact that each IoT transaction on the platform is timestamped.
Individual users and organizations are encouraged by the trustworthiness of blockchains – built by the device information records and transaction/ exchange records maintained in the ledger. The communications might be named ‘trustless’ (since the transacting parties are not acquainted, and generally use pseudonyms)…but blockchains actually build trust in IoT frameworks in a big way.
The ‘51 percent attack’ problem (changes in transaction records can be validated, provided 51% of the blockchain network approve it) is, arguably, the biggest point of concern – particularly when blockchain is used in relatively small IoT systems ( home / office).
There is no scope of doubting the importance of blockchains in IoT – but a few rough edges have to be ironed out, for realizing the full benefits of the technology.
Blockchain, together with artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, and virtual and augmented reality, have the potential to deliver disruptive outcomes and reshape digital business in 2018.
And companies that have not started the digital investment cycle are at high risk of being disrupted Companies that have not started digital investments yet in technologies like Blockchain, artificial intelligence, machine learning robotics and virtual and augmented reality are at high risk of being disrupted.
These technologies, especially Blockchain, have the potential to deliver disruptive outcomes and reshape digital business in 2018 .. Blockchain, together with artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, and virtual and augmented reality, have the potential to deliver disruptive outcomes and reshape digital business in 2018..
Hackers can shut down entire networks, tamper with data, lure unwary users into cybertraps, steal and spoof identities, and carry out other devious attacks by leveraging centralized repositories and single points of failure.
The blockchain’s alternative approach to storing and sharing information provides a way out of this security mess.. Blockchains can increase security on three fronts: blocking identity theft, preventing data tampering, and stopping Denial of Service attacks.
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is a popular form of public key cryptography that secures emails, messaging apps, websites, and other forms of communication. However because most implementations of PKI rely on centralized, trusted third party Certificate Authorities (CA) to issue, revoke, and store key pairs for every participant, hackers can compromise them to spoof user identities and crack encrypted communications.
A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a set of roles, policies, and procedures needed to create, manage, distribute, use, store, and revoke digital certificates and manage public-key encryption.
The purpose of a PKI is to facilitate the secure electronic transfer of information for a range of network activities such as e-commerce, internet banking and confidential email.
It is required for activities where simple passwords are an inadequate authentication method and more rigorous proof is required to confirm the identity of the parties involved in the communication and to validate the information being transferred..
In cryptography, a PKI is an arrangement that binds public keys with respective identities of entities (like people and organizations). The binding is established through a process of registration and issuance of certificates at and by a certificate authority (CA). Depending on the assurance level of the binding, this may be carried out by an automated process or under human supervision.
The PKI role that assures valid and correct registration is called a registration authority (RA). An RA is responsible for accepting requests for digital certificates and authenticating the entity making the request.
The public key infrastructure (PKI) security method is used to implement strong authentication, data encryption and digital signatures.
KSI is a blockchain technology to make sure networks, systems and data are free of compromise, all while retaining 100% data privacy. .
The integrity of an event or a digital asset registered using KSI allows verification of three things: proof of time, identity and authenticity
Unlike traditional approaches that depend on asymmetric key cryptography, KSI uses only hash-function cryptography, allowing verification to rely only on the security of hash functions and the availability of a public ledger.
This guarantees data integrity without the need to keep secrets. In short, instead of putting all of the data up in the blockchain, they only take fingerprints of the data.
Keyless Signature Infrastructure (KSI), a replacement for the more traditional Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), which uses asymmetric encryption and a cache of public keys maintained by a centralized Certificate Authority (CA).
With the help of a blockchain-based technology, known as keyless signature infrastructure (KSI), the public keys can be securely managed, which eliminates the risk of breach.
Keyless signature infrastructure relies on the use of hash function cryptography as compared to the traditional asymmetric key cryptography used in public key infrastructure, and provides real-time signature validation to ensure comprehensive enterprise security
Keyless Signature Infrastructure (KSI), a replacement for the more traditional Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), which uses asymmetric encryption and a cache of public keys maintained by a centralized Certificate Authority (CA).
