DLT

Companies that implement technologies which are potentially disrupting such as blockchain, frequently do not use the technology’s full capacity and they are limited to improve pre-existing processes or duplicate traditional business structures. We analyze the factors that may transform traditional business models into digital distributed ecosystems. We find token economics, a DLT token-based incentive system, as one of the key elements to transform the financial and business models into the ecosystems of the near future

This paper outlines the major criticism cryptocurrencies faced since Bitcoin’s introduction in 2009 that resulted in the iterative development of various 'altcoins'. These alternative cryptocurrencies, which can be seen as 'distributed community experiments', introduced new algorithms while also tackling social and other evolving problems that emerged throughout the various phases of adaptation and collective learning processes. Often introduced through self-published white papers or online announcements, these alternative coins represent hypotheses by the respective creators until they can show a significant user-base and ultimately are accepted in online cryptocurrency exchanges. We examine the important experiments and alternative approaches to specific issues of the Bitcoin design and describe differences in coins that have been launched. We not only discuss successful experiments, but also show attempts that failed in the relatively short but eventful past five years of cryptocurrencies. We demonstrate how the initial design of Bitcoin has been extended and improved by 'next generation cryptocurrencies', while the two main aspects - the blockchain ledger as well as strong cryptography - remain key elements to all of these new systems. Finally we outline possible future problems and developments around the blockchain, which not only is the invention that started cryptocurrencies, but remains the most experimental and challenging part with no long-term strategy yet.

This paper explores the muddled, contested, and fluid vocabulary around blockchain technology, and the difficulties the problematic vocabulary raises for regulators and others seeking to understand and evaluate the technology. Failure to fully understand the technology can lead to inappropriate adoption of the technology in critical systems and flawed regulatory decisions. The paper recommends a detailed critical approach for regulators and others to take to fight through the vocabulary barriers.

Divanü Lügat-it-Türk, bilindiği gibi, Türk dilinin mevcut ilk sözlüğü olmanın yanında 11. yüzyıl Türk toplulukları ile ilgili birçok farklı konuda bilgiler içeren bir yapıttır. Bu bilgiler genel olarak ekonomi, toplum bilimi, kültür, coğrafya ve etnografya gibi alanların etrafında toplanmıştır. Yapıttaki sözcükler, dönem insanının yaşamına ilişkin en temel gereksinimlerinden süs unsurlarına kadar geniş bir çerçeveyi içine almaktadır. İnsanın en temel gereksinimlerinden olan yeme-içme ile ilgili de birçok sözcük vardır. Yemek adlarından gıda adlarına, tarım ile ilgili malzemelerden özel kavramlara, hayvan besinlerinden bunların yararlarına, sofra kurallarından yemek kültürüne kadar, yapıtta yer alan birçok kavram bugüne dek çeşitli araştırmacılar tarafından ele alınmıştır. 
Ben de bu çalışmamda Türk kültürü ile ilgili değerli bilgiler taşıyan Divanü Lügati’t-Türk’te yer alan kap kacak adlarını saptamaya çalışacağım. Elde ettiğim bu kap kacak adlarının, varsa, Türkiye Türkçesinde hem ölçünlü dilde hem de ağızlarda yaşayan yapılarını vereceğim. Böylece Türkçedeki kap kacak adlarının aradan geçen yaklaşık 1000 yıllık zamana karşın ne ölçüde yaşamaya devam edebildiği veya yitip gittiğini ortaya koyabileceğim. Elde edilen sözcüklerin bu sürekliliğinin/süreksizliğinin nedenlerini, vereceğim sayısal değerlerden de hareketle irdeleyeceğim. Bu kapsamda inceleyeceğim kap kacak adlarını kullanım amaçlarına göre “yiyecek-içecek hazırlamada, yiyecek-içecek pişirmede, yemede/içmede ve yiyecek-içecek saklamada” biçiminde dört ana bölüme ayırıp ele alacağım. Çok az da olsa birden fazla anlamı farklı bölümlere yerleşebilen sözcükleri de dikkate alacak, bunları özellikle belirteceğim.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Divanü Lügati’t-Türk, Türkiye Türkçesi, Anadolu ağızları, kap kacak adları.

