Publications - Pagina 14 van 271

Censorship-Resistance and Compliance Behavior in the Ethereum Consensus Mechanism external link

2025 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), 2025

Abstract

This paper examines Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism and the factors shaping compliance behavior through statistical analysis and anomaly detection. Although PoS was designed to uphold credible neutrality and decentralization, the results show diverse behavior among builders, relays, and validators, driven by their roles, incentives, and the system’s design. Features like proposer-builder separation (PBS) and Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) enhance the capacity of builders and relays to influence transaction inclusion, while validators’ influence is mostly limited to their proposer tasks. The paper further shows that partial enforcement of sanctions is insufficient to eliminate sanctioned transactions from the network, which demonstrates the challenge of balancing regulatory compliance with decentralization. In the current state, there is an inherent tension within Ethereum’s consensus mechanism, where both credible neutrality and compliance seem compromised.

Links

RIS

TY  - CPAPER
AU  - Boss, S
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-08-14
T1  - Censorship-Resistance and Compliance Behavior in the Ethereum Consensus Mechanism
JO  - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC)
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC64466.2025.11114701
AB  - This paper examines Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism and the factors shaping compliance behavior through statistical analysis and anomaly detection. Although PoS was designed to uphold credible neutrality and decentralization, the results show diverse behavior among builders, relays, and validators, driven by their roles, incentives, and the system’s design. Features like proposer-builder separation (PBS) and Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) enhance the capacity of builders and relays to influence transaction inclusion, while validators’ influence is mostly limited to their proposer tasks. The paper further shows that partial enforcement of sanctions is insufficient to eliminate sanctioned transactions from the network, which demonstrates the challenge of balancing regulatory compliance with decentralization. In the current state, there is an inherent tension within Ethereum’s consensus mechanism, where both credible neutrality and compliance seem compromised.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Conference paper{nokey,
	title = {Censorship-Resistance and Compliance Behavior in the Ethereum Consensus Mechanism},
	author = {Boss, S and Bodó, B.},
	url = {https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11114701},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC64466.2025.11114701},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-08-14},
	journal = {2025 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC)},
	abstract = {This paper examines Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism and the factors shaping compliance behavior through statistical analysis and anomaly detection. Although PoS was designed to uphold credible neutrality and decentralization, the results show diverse behavior among builders, relays, and validators, driven by their roles, incentives, and the system’s design. Features like proposer-builder separation (PBS) and Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) enhance the capacity of builders and relays to influence transaction inclusion, while validators’ influence is mostly limited to their proposer tasks. The paper further shows that partial enforcement of sanctions is insufficient to eliminate sanctioned transactions from the network, which demonstrates the challenge of balancing regulatory compliance with decentralization. In the current state, there is an inherent tension within Ethereum’s consensus mechanism, where both credible neutrality and compliance seem compromised.},
}

Save .bib

Opinie: Kabinet wil carte blanche om demonstranten te vervolgen external link

Metikoš, L.

Trouw, 2025

Abstract

Juist over ideeën die een deel van de samenleving shockerend of verontrustend vindt, moet in een democratische samenleving vrij debat mogelijk zijn, schrijft Ljubiša Metikoš.

Links

https://www.trouw.nl/opinie/opinie-kabinet-wil-carte-blanche-om-demonstranten-te-vervolgen~b3c35722/

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Deepfake Bills in Denmark and the Netherlands: Right idea, wrong legal framework external link

Hugenholtz, P.B.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/deepfake-bills-in-denmark-and-the-netherlands-right-idea-wrong-legal-framework/

Copyright, deepfake

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Naburig recht zou doel voorbijschieten in strijd tegen deepfakes (reactie op artikel Dirk Visser 31 juli 2025) external link

Valk, E.G.

IE-forum, num: 22837, 2025

Links

https://ie-forum.nl/artikelen/naburig-recht-zou-doel-voorbijschieten-in-strijd-tegen-deepfakes-reactie-op-artikel-dirk-visser-31-juli-2025

Auteursrecht, deepfakes, wet op de naburige rechten

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie 6 maart 2025 (ONB e.a. / Belgische Staat) download

Hugenholtz, P.B.