KSI can detect advanced persistent threats (APTs) which work to remain hidden in networks.
Through the properties of verifiable authenticity, identity of the client, and non-global positioning system-based non-spoofable time; KSI provides provenance, integrity and identity associated with digital assets. This implementation consumes far less storage and bandwidth than widely proliferated blockchain technology and can provide the above defined attributes for thousands of files a second scalable to billions.
KSI cryptographically links data assets with immutable properties provided by the KSI infrastructure, and implemented in a KSI signature.
KSI promises this additional integrity and authenticity in newly created or already existing data whether on the network, in embedded systems or traversing the cloud. Customers who implement KSI can prove their current and future information systems are in a truthful state and meet business and mission needs with increased security.
KSI was designed with considerations for security, scalability, and speed to meet the requirements for a host of complex applications. KSI uses a ‘proof-based’ method to accomplish authentication and our signature is portable across any computing platform.
KSI signatures are based on mathematical proofs and keyless cryptographic functions .. KSI addresses the need to prove data integrity and detect changes in data authenticity at rest and in motion.
KSI is designed to provide secure, scalable, digital, signature-based authentication for electronic data, machines and personal information. Unlike traditional approaches that depend on asymmetric key cryptography, KSI uses only hash-function cryptography, allowing verification to rely only on the security of hash-functions and the availability of the history of cryptologicallylinked root hashes (the blockchain).
The KSI blockchain overcomes two of the major weaknesses of traditional blockchains, speed and storage capacity, making it usable at industrial scale.
One of the most significant challenges with traditional blockchain approaches is scalability; typically they grow linearly with the number of transactions. In contrast the KSI blockchain scales temporally; it grows linearly with time and independent from the number of transactions.
The second significant challenge is time to record an individual transaction. Some refer to this as settlement time for a large number of nodes to witness a transaction often taking many minutes to complete a transaction.
In contrast KSI has a straightforward mathematical process that provides signatures on the order of one second, that is once a second generating signature for thousands of client requests.
The KSI approach to implementing digital integrity is to provide a secure infrastructure consisting of cores, aggregators, and gateways to create keyless signatures.
The security appliance comes with a built-in KSI gateway, which allows for secure implementation of KSI-based data assurance and cybersecurity solutions with built-in active anti-tamper measures..
Digital data signed by a KSI signature is cryptographically linked to the data. Digital data of any format, protocol, or size can be signed. The data’s signature is preserved in the calendar blockchain, which provides longevity and becomes an irrefutable record available to the public for verification.
KSI signatures provide proof of signing time, proof of signing entity, and data integrity. The signature of the data will now be available in perpetuity, unlike a PKI-based digital signature. If a private PKI key or certificate is compromised, the PKI digital signature must now be revoked.
A KSI signature cannot be revoked and does not need to be. KSI can be used in conjunction with PKI as desired to protect the longevity of PKI certificates. KSI is intended to protect integrity of an asset while PKI is intended to protect its confidentiality.
These are different attributes. In the specific example of medical records, loss of confidentiality may results in embarrassment while the loss of integrity may result in the loss of life from the administration of healthcare based on incorrect information. Both have their purpose.
KSI is focused more on integrity of processes, supply chains and the authenticity of digital data. KSI does not expose client data to a large number of entities, client data never leaves client possession.
Advanced persistent threat [APT] is a military term adapted into the information security context that refers to attacks carried out by nation-states. APT-related threats are created by a group of developers using in-house tools that are not usually found in the cybercriminal underground.
APT is usually mixed-up with the term “targeted attacks” due to the complex nature of both. While targeted attacks also involve complex stages similar to APT, their targets are different; targeted attacks aren't carried out by nation states.
APTs are more sophisticated in nature and require deft knowledge and skills to execute. Since APTs are state-sponsored attacks, their operation usually lasts longer. It is also typical of APT attacks to go after a country’s infrastructure, such as its power grids, nuclear reactors, or fuel pipelines.
Legal frame work has to be modeled to include Blockchain technology. Laws and regulations relating to blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies can be divided into two categories: --
(1) enabling and (2) prohibitive.