La crisis financiera de 2008 impulsó el desarrollo un sistema financiero estable, descentralizado, autónomo y sostenible, que no estuviese bajo la influencia de instituciones individuales "demasiado grandes para quebrar", y que no estuviese bajo la influencia de una institución. La pérdida de confianza en los intermediarios financieros durante la crisis, motivó la creación de Bitcoin como sistema de pago y como moneda totalmente digital en 2008. Dos años más tarde surgieron las primeras criptomonedas alternativas y en estos momentos, existen más de 1.500 además de casi 500 tokens. Una de las principales contribuciones de Bitcoin es su arquitectura subyacente, o blockchain, como se la conoce comúnmente. Esta arquitectura está evolucionando, y aunque el futuro de Bitcoin no está claro, es evidente que blockchain tiene un enorme potencial para mejorar muchas áreas del sistema económico, financiero y social. El mayor potencial de blockchain, además de la seguridad, transparencia y auditabilidad es su capacidad de descentralización y automatización. Para ayudar a comprender de forma sencilla este concepto, desde una perspectiva aplicada y poco rigurosa, se podría definir a blockchain como un ERP inter-organizacional. Un sistema que pone a disposición de todos los participantes en la plataforma distribuida, la misma información-transferencias de todo tipo de activos-y los mismos programas en tiempo real. Blockchain es al ecosistema empresarial lo que un ERP es a los departamentos de una empresa. Cada bloque en la cadena blockchain contiene información de transacciones de activos tokenizados. Estos activos pueden ser financieros, pero también puede tratarse de productos comunes como comida, plásticos, energía o incluso votos. A través del proceso de tokenización, es decir la representación unívoca de un activo en blockchain, podemos registrar cualquier información sobre productos, servicios, propiedades, cadenas de suministro o elecciones parlamentarias. Este sistema tiene la capacidad de registrar y validar las transferencias de valor o de activos, y no sólo de información, como ocurre con internet. Este proceso de tokenización (tokenconomics) puede contribuir enormemente a optimizar el engranaje empresarial. Pensemos que los tokens tienen dos requisitos fundamentales:  Son derechos sobre un valor o un activo que se registran digitalmente en un bloque de la cadena de red distribuida.  Estos derechos se pueden transferir a través del protocolo del ecosistema blockchain. Supongamos que quiero tokenizar la propiedad de un activo, por ejemplo una obra de arte. Creo un token no fungible, es decir que identifica de forma unívoca el activo subyacente, el cual representa los derechos de propiedad de ese activo. Para tokenizarlo correctamente necesitaría registrar la propiedad de este token en una red blockchain de mi elección. Este token debe ser transferible utilizando el protocolo blockchain, y a quien sea que yo transfiera el token tendrá la propiedad legal completa de la obra de arte. En este ejemplo hemos utilizado una obra de arte, pero el activo tokenizado puede ser un derecho sobre flujos de ingreso o dividendos, puede dar derecho a una parte o a la totalidad de un activo físico o digital, o puede dar el derecho a usar el activo de otra persona (por ejemplo, alquilar una casa por una noche). Dependiendo del activo que se tenga en cuenta, los tokens pueden ser fungibles (intercambiables entre sí) o no fungibles (únicos).

The aim of this work is to delve into some key legal issues surrounding Smart Contract applications. In the first and second parts, this paper defines the concept of Smart Contract and how it applies within the blockchain ecosystem. In the third part, this work exposes the functioning of this digital technology and the main advantage that it implies for solving the crucial issues of execution and breach of contracts. In the fourth section, this paper analyzes a set of problematic aspects that arise around Smart Contracts such as the scope and delimitation of them or the validity and certification of blockchain transactions. It also analyzes different issues related to the design of a legislative policy that addresses the design of a supranational and harmonized legal framework.

The UID system preserves personally identifiable information (PII) of millions of users on a centralized government database, supported by some legacy software, with numerous SPOF (single points of failures). Such a centralized system, containing PII, acts like a honey pot to hackers. In a country where 2/3rd of the vulnerable citizens, do not have a bank account, but own a smartphone, echoes the possibility of a mobile based digital identity solution. The blockchain technology, by virtue of its key features like decentralization, persistency, anonymity and auditability, emerges as the most promising one amongst all.

The terminology around blockchain technology is notoriously confusing, with disputes over whether a blockchain is the same as a distributed ledger, or whether an appcoin is the same as a protocol token. In this article, I examine the difficulties the rapidly shifting, contested vocabulary poses for regulators seeking to understand, govern, and potentially use blockchain technology, and offer suggestions for how to fight through the haze of unclear language.