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 22, num: 177, pp: 3521-3523, 2025

Abstract

Harmonisatie van de wetgevingen. Intellectuele eigendom. Auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Uitvoerende kunstenaars die onder een administratiefrechtelijk statuut zijn aangeworven. Overdracht van naburige rechten bij regelgeving. Reproductierecht en recht van beschikbaarstelling voor het publiek. Vastleggingsrecht, recht tot uitzending en mededeling aan het publiek en distributierecht. Billijke vergoeding in exploitatiecontracten. Toepassing in de tijd. Begrippen ‘handelingen die verricht zijn’ en ‘rechten die verkregen zijn’.

Links

NJ_2025_177

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Case note{nokey,
	title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie 6 maart 2025 (ONB e.a. / Belgische Staat)},
	author = {Hugenholtz, P.B.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/annotatie-bij-hof-van-justitie-van-de-europese-unie-6-maart-2025-ft-al-on-belgische-staat/nj_2025_177/},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-31},
	journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
	issue = {22},
	number = {177},
	pages = {3521-3523},
	abstract = {Harmonisatie van de wetgevingen. Intellectuele eigendom. Auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Uitvoerende kunstenaars die onder een administratiefrechtelijk statuut zijn aangeworven. Overdracht van naburige rechten bij regelgeving. Reproductierecht en recht van beschikbaarstelling voor het publiek. Vastleggingsrecht, recht tot uitzending en mededeling aan het publiek en distributierecht. Billijke vergoeding in exploitatiecontracten. Toepassing in de tijd. Begrippen ‘handelingen die verricht zijn’ en ‘rechten die verkregen zijn’.},
	keywords = {Copyright},
}

Save .bib

Opinie: Optreden tegen deepfakes is een goed idee, maar doe dat dan wel via het portretrecht external link

Valk, E.G.

NRC Handelsblad, 2025

Links

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/07/29/optreden-tegen-deepfakes-is-een-goed-idee-maar-doe-dat-dan-wel-via-het-portretrecht-a4901612

deepfakes, portretrecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Proposal for an EU-Wide Secondary Publication Right external link

Sganga, C., Margoni, T., Senftleben, M. & Szkalej, K.

IIC, vol. 56, iss. : 8, pp: 1516-1552, 2025

Abstract

As of 2025, six EU Member States – Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Bulgaria – have introduced forms of Secondary Publication Rights (SPRs) as an effective tool for rebalancing the bargaining powers of authors and publishers, enhancing Open Access (OA) to scientific publications, and fostering national Open Science (OS) policies. Building on the results of a study conducted for the European Commission and published in 2024, this article supports the introduction of an EU-wide SPR as one of the key priority actions needed to fully align EU copyright law with the policy goals of the European Research Area (ERA). Given the fragmented nature of national approaches and the inherently transnational nature of much of scientific communication and publishing, a harmonised SPR with carefully tailored and balanced features is a precondition for creating a level-playing field for all scientific authors operating within the ERA. This article explores the potential of SPRs and where they intersect with OS, analysing their origins and underlying rationales. It then makes a comparative analysis of national SPR implementations and their main features. On this basis, it makes specific proposals for an EU-wide SPR, emphasising design, scope, and potential impact on stakeholders. It concludes by reflecting on the broader significance of integrating an SPR into the EU’s OS agenda.