There is certain legislation that enables blockchain technology to be more fully utilized for all of its various use cases.
One example is digital signature enabling legislation. Subject to certain exceptions (e.g. consumer loan documents), digital signatures are generally recognized as a valid signature throughout the world.
This allows smart contracts to authenticate and validate transactions in a legally binding manner and also allows private keys and other digital signatures to be recognized as a valid form of signature.
On the other hand, most laws, rules and regulations prohibit or restrict certain types of activities, or require certain actors to behave in a certain way. Several such existing regulations apply to blockchain technology and cryptocurrency, depending on the specific nature of the use case.
The primary areas of law impacting blockchain technology and cryptocurrency are as follows:--
Many blockchain use cases, particularly token sales and other issuances of cryptocurrency, potentially implicate U.S. and international securities laws. In the United States, the primary test for whether or not something is a security (or investment contract) is called the Howey Test.
The Howey Test provides that the thing being assessed (e.g. a token) is a security if three elements are met: (1) there is an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, and (3) an expectation of profits predominantly from the effort of others.
Whether or not each of these three elements is met often depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the item being offered. Additionally, there is a robust body of case law that further informs and clarifies what each of the three above elements mean and encompass.
A long time ago, someone named Howey owned an orange grove.
Howey said: "I've got this orange grove and I've got no way to make money out of it – because I need money to make money."
Tell you what. I'm going to sell you this orange grove and, in exchange, you get whatever profits are made from that little plot.
I'll work the land. I'm going to pick the oranges. I'm going to squeeze the juice. You just pay me the money.
The plaintiffs said: "That's a security."
The SEC said: "That's a security."
Howey said: 'No, no. That's just selling plots of oranges."
Ultimately, the Supreme Court said: "That's a security" – because it passed this test: There was an investment of money. And a common enterprise. With the expectation of profit, primarily from the efforts of others.
We might adapt this ultra-modern scenario to the decades-old tale:
Not so long ago, a group of developers started a DAO.
The DAO developers said: "There are all these decentralized projects and there's no way for them to get funding – because they need money to make money."
Tell you what. We're going to write code and sell a token and, in exchange, people who buy the token will get whatever profits are made from those projects.
We'll work the code. They'll pick the projects. The projects will flourish and everyone will profit.
The SEC said: "That’s a security."
The DAO developers said: "No, no. That's just selling tokens."
Ultimately, the SEC said: "That's a security" – because of the application of the Howey Test: There was an investment of money. And a common enterprise. With the expectation of profit, primarily from the efforts of others.
In the context of blockchain tokens, the Howey test can be expressed as three independent elements (the third element encompasses both the third and fourth prongs of the traditional Howey test).
All three elements must be met in order for a token to be a security.
1. An investment of money
2. in a common enterprise
3. with an expectation of profits predominantly from the efforts of others.
Each company or organization pursuing a blockchain-related initiative should be familiar with the regulatory framework applicable to that initiative.
Additionally, due to the rapid growth of the industry, we can expect to see new regulations (and clarifying guidance on existing regulations) emerge over the next few years as lawmakers try to catch up with the disruptive change being brought about by blockchain technology.
There is a difference between smart contract code, which refers to code that is designed to execute certain tasks, and a smart legal contract, which refers to elements of a legal contract being represented and executed by software.
A smart contract is an agreement in digital form that is self-executing and self-enforcing..
Smart contracts are no legal contracts but simply computer codes. More specifically, smart contracts are stand-alone programs that, once programmed, automatically execute previously defined conditions.
They have three main characteristics: increased speed, better efficiency and certainty that the contract will be executed as agreed. These programs reduce the costs of verification, enforcement, arbitration and fraud.
The advantage of setting up smarts contracts in a blockchain is to ensure that the terms of the contract cannot be changed. Translated into the blockchain world, a smart contract is a program written by a user in order to carry out a transaction with other users on the blockchain, who accept the terms of that transaction.
A smart contract can thus be legally assimilated to an accepted offer and therefore, to a contract.
Smart contracts are legally enforceable if done the right way. There is no reason to think one cannot make a contract in computer code or electronically. Contract law has all sorts of requirements.
