找回密码
 立即注册
首页 区块链新闻 查看内容
  • QQ空间

美国区块链法案旨在澄清电子合同、签名的合法性

2020-10-9 12:54

 

2020年10月6日,来自亚利桑那州的国会议员David Schweikert和来自佛罗里达州的Darren Soto提出了区块链记录和交易法案。该法案旨在修订现有立法,以澄清区块链对电子记录、签名或智能合同的适用性。这是对建立此类记录合法性、有效性和可执行性的国家标准的一次尝试。


该法案只有几处改动。第一个是强调电子记录、签名或智能合同的新文本,不能仅仅因为它使用了区块链技术就否认其法律效力、有效性或可执行性。


最初的立法创建于2000年,在全球和国家商务电子签名法案,规定合同外国或州际贸易事务不会被拒绝的法律效力,因为它是电子或使用电子签名。


其他新的变化是区块链和智能契约的定义。


美国各州通常有适用某些法律的地区性程序。《区块链法案》先发制人地阻止了个别州拒绝这项基础技术。国会议员们在声明中明确表示,他们希望“确保各州不能通过反向优先认购的方式,避免给予区块链记录法律认可”。


这也许是主要的动机。因为对技术有如此明确的定义有点不寻常。监管机构往往倾向于更宽泛的定义,以便留出更大的回旋余地,这样他们就可以轻松地囊括未来可能出现的多种新技术。另一方面,清晰的定义可能被视为限制性的。

 

On 6 October 2020, Congressmen David Schweikert from Arizona and Darren Soto from Florida introduced a bill for the Blockchain Records and Transaction Act. The Act seeks to amend existing legislation to clarify blockchain’s applicability to electronic records, signatures, or smart contracts. This is an attempt to create national standards on the legality, validity and enforceability of such records. 

The bill contains only a few changes. The first is new text that emphasizes electronic records, signatures or smart contracts cannot be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability, merely because it uses blockchain technology. 

The original legislation created in 2000, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, states that contracts for foreign or interstate commerce transactions are not to be denied legal effect because it is electronic or uses electronic signatures.

The other new changes are the definitions of blockchain and smart contracts. 

U.S. states often have regional procedures to apply certain laws. The Blockchain Act pre-emptively stops individual States from rejecting the underlying technology. The congressmen explicitly state in the announcement that they want to “ensure states cannot avoid giving legal recognition to blockchain records through reverse pre-emption.”

This is perhaps the primary motivation. Because it’s a little unusual to have such clear definitions of technologies. Regulators often prefer broader definitions to allow more room for maneuver, so they can easily encapsulate multiple new technologies that may appear in the future. On the other hand, clear definitions can be seen as restrictive. 

 

来自: Ledger Insights