Bitcoin address technical details for amana
50 comments
Bitcoin wallet file
Global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright has acted as a legal adviser Northern Trust on the first commercial deployment of blockchain technology for private equity fund administration. There have been unexpected gains in the key steel-making commodities, iron ore and metallurgical coal, which together account for a very significant proportion of the global dry bulk market.
These gains are likely to have been driven by a multitude of factors: There remains a possibility that the price rebound will continue, as we venture into what analysts expect to be the worst cyclone season for many years in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, a key hub for iron ore. Read the full briefing. Authors Paul Keller and Sue Ross. The distributed ledger technology known as blockchain currently is the subject of numerous research projects, especially in the financial services and technology industries.
Perhaps not surprisingly, many companies involved in these projects are filing patent applications to protect their innovations, both in the U. In an August report, the World Economic Forum reported that more than 2, such patents had been filed in the past three years. It also is widely reported that many companies working in this space are leveraging software code that is governed by various open-source licenses. The variety of these licenses and the particular uses by companies of the code that is licensed under them raise a host of issues that, to the uninitiated, could result in significant consequences, including potentially an adverse impact on the ability to enforce any patents that are based on the used or modified code.
This article provides an overview of these issues, including a basic description of blockchain technology, a review of the most popular open-source licenses being used in this space, and a summary of how those licenses might impact the enforceability of any patents based on the licensed code. Read the full article. Fintech is driving innovation in financial services globally and changing the nature of commerce and end-user expectations for payments and financial services. Regulators, financial institutions and investors are showing growing interest in FinTech development.
Over the last few years, the potential to use distributed ledgers and blockchain technology has seen increasing interest from banks and other financial institutions. However, as companies move from research and development to initial deployment, one of the key questions is what are the legal and regulatory implications and what approach will regulators across the globe take to its use in the banking industry? While the issues posed by Bitcoin risks are not straightforward, the insurance industry should be looking carefully at the risks it is prepared to cover and on what terms.
When the first and best known cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was unveiled in , few would have predicted that by its economic potential would have captured the attention of investors, the media and consumers. For while Bitcoin does not yet enjoy the same status and confidence of established fiduciary currencies such as the US dollar or sterling, indications are this may not be far off. In recent days, for example, an Australian Senate committee has tabled proposals that would see Bitcoin and other digital currencies treated in the same way as fiduciary currencies for tax purposes.
Also, hardly a week seems to pass without a major online retailer declaring its support for Bitcoin as an instrument of payment. If the acceptability of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies does continue on its present upwards curve, demand for insurance to protect against the particular risks associated with them will increase.
This demand may not only come from Bitcoin owners, but also from financial institutions involved in the processing and trading of transactions and service providers. Indeed, it has been widely publicised that Bitcoin storage providers are already offering cover to consumers against storage vault failure.
With an embryonic market already developing and appetite set to increase, it is a good moment to consider the potential difficulties of insuring cryptocurrency risks and some possible features of policies governed by English law. This assumes Bitcoins are insurable and that, in each case where a policy is issued, the policyholder has the requisite insurable interest. While this is not something that has been tested in the courts, the absence of any prohibitive legislation in this jurisdiction or obvious public policy difficulties, coupled with the inherent value of a Bitcoin to its owner, suggests this threshold requirement is unlikely to be an issue in practice.
On that basis, a central question is likely to be the nature of the risks insurers are willing to underwrite, given the specific features of Bitcoin which are the source of its attraction to consumers.
First, the economic value of a Bitcoin may only be unlocked when a private key, known only to the Bitcoin's owner, is used in combination with the corresponding public key. As a result, it should only be possible for a Bitcoin to be lost or stolen if the private key is disclosed to a third party or is taken. Second, Bitcoin transfers are irreversible and untraceable. This may suggest an increased exposure to fraudulent claims. However, it may also make it difficult for insurers to exercise subrogation rights effectively.