For example, we cannot make an illegal contract. Smart contracts are operating independently of the surrounding legal framework, but those who wish to use smart contracts will have to deal with legal issues regardless.
Lawyers familiar with coding can convert a traditional term sheet into a smart term sheet by identifying which contract terms, as well as practical and legal details, will be implemented as a smart contract and which, if any, will not.
Key algorithms for performing parties' intentions can be specified. Legal issues can be identified and addressed.
Those important issues should not be left by the contracting parties to a software developer’s sole discretion. By creating a smart term sheet, the parties can also integrate the advice of counsel into the instructions given to the software developer.
For example, the term sheet could decide to take priority over the code if there were to be conflict between the two.
Since the blockchain does not factor the real world, the lawyer’s added-value would also be to identify what criteria/indicators would trigger the execution of the contract.
The lawyer would become a so-called “oracle”, a trusted third party making the link between the real world and the blockchain, by entering external verifiable data, or identifying who will provide the relevant information into the blockchain, in order to ensure that the contract will be correctly self-executed.
While restraining the discretionary powers of the software developer, room for error is limited.
The blockchain and the use of smart contract will take us to the next legal revolution in contractual law. Lawyers will have to learn a new expertise, that of the code. Equally, the blockchain requires that developers will need to know more about legal implications.
On the one hand, lawyers often look at smart contracts as if it was science fiction, without fully grasping the potential of blockchain-code.
On the other hand, developers explore the diversity that smart contracts would offer without factoring commercial and liability implications reflected in traditional legal agreements. Both must learn from the other.
Certain operational clauses within legal contracts lend themselves to being automated. Other non-operational clauses – for instance, the governing law of a contract – are less susceptible to being expressed in machine-readable code.
Some legal clauses are subjective or require interpretation, which also creates challenges.
A possible near-term application of a smart contract is for the legal contract to remain in natural legal language, but for certain actions to be automated via a smart contract.
This would require those actions – for instance, payments and deliveries – to be represented in a more formal, standard way within the ISDA Definitions, enabling them to be read by machines.
A critical point to recognise, however, is that a smart contract is not the same thing as a legal contract. Indeed, an aphorism often repeated is that the term ‘smart contract’ is a misnomer because, in many cases, a smart contract is neither smart nor a contract.
To a lawyer, a legal contract has a distinct meaning:--
A contract is an agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised by law. The factor which distinguishes contractual from other legal obligations is that they are based on the agreement of the contracting parties
For a contract to be valid, legal systems will impose certain requirements. Under law, there are four key elements that must (usually) be satisfied: --
(i) one of the contracting parties must make an offer to contract and the other(s) must accept that offer;
(ii) there must be ‘consideration’ for the offer, this being some form of value that must be exchanged;
(iii) the parties must have an intention to form legal relations; and
(iv) there must be certainty as to terms of the contract.
Other systems of law may have other requirements – for example, under New York law, many legal contracts must be in writing and signed to become binding.
For a smart legal contract, there would need to be a legal contract satisfying the requirements of the relevant governing law, but with some element of that legal contract being electronically automated.
With smart contract code, in contrast, there might exist no legal contract at all.
Take the example of a software agent that is formulated so a pre-defined amount of an asset is moved from an account of one person (A) to another (B) if a pre-determined condition is met.
This software agent does not create legal obligations between A and B. It does not impose a legal obligation on A to transfer the asset; it simply provides that a transfer will take place if the relevant condition is satisfied.
This begs the question of why A would initiate such a software agent if not to satisfy a legal obligation to B
And if the software agent is designed to satisfy a pre-existing legal obligation, then that would seem to be an instance where smart contract code facilitates a smart legal contract, as previously described.
A smart contract does not possess CONSCIOUS intelligence. All it does is execute pre-programmed steps.
What would be necessary in order to turn this smart contract code from mere code into binding legal obligations?
Under law, the four key elements for a contract must be satisfied. First, there needs to be offer and acceptance. The initialisation of the software agent does not represent offer and acceptance by itself.