In Part I, I provide examples of the fluctuating, contested language in the blockchain technology space, and describe the forces at play in shaping the language. In Part II, I lay out the problems the language raises for regulators, including challenges in identifying the facts about the technology, distinguishing among the many variations of the technology, and communicating clearly about the technology, as well as increasing the chances of regulatory capture, inconsistent regulation across jurisdictions and subject domains, and " perverse innovation. "

In Part III, I closely analyze the use of the term " immutable " in blockchain discourse, to illuminate the confusion a single term can cause for regulators (and the public at large). I argue that the widespread use of the term " immutable " as a defining feature of blockchain technology is misleading, given that (i) real world events have demonstrated that the unchangeable nature of a blockchain record is always limited by the decisions of its human governors to change it, and (ii) the source of a blockchain record's " immutability " is disputed, meaning that it is unclear whether any particular variation of the technology may be fairly described as creating an " immutable " record. This is problematic as regulators have already begun to craft legislation describing the records created by blockchain technology as immutable, and are making decisions to use the technology in large part because of its " immutability. "

In Part IV, I suggest ways regulators can become better educated about blockchain technology, as is essential for them to responsibly govern or use the technology. I also recommend that regulators take a highly critical approach that (i) seeks to separate hype from reality; (ii) is sensitive to how incentives may shape the way blockchain technology is portrayed by industry and those sponsored by industry, and how misleading terminology appears in publications of the highest prestige levels; (iii) includes diverse perspectives from proponents and critics of the technology, multiple disciplines, and from across the gender, race, geographic, and economic development spectrums; (iv) takes nothing, including descriptions of the technology itself, at face value, but deeply interrogates and scrutinizes the technology and its stated capabilities; and (v) asks regulators to think for themselves about the technology and its benefits rather than succumbing to herd behavior.

The excitement around blockchains and distributed
ledger technologies (DLTs) is not without merit. We are
witnessing the dawn of what is being referred to as the
Fourth Industrial Revolution, as we develop network
technologies with the ability to fundamentally change
the world around us and our dynamics within it. Most
major institutions, from banks to state governments, have
recognized the seemingly unstoppable momentum of
this new wave and have decided to get on board rather
than to fight the forces of nature (or networks).
As governments, industries, and private individuals
make meaningful financial and technical investments
in this new revolutionary technological innovation, it is
imperative that we understand its potential, its limitations,
and our own intentions at this crucial creative juncture.
With the ability to create and manipulate new sources of
wealth and value in society, data, digital assets, artificial
intelligence and similar technological advancements, and
the concomitant restructuring and even marginalization
of traditional institutions of economic power, distributed
ledgers offer the most potential for those with the very
least. Cryptocurrencies and digital tokens are just the tip
of the iceberg. More meaningful opportunities lie under
the surface. Applications in challenges to governance and
the protection of intellectual property and human rights
are nearly infinite and have the potential of being truly
revolutionary if designed and implemented appropriately.
As BMI has pledged to address the major global challenges
of our time, we found it to be our duty to aim the spotlight
at this new emerging field. The purpose of our 2018
conference in Montenegro was to open a discourse, based
on opinions and findings from academic, governmental,
and industry professionals, around and about the potentials
and limitations of blockchains to address pressing global
issues of trust, equality, and ownership. It was our aim
to navigate through the hype and to dive deep into the
technology, its revolutionary potential, and the challenges
surrounding implementation and mainstream adoption.
Institutions of any kind, and blockchains as an institutional
technology par excellence, are a reflection of the intentions
and interests of their designers. We are currently at a
juncture wherein we have the power and the responsibility
to maximize the potential of this new technology for
greater equality, global development, and the protection
of human rights worldwide.

