NEVADA (USA) - The state of Nevada passed Senate Bill No. 398 outlining legality and provisions in regards to blockchain technology and it's use.
On May 30th, 2017, Senate Bill 398, sponsored by Senator Ben Kieckhefer (R), was enrolled after unanimously passing the Senate. The bill "Establishes various provisions relating to the use of blockchain technology" and amends Chapter 719 of NRS (Nevada Revised Statues).
More formally the senate bill states:
AN ACT relating to electronic transactions; recognizing blockchain technology as a type of electronic record for the purposes of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act; prohibiting a local government from taxing or imposing restrictions upon the use of a blockchain; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
“Blockchain” means an electronic record of transactions or other data which is:
1. Uniformly ordered;
2. Redundantly maintained or processed by one or more computers or machines to guarantee the consistency or nonrepudiation of the recorded transactions or other data; and
3. Validated by the use of cryptography.
The amendment goes on to say that the use blockchain tech will not be taxed and in Section 4 states "county commissioners"... "shall not":
(b) Require any person or entity to obtain from the board of county commissioners any certificate, license or permit to use a blockchain; or
(c) Impose any other requirement relating to the use of a blockchain by any person or entity.
If additionally amends Sec. 6. Chapter 268 of NRS to further prohibit any other "governing body of an incorporated city, whether organized under general law or special charter" to impose a tax or require a certificate or license for blockchain use of Nevada residents.
For the most part, that encompasses the items amended with the enrollment of Senate Bill 938 indicating Nevada is another state getting serious about blockchain technology.
ConcernsThe only thing missing was a snappy tagline like "whatever is written to a blockchain, stays on a blockchain..." but then again they really don't have a choice about that one.
Which is the only concern in the matter, the bill accepts blockchain signatures (as in contract signatures) as actual signatures without the prerequisite of any requirements of blockchain constitution.
It simply states a blockchain is "Redundantly maintained or processed by one or more computers or machines to guarantee the consistency or nonrepudiation of the recorded transactions or other data". The key words being "one or more" because 1 or even 100 machines combined to construct a blockchain is far from secure or tamper resistant enough to be considered a "signature" worthy of being legally binding.
Nevada might want to go back and rethink that one. The result otherwise may end up being "Bob's blockchain" in the back shed legally recording records of signatures that could end up binding an instrument whereas "Bob's blockchain" may be about as secure as a safe made of glass or an Android cell phone ... and that's barely a step above two cups and a string.