However, what if A sends B a message saying, “I offer to you that I will initialise this software agent and the actions of the software agent represent my legal obligations to you. Do you agree?”, and B then responds “I agree”? That would satisfy the requirement for offer and acceptance.
Secondly, there must be consideration (or value) that passes between the parties. In the example given, there are only one-way obligations: A has received nothing in return for its transfer of an asset to B. In such case, there would be no consideration.
But what if the code is modified so it now automatically moves a pre-defined amount of an asset from B to A on the date the code is initialised? This effectively represents the amount B is paying to receive the benefit of the software agent’s actions when it moves an asset from A if certain conditions are met.
In such a two-way case, consideration would be present as both parties derive value.
In that instance, the offer from A would need to be recast as: “I offer to you that I will initialise this software agent and the actions of the software agent in moving assets from my account represent my legal obligations to you, provided that you agree that the actions of the software agent in moving assets from your account represent your legal obligations to me. Do you agree?”
If B agrees to this, a legal contract would have been formed. There has been offer and acceptance, there is consideration, there is a clear intention to create legal relations, and the code would give certainty of terms.
At this point, the smart contract code also becomes a smart legal contract
Below: Let us dance to KO KO KOVINDAAA
A blockchain would allow someone to upload land title documentation to the network, which other users ( SAY WHITE JEWS ) can record and verify if needed. This would provide proof that this person is the first owner of the documents, and decentralised network verification would prevent forgery. When it’s time to transfer title, the document simply requires ‘rehashing’ (encrypting) by the owner to prove he is in possession of the document.
POL POT BRANDED BY THE WEST AS THE MOST EVIL MAN ON EARTH WAS A GREAT HERO
GADDAFI WAS A GREAT LIBYAN HERO, WHO RESISTED ROTHSCHILDs BANK
Capt. Ajit Vadakayil
October 25, 2017 at 11:04 AM
CHRISTIANITY WAS BORN IN 325 AD , AT THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA , CREATED BY THE ROMAN EMPEROR CONSTANTINE --AND HENCE IS ONLY 1692 YEARS OLD.
JESUS CHRIST ON CROSS CAME ONLY 1150 YEARS AGO. NOBODY SAW JESUS ON CROSS BEFORE , ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET.
SANATANA DHARMA IS 400,000 YEARS OLD .. VEDAS WERE ON ORAL ROUTE FOR 330 CENTURIES BEFORE IT WAS PENNED DOWN 70 CENTURIES AGO..
BUDDHA WAS BORN 3900 YEARS AGO ( 1900 BC )
MAHAVIRA, THE 24TH THIRHANKARA WAS BORN 6500 YEARS AGO ( 4500 BC )
THERE WAS NO SIKHISM BEFORE THE DEATH OF TENTH GURU GURU GOBIND SINGH 309 YEARS AGO.
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PROOFS WHY HINDUSIM IS 400 CENTURIES OLD
IN THE POST BELOW, THE NARASIMHA IDOL IS CARBON DATED BY MODERN METHODS TO 32,000 BC
IN THE POST BELOW THE VISHNU METAL IDOL KALPA VIGRAHA IS DATED TO 26450 BC..
THE RIG VEDA PENNED DOWN IN 5000 BC, TALKS ABOUT MIGHTY RIVER SARASWATI – MORE THAN 60 TIMES..
Rig veda was written in 5000 BC on the banks of the Saraswati. Everybody knows this.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT MAHABHARATA WAS FOUGHT IN 4000 BC, AND THE FINAL BATTLE BETWEEN DURYODHANA AND BHIMA WAS FOUGHT IN AN ISOLATED POOL OF THE DEAD SARASWATI RIVER..
BALARAMA WITNESSED THIS FIGHT -- HE HAS JUST COME BACK AFTER DIVERTING THE TRAPPED SARAWATI TO GANGES RIVER, USING HIS PLOUGH. SARASWATI RIVERs GLACIAL MOUTH WAS LOCKED BY A TECTONIC SHIFT , CAUSING THE RIVER TO BE NON-PERENIAL
THE WHITE MAN DID NOT WANT ANY INDIAN HISTORY TO BE EARLIER THAN 4004 BC -- AS THE COOKED UP BIBLE BY THE FIRST POPE AT 325 AD FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA PUT THE BIG BANG AT 4004 BC--AT 9 AM , 23RD OCT.