El primer caso de uso de blockchain fue la criptomoneda bitcoin, "el banco central de internet". Esta moneda se transfiere de persona a persona, es decir de ordenador a ordenador, sin necesidad de un banco intermediario, a través de la red blockchain. Bitcoin, además de una criptomoneda, es una plataforma blockchain pública, altamente robusta, pero poco flexible a las necesidades empresariales ya que únicamente registra transacciones de su moneda. A partir de la creación de la red Ethereum nace la generación blockchain 2.0, donde la plataforma se adapta a las necesidades de sus usuarios permitiendo registrar transacciones de cualquier activo, crear redes con diferentes permisos y crear múltiples aplicaciones empresariales. El gran valor de esta segunda generación blockchain es su capacidad de construir diferentes capas de gobernanza. En la definición del ecosistema DLT óptimo para cada organización se han de decidir tres niveles: (1) cuál es la capa tecnológica-red blockchain-que mejor se adapta a sus necesidades; (2) si la estructura ha de incluir una segunda capa formada por tokens para facilitar la creación y distribución de valor entre los usuarios; y (3) se ha de definir una tercera capa de gobernanza que puede incluir diferentes mecanismos como Smart Contracts (SC), aplicaciones descentralizadas (DApps) o identidades digitales. Antes de profundizar más, debemos entender qué es un token y la diferencia entre "utility" y "security" tokens. Un token es la representación digital de un activo en una red blockchain. Los "security" tokens son representaciones de activos financieros regulados por la CNMV 1 que las empresas emiten a través de Security Token Offerings (STO) para obtener financiación. Los "utility" tokens, por el contrario, son representaciones digitales de activos no financieros, como unidades de cambio, bienes o servicios, o derechos de acceso o de voto. Su función es la de posibilitar el intercambio de valor entre los integrantes de un ecosistema DLT, accediendo a sus productos o servicios o simplemente ejerciendo el derecho a voto asociado. Estos tokens se emiten a través de Initial Coin Offerings (ICO), crowdsales 2 no reguladas por organismos supervisores, hoy en día sólo permitidas en algunos países como Suiza o Estonia. La dificultad a la hora de distinguir un utility de security y la falta de regulación al respecto, está retrasando el desarrollo de la tokenización empresarial. 1 La Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV) es el organismo que supervisa el mercado de valores en España. 2 "Crowdsales", se denomina a la venta de tokens al público general no restringida a inversores sofisticados que según la regulación requiere la venta de productos financieros.

The terminology around blockchain technology is notoriously confusing, with disputes over whether a blockchain is the same as a distributed ledger, or whether an appcoin is the same as a protocol token. In this article, I examine the difficulties the rapidly shifting, contested vocabulary poses for regulators seeking to understand, govern, and potentially use blockchain technology, and offer suggestions for how to fight through the haze of unclear language.

In Part II, I provide examples of the fluctuating, contested language in the blockchain technology space, and describe the forces at play in shaping the language. In Part III, I lay out the problems the language raises for regulators, including challenges in identifying the facts about the technology, distinguishing among the many variations of the technology, and communicating clearly about the technology, as well as increasing the chances of regulatory capture, inconsistent regulation across jurisdictions and subject domains, and "perverse innovation. "

In Part IV, I closely analyze the use of the term "immutable " in blockchain discourse, to illuminate the confusion a single term can cause for regulators (and the public at large). I argue that the widespread use of the term "immutable " as a defining feature of blockchain technology is misleading, given that (1) real world events have demonstrated that the unchangeable nature of a blockchain record is always limited by the decisions of its human governors to change it, and (2) the source of a blockchain record's " immutability" is disputed, meaning that it is unclear whether any particular variation of the technology may be fairly described as creating an “immutable” record. This is problematic as regulators have already begun to craft legislation describing the records created by blockchain technology as immutable, and are making decisions to use the technology in large part because of its “immutability.”

In Part V, I suggest ways regulators can become better educated about blockchain technology, as is essential to responsibly govern or use the technology. I also recommend that regulators take a highly critical approach that (1) seeks to separate hype from reality; (2) is sensitive to how incentives may shape the way blockchain technology is portrayed by industry and those sponsored by industry, and how misleading terminology appears in publications of the highest prestige levels; (3) includes diverse perspectives from proponents and critics of the technology, multiple disciplines, and across the gender, race, geographic, and economic development spectrums; (4) takes nothing, including descriptions of the technology itself, at face value, but deeply interrogates and scrutinizes the technology and its stated capabilities; and (5) asks regulators to think for themselves about the technology and its benefits rather than succumbing to herd behavior.

I am hopeful that these recommendations, coupled with awareness that blockchain vocabulary is treacherous, can help regulators to discover the facts about blockchain technology and respond to them appropriately.

Digital transformation of Collaborative Enterprise (CE), both in terms of planning and implementation, relies on new business models and innovative technologies. One of such technologies is Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) which deploys a decentralised approach requiring no need for intermediaries, thereby facilitating decentralised enterprise operations. Accordingly, this article provides a systematic review and theoretical background of the current state and applications of DLTs within CEs by exploring how this disruptive technology can digitally transform CE practices. Grounded on the review of existing literature, a comprehensive characteristics, application, governance, stakeholders, and emerging security threats faced during DLT adoption and mitigation strategies are presented. More importantly, a model is proposed based on the factors that inhibit DLT adoption in CE. Findings from this study provide implications to support smart digital transition in CE for smart enterprise operations.

