Links table
Summary and I. Introduction
the second. Prize and content form
Third. Electronic signatures, writing and approval requirements
Fourth. Can multiple arbitration be considered independently legal?
Fifth. Conclusion
Approach aMultisig Treatment on the example of Testnet Bitcoin
Approach bBTC collapse stored on 2/3 multiple accounts
Can the multi -asset electronic prize be authenticated?
Before looking at the issue of approval, it should be noted that the multi -part electronic prize is different from the traditional paper award in that it works by itself. Once the Multisig signature is fulfilled and the transaction is broadcast on the network, the money is issued to the recipient. The enforcement of the Mutlisig Award is not necessarily a problem, but whether the verb of the funds is putting an end, completely, or partially, a conflict and if the resulting raw transactions can be recognized as grants.
This is important because if Multisig is not able to recognize it, then multiple treatment can be challenged in any court with a specialized jurisdiction and the opposite of the arbitrator’s discovery. Although multiple treatment technically is not reflected at the blog level, the court can order compensation that must be paid despite the implementation of the transaction on Blockchain. When one of the participants deposits one of the assets to the Multisig account, there is an understanding that the original will not be transferred unless certain conditions are met, which are the requirements of the M-IF-N signatures and the occurrence of an event or a commitment performance. The arbitrator rules a decision if the conditions are satisfied and the money is released by signing a transaction with his own key. As such, Multisig can be considered a separate and distinct contract from the basic agreement between the participants. For example, in the sale of the goods agreement, if no of any commodities or commodities is delivered, the buyer can prosecute the seller for hacking even if a third party has issued funds from a multi -target account. The arbitrator’s decision, the actual iPSo, has no, he has no Judicata accuracy The effect is somewhat similar to a bank’s decision to make money under a credit letter.
In addition, if the Multisig process is not considered a form of international commercial arbitration and the tight failure to perform the decision -making function to the expected level of a technologically smart wise judge, it may face unlimited personal responsibility. The arbitrator condemns contractual and non -contractual duties and coinciding with multiple participants. Therefore, it is very important that the Multisig treatment is recognized as a final and binding prize.
Under Article 4 (A) The New York Agreement, the advanced party must provide recognition “an original approved prize.” The agreement does not specify the meaning of ratification, but commentators generally agree that it can be defined as the process of confirming the validity of the arbitrators’ signatures[38]. The law applied to issues related to ratification can be Lex Loci Arbitri Or the place of appreciation[39]. According to Travo PréparatoiresThe Drafting Committee preferred to give the court where the search for more flexibility is searched in determining the ruling law of the 1927 Geneva Convention, which only referred to Lex Loci Arbitri[40]. In the states of public law, an act of asserting the validity of the signature is seen as an issue of proof. It does not require that it be in any of the specific form and in the interest of justice and effective behavior of the court’s actions, usually prefers a simple and clear way.[41]. The law can be implemented by public employees, lawyers, witnesses, or arbitration institutions[42]. On the other hand, in most of the judicial states of the civil law, the concept of originality is seen more narrow and traditionally that requires a specialized or notary public authority to verify the sincerity of the documents.[43].
according to Yu and supporterThe fourth article must be read in conjunction with the third article, and if the country that was presented the award allows the issuance of prizes in an electronic form, there should not be an obstacle to accepting the award as required[44]. Leader You notice that although the electronic document cannot be considered a “original”, in relation to electronic data, it can be an original version, as the data can be reliably proven to be proven.[45]. However, OTTO warns of electronic prizes because there is no unanimous vision of authentication and some countries have directed a strict look[46]. There is a risk if the recognition of the jurisdiction of the civil law is searched, the multi -niji treatment may not be considered final and binding.
If we apply the England Law K. Lex Loci ArbitriAccording to Article 7 (3) of ECA 2000, “Any Person” can ratify an electronic signature with a statement confirming the originality. Section 7, Part Three (15) (2) (a), also states that the term “ratification” relates to whether electronic communication or data: (1) comes from a specific person or another source; (2) It was timed with precision and dated; (3) It aims to have a legal effect.
In the case of an example in appendix A, the signature of the signature can be linked to a specific timer and any change in the initial treatment data can be discovered. Time and date are part of the data and the goal of the electronic sign[47]. The expert witness can testify to the authenticity of electronic signatures by verifying the integrated descriptive data. Instead, the arbitrator has a self -activation option in terms of authenticity. This approval method is compatible with the interest of the existence of a pragmatic, enforced, invisible and friendly approach to the interpretation of Article 4[48].
author:
(1) AJ Santos, Ba (UTSA), JD (STCL), Department of International Law, University of Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt, College of Law ([email protected]).
This paper