THE ROMAN EMPEROR AND THE POPE SACKED ROME SEVERAL TIMES-TO GET RIG OF ALL TRACES OF THE KERALA SAGE APOLLONIUM OF TYANA .
JESUS CHRIST WAS MODELLED AFTER APOLLONIUS AND HIS SIDE KICK DAMISA WHOSE WIFE WAS MARY MAGDELENE A NAMBOODIRI WOMAN . THE PROFESSORS IN KODUNGALLUR UNIVERISTY GAVE THE COSMIC ALLEGORIES OF THE BIBLE . JESUS CHRIST NEVER EXISTED
the precession of planet earth has taken us from TAURUS to ARIES to PISCES --and soon it will be AQUARIUUS
From 2150 BC is aries, ( indian medam / hamal )) the ram till 1 AD.
From 1 AD to 2150 AD it is the age of Pisces ( Indian Menam ) .
From 2150 AD it is Aquarius ( Indian Kumbam )-- a new age, new sunrise at spring equinox -- precession of the equinoxes--
12 disciples of Jesus are the 12 Zodiacs, Aries to Pisces in Sanskrit are Mesa , Vrishabha, Mithunam, Karkatakam, Simha, Kanya, Tulam , Vrisksikam, Danu, Makaram, Kumbham, Meenam.
THE PROOF THAT WHITE MAN STOLE KERALA NAVIGATION IS THAT THEY ARE STILL STUCK AT ARIES ( MEDAM - in malayalam/ goat ) WHILE WE ARE AT PISCES ( MEENAM - in malayalam fish ) AND AFTER 34 YEARS IT WILL BE AQUARIUS ( KUMBAM- in malayalam pot )
and we have been calling MEDAM , MEENAM, KUMBHAM before the white man even wore clothes , lived outside a cave , articulated a sentence, or cooked something .
THE PARSI RELIGION IS AN OFFSHOOT OF HINDUISM. AHURA OF AHURA MAZDA IS ASURA . THIS IS WHY PARSIS CAME RUNNING TO INDIA FOR REFUGE LIKE JEWS
JUDAISM IS JUT 2900 YEARS OLD. KING SOLOMONS MOTHER BATH SHEBA WAS A NAMBOODIRI WOMAN
capt ajit vadakayil
THERE IS NO NEED FOR GYMASTICS, ACROBATICS, TRAPEZE , SOMERSAULTS , PELVIC THRUSTING, ROPE CLIMBING, ROTATING ON HEAD , CONTORTION OF BODY
WE HAVE A DHAKKAN NAMED REMO DSOUZA WHO HAD MURDERED INDIAN DANCE WITH HIS PICKLE JOHN AND CHUTNEY MARY JUDGES
REMOs ACTUAL NAME IS RAMESH GOPI NAIR-- ANGREZ BANN GAYA WOH -- BROWN SAHIB ..
REMO IS ASHAMED OF HIS OWN ROOTS AND HAS TAKEN PORTUGUESE IDENTITY
I SHALL ASK FAYE SORPOTEL DSOUZA TO SEND HIM SOME PIG BLOOD INFUSED PORTUGUESE SORPOTEL .. IF SHE DOES NOT DO IT WE ARE THREATENDENDENDING TO SHIFT OUR LOYALTIES TO FAITH SORPOTEL GONSALVES OF MUSIC FAALTHU BASTI FAME
SEND THIS COMMENT TO REMO DSOUZA, FAYE DSOUZA , FAITH GONSALVES / PMO, PM, AND OF COURSE SMRITI IRANI
AMONG MY 1.4 LAKH COMMENTS THIS IS THE MOST VALUABLE
THE WHITE MAN WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND WHY OUR TEMPLES HAVE LIVING WATER
THIS POST IS NOW CONTINUED TO PART 7, BELOW--
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL