-
Bitcoin MiCA Whitepaper
Authors:
Juan Ignacio Ibañez,
Lena Klaaßen,
Ulrich Gallersdörfer,
Christian Stoll
Abstract:
This document is written as an academic exercise, with the goal of exploring the feasibility of writing a white paper in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). It is meant as a Proof of Concept (PoC) illustrating a concrete application of the requirements of MiCA. Like the MiCA white papers PoC shared by ESMA, this document is solely for the purposes of the PoC, to inform the public as…
▽ More
This document is written as an academic exercise, with the goal of exploring the feasibility of writing a white paper in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). It is meant as a Proof of Concept (PoC) illustrating a concrete application of the requirements of MiCA. Like the MiCA white papers PoC shared by ESMA, this document is solely for the purposes of the PoC, to inform the public as to how a crypto-asset white paper could work, inspire public debate and feedback, and enhance the public conversation around the implementation of EU regulations.
△ Less
Submitted 15 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Accounting for carbon emissions caused by cryptocurrency and token systems
Authors:
Ulrich Gallersdörfer,
Lena Klaaßen,
Christian Stoll
Abstract:
The energy consumption and related carbon emissions of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are subject to extensive discussion in public, academia, and industry. As cryptocurrencies continue their journey into mainstream finance, incentives to participate in the networks and consume energy to do so remain significant. First guidance on how to allocate the carbon footprint of the Bitcoin network to si…
▽ More
The energy consumption and related carbon emissions of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are subject to extensive discussion in public, academia, and industry. As cryptocurrencies continue their journey into mainstream finance, incentives to participate in the networks and consume energy to do so remain significant. First guidance on how to allocate the carbon footprint of the Bitcoin network to single investors exist, however a holistic framework capturing a wider range of cryptocurrencies and tokens remains absent. This white paper explores different approaches of how to allocate emissions caused by cryptocurrencies and tokens. Based on our analysis of the strengths and limitations of potential approaches, we propose a framework that combines key drivers of emissions in Proof of Work and Proof of Stake networks.
△ Less
Submitted 20 March, 2023; v1 submitted 11 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
Bitcoin's future carbon footprint
Authors:
Shize Qin,
Lena Klaaßen,
Ulrich Gallersdörfer,
Christian Stoll,
Da Zhang
Abstract:
The carbon footprint of Bitcoin has drawn wide attention, but Bitcoin's long-term impact on the climate remains uncertain. Here we present a framework to overcome uncertainties in previous estimates and project Bitcoin's electricity consumption and carbon footprint in the long term. If we assume Bitcoin's market capitalization grows in line with the one of gold, we find that the annual electricity…
▽ More
The carbon footprint of Bitcoin has drawn wide attention, but Bitcoin's long-term impact on the climate remains uncertain. Here we present a framework to overcome uncertainties in previous estimates and project Bitcoin's electricity consumption and carbon footprint in the long term. If we assume Bitcoin's market capitalization grows in line with the one of gold, we find that the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin may increase from 60 to 400 TWh between 2020 and 2100. The future carbon footprint of Bitcoin strongly depends on the decarbonization pathway of the electricity sector. If the electricity sector achieves carbon neutrality by 2050, Bitcoin's carbon footprint has peaked already. However, in the business-as-usual scenario, emissions sum up to 2 gigatons until 2100, an amount comparable to 7% of global emissions in 2019. The Bitcoin price spike at the end of 2020 shows, however, that progressive development of market capitalization could yield an electricity consumption of more than 100 TWh already in 2021, and lead to cumulative emissions of over 5 gigatons by 2100. Therefore, we also discuss policy instruments to reduce Bitcoin's future carbon footprint.
△ Less
Submitted 28 January, 2021; v1 submitted 4 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
AuthSC: Mind the Gap between Web and Smart Contracts
Authors:
Ulrich Gallersdörfer,
Florian Matthes
Abstract:
Although almost all information about Smart Contract addresses is shared via websites, emails, or other forms of digital communication, Blockchains and distributed ledger technology are unable to establish secure bindings between websites and corresponding Smart Contracts. For a user, it is impossible to differentiate whether a website links to a legitimate Smart Contract set up by owners of a bus…
▽ More
Although almost all information about Smart Contract addresses is shared via websites, emails, or other forms of digital communication, Blockchains and distributed ledger technology are unable to establish secure bindings between websites and corresponding Smart Contracts. For a user, it is impossible to differentiate whether a website links to a legitimate Smart Contract set up by owners of a business or to an illicit contract aiming to steal users' funds. Surprisingly, current attempts to solve this issue mostly comprise of information redundancy, e.g., displaying contract addresses multiple times in varying forms of images and texts. These processes are burdensome, as the user is responsible for verifying the correctness of an address. More importantly, they do not address the core issue, as the contract itself does not contain information about its authenticity. To solve current issues for these applications and increase security, we propose a solution that facilitates publicly issued SSL/TLS-certificates of Fully-Qualified Domain Names (FQDN) to ensure the authenticity of Smart Contracts and their owners. Our approach combines on-chain identity assertion utilizing signatures from the respective certificate and off-chain authentication of the Smart Contract stored on the Blockchain. This approach allows to tackle the aforementioned issue and further enables applications such as the identification of consortia members in permissioned networks. The system is open and transparent, as the only requirement for usage is ownership of an SSL/TLS-certificate. To enable privacy-preserving authenticated Smart Contracts, we allow one-way and two-way binding between website and contract. Further, low creation and maintenance costs, a widely accepted public key infrastructure and user empowerment will drive potential adaption of Ethereum Authenticated Smart Contracts (AuthSC).
△ Less
Submitted 29 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