Le chiavi pubbliche e le impronte hash costituiscono le due soluzioni criptografiche fondamentali con cui costruire una blockchain. Esse sono considerate dati pseudonimi pressoché in modo unanime, ossia dati personali mascherati dietro un codice, ma che possono nondimeno essere attribuiti ad un individuo specico con l’ausilio di informazioni aggiuntive. Se ciò fosse vero, lo sviluppo della tecnologia blockchain sarebbe minacciato dal rispetto delle disposizioni del Regolamento
Europeo 2016/679 sulla protezione dei dati personali (GDPR). Con il presente lavoro, intendo invece dimostrare che alla luce della definizione di dato personale, anche in forma di dato pseudonimo, contenuta già nella Direttiva 95/46/CE e oggi nel GDPR, non è possibile qualificare come tale né la chiave pubblica né l’impronta hash per come sono effettivamente impiegate nel protocollo blockchain originale dei bitcoin (e quindi, in generale, in protocolli pemissionless pubblici). Entrambe hanno infatti il solo scopo di risolvere un problema tecnico (il c.d. double spending), creando fiducia in un network con protocollo peer-to-peer e il loro eventuale utilizzo in sofisticate operazioni di digital forensic per rintracciare l’identità di titolari di indirizzi bitcoin, non le qualifica per ciò solo dati personali, né dati pseudonimi.

La era de la digitalización, ¿riesgo u oportunidad para el auditor?
El interrogante es lícito y de hecho nos acompaña desde los primeros avances tecnológicos de la humanidad. Para la tranquilidad de algunos y el pesar de otros, el cambio digital no ha sido hasta el momento, tan disruptor como se vaticinaba. Por ahora, se ha limitado a copiar las estructuras del mundo analógico en el mundo digital. Posiblemente la euforia entorno a Blockchain se deba a su ‘potencial’ capacidad para romper con las estructuras centralizadas tradicionales, cambiando la interacción entre los agentes económicos y sociales en una nueva realidad digital distribuida.

So-called “digital tokens” still tend to raise many controversies. Probably the most urgent thereof concerns the current legal framework for their mass offering in the process typically known as ICO (initial coin offering). It may seem that such processes currently are not covered by any supervisory regulations. It is supposed to be that mainly due to the impossibility of recognizing the token as “security” and in general as a “financial instrument” in the meaning of Directive 2014/65/EU on Markets in Financial Instruments. This position does not seem to be accurate. It is therefore worth using the context of digital tokens and their public offering to revise the conceptual category of “security” used primarily in the field of prospectus (securities) regulations, i.e. primarily aimed at protecting small investors and not balancing the interests of debtors and creditors.

Blockchain technology was envisaged to bring a universal solution to strengthen digital democracy: ensure digital trust, distribute power between members, minimise e-monopoly, and it all through the innovative way of digitising and transacting 'value'. The latter however was deemed to represent financial assets only, neglecting the value created by the intangibles-the non-financial value. Nevertheless, intangibles are established to play a significant role in impacting financial value and therefore need to be incorporated into the existing value chain system. This paper explores how blockchain technology can capture and transact not just financial value, but non-financial one, conveying this way total value.

It is known that the languages definable by formulae of the logics $FO^{2}[<,S], \Delta_{2}[<,S], LTL[F,P,X,Y]$ are exactly the variety DA*D. Automata for this class are not known, nor is its precise placement within the dot-depth hierarchy of starfree languages. It is easy to argue that Δ2[ < ,S] is included in Δ3[ < ]; in this paper we show that it is incomparable with B(Σ2)[ < ], the boolean combination of Σ2[ < ] formulae. Using ideas from Straubing’s “delay theorem”, we extend our earlier work [LPS08] to propose partially-ordered two-way deterministic finite automata with look-around (po2dla) and a new interval temporal logic called LITL and show that they also characterize the variety DA*D. We give effective reductions from LITL to equivalent po2dla and from po2dla to equivalent FO 2[ < ,S]. The po2dla automata admit efficient operations of boolean closure and the language non-emptiness of po2dla is NP-complete. Using this, we show that satisfiability of LITL remains NP-complete assuming a fixed look-around length. (Recall that for LTL[F,X], it is Pspace-hard.)

