分权技术与法律规则中的技术中立——对德沃格德和赫奎斯特的分析

Q3 Social Sciences
Anne Veerpalu
{"title":"分权技术与法律规则中的技术中立——对德沃格德和赫奎斯特的分析","authors":"Anne Veerpalu","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2018-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article looks at whether the principle of technology neutrality can be applied to the centralised-decentralised scale in a manner similar to its application to the offline-online scale. The analysis is based on two cases of similar circumstances relating to bitcoin exchanges run by early adopters in Estonia and Sweden. The cases exhibit two different ex ante legislative approaches aimed at payments in currencies and the interpretation of the respective legislation by the judiciary in applying these rules to bitcoins and to the activity of exchanging bitcoins. The article examines whether the legal rules applied to the payment infrastructure of currencies were technology neutral and also implemented neutrally or whether, contrary to the principle, there was difference of treatment of decentralised technology outputs – bitcoins – from the centralised technology outputs – legal tender – irrelevant of the functional equivalence of these units of payment.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decentralised Technology and Technology Neutrality in Legal Rules: An Analysis of De Voogd and Hedqvist\",\"authors\":\"Anne Veerpalu\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/bjlp-2018-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article looks at whether the principle of technology neutrality can be applied to the centralised-decentralised scale in a manner similar to its application to the offline-online scale. The analysis is based on two cases of similar circumstances relating to bitcoin exchanges run by early adopters in Estonia and Sweden. The cases exhibit two different ex ante legislative approaches aimed at payments in currencies and the interpretation of the respective legislation by the judiciary in applying these rules to bitcoins and to the activity of exchanging bitcoins. The article examines whether the legal rules applied to the payment infrastructure of currencies were technology neutral and also implemented neutrally or whether, contrary to the principle, there was difference of treatment of decentralised technology outputs – bitcoins – from the centralised technology outputs – legal tender – irrelevant of the functional equivalence of these units of payment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38764,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2018-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2018-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了技术中立性原则是否可以以类似于离线-在线规模的方式应用于集中-分散规模。该分析基于爱沙尼亚和瑞典早期比特币采用者经营的两个类似情况的案例。这些案例展示了针对货币支付的两种不同的事前立法方法,以及司法机构在将这些规则应用于比特币和比特币交易活动时对各自立法的解释。本文考察了适用于货币支付基础设施的法律规则是否技术中立,是否也以中立的方式实施,或者是否与原则相反,对分散的技术产出(比特币)和集中的技术产出(法定货币)的处理存在差异,与这些支付单位的功能等价无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decentralised Technology and Technology Neutrality in Legal Rules: An Analysis of De Voogd and Hedqvist
Abstract This article looks at whether the principle of technology neutrality can be applied to the centralised-decentralised scale in a manner similar to its application to the offline-online scale. The analysis is based on two cases of similar circumstances relating to bitcoin exchanges run by early adopters in Estonia and Sweden. The cases exhibit two different ex ante legislative approaches aimed at payments in currencies and the interpretation of the respective legislation by the judiciary in applying these rules to bitcoins and to the activity of exchanging bitcoins. The article examines whether the legal rules applied to the payment infrastructure of currencies were technology neutral and also implemented neutrally or whether, contrary to the principle, there was difference of treatment of decentralised technology outputs – bitcoins – from the centralised technology outputs – legal tender – irrelevant of the functional equivalence of these units of payment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics (BJLP) is a scholarly journal, published bi-annually in electronic form as a joint publication of the Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania). BJLP provides a platform for the publication of scientific research in the fields of law and politics, with a particular emphasis on interdisciplinary research that cuts across these traditional categories. Topics may include, but are not limited to the Baltic Region; research into issues of comparative or general theoretical significance is also encouraged. BJLP is peer-reviewed and published in English.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信