Third, although a cryptocurrency is intended to operate as a decentralised, peerto- peer ledger which should not be susceptible to systemic risk, the sophistication of the underlying technology may make it difficult for insurers to evaluate the possibility of system collapse.
In view of these issues, insurers may keep the scope of cover that they are willing to provide within defined limits. At the same time, they may also wish to include additional protections in their policies to mitigate their exposure to the most likely sources of loss, such as breaches of electronic security and loss of confidentiality in relation to the private key.
On the security side, an important concern for insurers of Bitcoin balances will be to satisfy themselves that the policyholder's systems and "wallet" where the policyholder's private and public key information is stored are sufficiently robust to withstand hacker-related theft. While suitably worded warranties and exclusions are a possibility, the answer to this problem may be found in the limited number of first-party Bitcoin policies seen to date.
These policies are offered by third-party service providers as part of a secure storage service package, giving the insurer the comfort the insured property is held securely without the need to interrogate the integrity of the policyholder's own systems. As for confidentiality, because Bitcoin balances can only be accessed using the private key, insurers may look to protect themselves by including a warranty that the private key is kept confidential or, particularly for corporate entities with substantial holdings, that balances are spread across a number of wallets to avoid a concentration of risk, with a limited number of specified individuals having access to the necessary keypair information.
For additional protection, insurers might also exclude cover for losses occasioned by the policyholder's own actions, deliberate or otherwise. Finally, two further possible features of Bitcoin policies are also worth considering. First, insurers will need to think carefully about covering the risk the Bitcoin system or the technology behind it fails.
Arguably, these are commercial risks which the policyholder assumes when making the original investment. To overcome this instability and fix the insurer's exposure, limits of indemnity should be expressed in a fiduciary currency accompanied by a carefully constructed basis of valuation clause.
As the market gets to grips with this new sector, Bitcoin risks will continue to be analysed and policy wordings refined. The innovative technology and unusual characteristics of the underlying subject matter make this exercise challenging but while the issues posed by Bitcoin are therefore not straightforward, the insurance industry will be looking carefully at the risks it is prepared to cover and on what terms.
Identifying the risks associated with virtual currencies and providing appropriate cover against them remains the challenge for insurers.
As bitcoin and other virtual currencies become more prominent, demand for cryptocurrency insurance will increase. A market for such products is already emerging, but identifying the particular risks associated with virtual currencies and providing appropriate cover against them remains the challenge. For the uninitiated, a brief introduction to the technology behind cryptocurrencies may be helpful, taking bitcoin as an example. For insurers considering insuring cryptocurrency risks, a number of issues arise assuming such risks are insurable in any particular jurisdiction.
First, the difficulty of proving a bitcoin has been stolen would suggest a significant potential for fraudulent theft claims. Second, accidental disclosure of the private key could give rise to many insured losses, unless warranties as to effective security measures are given.
Third, while the underlying technology may seem robust, its sophistication may make systemic risk for example, total collapse of the bitcoin system difficult to model. Fourth, the irreversible and anonymous character of cryptocurrency transactions may pose an insurmountable obstacle to the effective exercise of subrogation rights, with implications for pricing. If virtual currencies really are the future, the insurance industry will need to look carefully at the risks it is willing to cover and on what terms.
However, with its track record for innovation, there is every reason to expect it will rise to the challenge. Article featured in Practical law , June 25, Cryptocurrencies and mobile payments: Isle of Man-based cryptocurrency exchange finds British banking partner: These facilities will be provided in accordance with the requirements of the European Payment Services Directive.
Read more at Inside Bitcoins, here and here. Swiss Federal Intelligence Service considered using bitcoin for paying informants: Documents unearthed in the course of a corruption investigation have revealed that the Swiss Federal Intelligence Service considered the possibility of using bitcoins to pay informants, emphasizing, among others, the anonymity of cryptocurrency as a major benefit to its use for these purposes.