Partecipazione come relatrice con l’intervento “Blockchain e tutela dei dati personali” al seminario “Blockchain, salute, DAT e Costituzione”, il 24 marzo 2021, organizzato dalla Prof.ssa Elisabetta Catelani. Il seminario afferisce al Progetto PRIN Secoretech e al Progetto di Ricerca di Ateneo “Il potere della tecnica e la funzione del diritto: un’analisi interdisciplinare di Blockchain”.

The goal of this report is to implement one of the most known methods for camera calibration, i.e. Direct Linear Transform. In this method, a scene which is two orthogonal planes is shown to the target camera. Peter Corke's MVTB toolbox is followed to simulate a camera and project 3D model to the image plane. the equations of DLT were derived and implemented in MATLAB. The experiment was carried out using the DLT equations and MATLAB code. The result will be reported for two cases,i.e., with/ without Gaussian noise at each point with different variance. The MATLAB code, results of each cases will be demonstrated at the end. the findings of the experiments reveal the fact that with noise the projection creates error on image plane.

Data quantities are rapidly increasing in many industry sectors due to the development of new sensors, mobile and cloud technologies, advancements in IoT and AI, and growth of social and entertainment media. Many applications (e.g. in finance, healthcare, government data) have strict information security requirements for simultaneous access, record updating, and validation in an immutable manner, which can be achieved with distributed ledger technology (DLT). In this paper we review and analyze fifty-eight currently available blockchain (BC) systems and their components in context of the DLT for big data storage, provenance tracking, replication, and sharing. We also elaborate the key BC system components and architecture for major information security concerns.

As COVID-19 crisis spreads and markets continue to drop, governments struggle to plan emergency measures to palliate the economic effects of the pandemic. The United States Democratic Party has surprised everyone with a transgressive proposal: the creation of a 'digital dollar' and the establishment of digital 'wallets' in dollars. This proposal inevitably becomes a shock wave through the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry, particularly for worldwide supporters of issuing central bank’s digital fiat currencies. Central Bank digital currencies, or CBDC, are digital fiat currencies, which unlike bitcoin and other crypto assets, are issued by a central bank and backed by a government.

It is known that the languages definable by formulae of the logics $FO^{2}[<,S], \Delta_{2}[<,S], LTL[F,P,X,Y]$ are exactly the variety DA*D. Automata for this class are not known, nor is its precise placement within the dot-depth hierarchy of starfree languages. It is easy to argue that Δ2[ < ,S] is included in Δ3[ < ]; in this paper we show that it is incomparable with B(Σ2)[ < ], the boolean combination of Σ2[ < ] formulae. Using ideas from Straubing’s “delay theorem”, we extend our earlier work [LPS08] to propose partially-ordered two-way deterministic finite automata with look-around (po2dla) and a new interval temporal logic called LITL and show that they also characterize the variety DA*D. We give effective reductions from LITL to equivalent po2dla and from po2dla to equivalent FO 2[ < ,S]. The po2dla automata admit efficient operations of boolean closure and the language non-emptiness of po2dla is NP-complete. Using this, we show that satisfiability of LITL remains NP-complete assuming a fixed look-around length. (Recall that for LTL[F,X], it is Pspace-hard.)

In October 2018, the European Parliament passed a resolution on distributed ledger technologies that recognised blockchains’ potential to disrupt copyright and creative industries. The aim of this chapter is to examine blockchain technologies and provide an assessment of their disruptive potential upon the legal sphere of intellectual property, and in particular copyright in the music industry. In order to do so, this chapter will start off by clarifying that the blockchain does not exist, because there are several different types of blockchains and, accordingly, different legal and regulatory issues are involved. After identifying the type of permissionless blockchain that is analysed in this chapter – that is permissionless, Turing complete, open, distributed, peer-to-peer, transparent, tamper resistant and censorship resistant –, we move on to identify the definitional and non-definitional features of blockchain technologies. For the blockchain to unleash its disruptive potential...

En el día de ayer comenzó a circular un proyecto de ley para regular los criptoactivos, activos digitales, etc., en Uruguay y este es un primer abordaje del asunto.
En el link está este artículo pero también tiene el pdf que circuló el día 3/8/2021. A la fecha de la salida de este documento, aún no se había publicado la versión oficial en el Parlamento.
https://www.sandragarin.com/post/primera-aproximaci%C3%B3n-proyecto-activos-virtuales-producci%C3%B3n-y-comercializaci%C3%B3n-regulaci%C3%B3n