He introduced such interesting concepts as anarcho-capitalism, as a line of thought that has evolved into what we know today as “collaborative economy” and that makes all the sense with anarcho-money, or the so-called cryptocurrencies, which he defined as: “Electronic, anonymous, decentralized and disruptive because they do not need the accounting consolidation of a bank. ” From this point of view, he analyzed what is blockchain philosophy in order to deeply understand its basis and legal perspective.
It is worth highlighting the definition of blockchain as a unique distributed accounting record, with accrediting virtuality that must meet 3 requirements: authenticity, uniqueness, and integrity. In other words, it must faithfully reflect the transactions carried out (identifying the anonymous holder) and remain intact (guaranteeing that it has not been manipulated).
Univocity and cryptographic keys use the same PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) technology to sign electronically. With this technology, for example, cryptocurrencies change their ownership without being necessary to know the identity of those involved in the transaction.
The use of non-qualified electronic signatures that do not enjoy the presumption of authenticity is very frequent. Logalty’s electronic signature is qualified because it has the conformity assessment of AENOR and the European Commission and guarantees the authenticity, uniqueness, and integrity.
He also explained how in the digital world “miners extract the metal to mint cryptocurrencies” receiving a salary for collaborative bookkeeping. They earn bitcoins injecting them into the system when closing a block calculating the nonce by a computational test effort known as PoW (Proof of work) or a fee for storing transactions in their computers)
He also shared a legal reflection on miners: “An open source of distributed execution among anonymous miners is not the optimal scenario to demand accountability for a possible blockchain malfunction.”