Other advantages to this shift include: Isle of Man hosts cryptocurrency summit: Read more at IOMToday. Paypal launches partnership with Bitcoin processors: Paypal recently announced a partnership with cryptocurrency processors BitPay, Coinbase and GoCoin, under which PayPal merchants would be able to accept cryptocurrency as consideration for digital good such as online games and downloadable songs.
Read more at Forbes. Plummeting bitcoin prices linked to Alibaba IPO: Read more at IBTimes. Interesting cryptocurrency analyses this fortnight: Regulatory developments this fortnight: Russia may pass legislation preventing the use of cryptocurrency as tender, and restricting its convertibility for currency, by Efforts underway to turn Bali into a bitcoin haven — Two bitcoin entrepreneurs from Indonesia — Oscar Darmawan and William Sutanto have announced plans to convert the entire island of Bali into a bitcoin haven.
Their plan involves approaching businesses on the island and convincing them to start accepting bitcoin as payment, providing technological assistance where required, and installing bitcoin ATMs and information centers on the island, until the entire island accepts bitcoin and travelers have the freedom to travel without physical money.
Analysts note that a number of factors contribute to making the plan feasible, including: Read more at Good. Report indicates sharp upswing in phishing attacks - A recently released report from the Anti-Phishing Working Group APWG notes that the first quarter of saw the second-largest number of phishing attacks ever recorded in a single quarterly period the largest being in , and a sharp increase in attacks against online payment and cryptocurrency services. The cryptocurrency juggernaut continues to gather pace, with new cryptocurrencies, more cryptocurrency ATMs, and a large number of apps and services accepting cryptocurrency payments.
Group of miners briefly controls Bitcoin - The big story this fortnight was the temporary acquisition of control over Bitcoin by a bitcoin mining pool called GHash. The integrity of the Bitcoin network is dependent on miners — who donate computational power in order to verify the validity of transactions on the network — competing with each other to verify them.
The ability of an individual or organisation being able to create bitcoin outside of the usual algorithmically-controlled way has obvious repercussions for the integrity of Bitcoin, compromising the predictability of the money supply and therefore its value.
It would also compromise the anonymity of Bitcoin — as it allows governments to focus on a single majority miner to compel production of evidence. The incident has prompted concerns and fears as to the integrity of Bitcoin, and proposals of reform include, interestingly, application of antitrust laws to bitcoin mining.
NAS drives are popularly used to share files amongst network computers and thus provide an electronic route into electronic devices. The perpetrator exploited flaws exposed in September , and which were thought to have been patched, to infect NAS Drives with malware. The attacker was then able to hijack the computational power of these devices to mine Dogecoin — thus, technically stealing computational power rather than cryptocurrency itself.
Silk Road bitcoin auction - The U. Interestingly, notwithstanding its ambivalence to cryptocurrency, the American government seems to have been monitoring the bitcoin market, and has timed the auction to coincide with a surge in the value of bitcoins. Regulatory developments this fortnight — Bolivia bans , Sweden acknowledges benefits , and Italy initiates hearings. In a warning issued to banks and payment institutions, the Dutch central bank cited the anonymity offered by virtual currencies including bitcoin and altcoins as raising integrity risks.
The anonymity provided by Bitcoin prevents financial institutions from ascertaining the identity of clients, increasing the risks of financial institutions supporting money laundering and other illegal activities. The Dutch central bank explicitly stated that it was apprehensive about the ability of financial institutions to maintain integrity and adherence to legal procedures in the face of anonymity.
Based on this assessment of the risks associated with dealing in anonymous virtual currencies, the Dutch central bank ominously promised enhanced supervision and regulation of financial institutions dealing in virtual currencies during It indicated that the focus of such enquiries would be on determining whether such financial institutions had adequately conformed to relevant procedures regarding client assessment and monitoring, and integrity risks.
See the official statement in Dutch.