Links

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Sganga, C.
AU  - Margoni, T.
AU  - Senftleben, M.
AU  - Szkalej, K.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-22
T1  - Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Proposal for an EU-Wide Secondary Publication Right
JO  - IIC
VL  - 56
IS  - 8
SP  - 1516-1552
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01620-6
AB  - As of 2025, six EU Member States – Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Bulgaria – have introduced forms of Secondary Publication Rights (SPRs) as an effective tool for rebalancing the bargaining powers of authors and publishers, enhancing Open Access (OA) to scientific publications, and fostering national Open Science (OS) policies. Building on the results of a study conducted for the European Commission and published in 2024, this article supports the introduction of an EU-wide SPR as one of the key priority actions needed to fully align EU copyright law with the policy goals of the European Research Area (ERA). Given the fragmented nature of national approaches and the inherently transnational nature of much of scientific communication and publishing, a harmonised SPR with carefully tailored and balanced features is a precondition for creating a level-playing field for all scientific authors operating within the ERA. This article explores the potential of SPRs and where they intersect with OS, analysing their origins and underlying rationales. It then makes a comparative analysis of national SPR implementations and their main features. On this basis, it makes specific proposals for an EU-wide SPR, emphasising design, scope, and potential impact on stakeholders. It concludes by reflecting on the broader significance of integrating an SPR into the EU’s OS agenda.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Proposal for an EU-Wide Secondary Publication Right},
	author = {Sganga, C. and Margoni, T. and Senftleben, M. and Szkalej, K.},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-025-01620-6},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01620-6},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-22},
	journal = {IIC},
	volume = {56},
	issue = {8},
	pages = {1516-1552},
	abstract = {As of 2025, six EU Member States – Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Bulgaria – have introduced forms of Secondary Publication Rights (SPRs) as an effective tool for rebalancing the bargaining powers of authors and publishers, enhancing Open Access (OA) to scientific publications, and fostering national Open Science (OS) policies. Building on the results of a study conducted for the European Commission and published in 2024, this article supports the introduction of an EU-wide SPR as one of the key priority actions needed to fully align EU copyright law with the policy goals of the European Research Area (ERA). Given the fragmented nature of national approaches and the inherently transnational nature of much of scientific communication and publishing, a harmonised SPR with carefully tailored and balanced features is a precondition for creating a level-playing field for all scientific authors operating within the ERA. This article explores the potential of SPRs and where they intersect with OS, analysing their origins and underlying rationales. It then makes a comparative analysis of national SPR implementations and their main features. On this basis, it makes specific proposals for an EU-wide SPR, emphasising design, scope, and potential impact on stakeholders. It concludes by reflecting on the broader significance of integrating an SPR into the EU’s OS agenda.},
}

Save .bib

Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis external link

Senftleben, M., Szkalej, K., Sganga, C. & Margoni, T.

IIC, vol. 56, iss. : 7, pp: 1329–1358, 2025

Abstract

This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.

Links

Copyright, open science, research exceptions, right to research, technological protection measures, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Senftleben, M.
AU  - Szkalej, K.
AU  - Sganga, C.
AU  - Margoni, T.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-22
T1  - Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis
JO  - IIC
VL  - 56
IS  - 7
SP  - 1329–1358
UR  - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-025-01604-6
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01604-6
AB  - This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - open science
K1  - research exceptions
K1  - right to research
K1  - technological protection measures
K1  - Text and Data Mining (TDM)
K1  - three-step test
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis},
	author = {Senftleben, M. and Szkalej, K. and Sganga, C. and Margoni, T.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/towards-a-european-research-freedom-act-a-reform-agenda-for-research-exceptions-in-the-eu-copyright-acquis/european-research-freedom-act/},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01604-6},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-22},
	journal = {IIC},
	volume = {56},
	issue = {7},
	pages = {1329–1358},
	abstract = {This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.},
	keywords = {Copyright, open science, research exceptions, right to research, technological protection measures, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test},
}

Save .bib

Copyright as a Freedom of (Artistic) Expression Right? The Dangers and Human Rights Law Misconceptions in the AG’s Opinion in Pelham II external link

Izyumenko, E.

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/copyright-as-a-freedom-of-artistic-expression-right-the-dangers-and-human-rights-law-misconceptions-in-the-ags-opinion-in-pelham-ii/

Copyright, Freedom of expression, Human rights

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices external link

Boss, S & Bodó, B.

Journal of Law, Market & Innovation, vol. 4, iss. : 2, pp: 304-326, 2025

Abstract

This paper examines the evolving role of the Ethereum blockchain's consensus layer as a potential tool for decentralised law enforcement, with a focus on its Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism and its implications for moderation practices. While it was traditionally designed for credible neutrality, Ethereum's consensus layer is now facing increasing pressure to assist in regulatory enforcement, particularly concerning the U.S. OFAC sanction list. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether a decentralised platform can effectively meet regulatory requirements without compromising its core principles of transparency, security, decentralisation and censorship resistance. This paper dives into the roles and incentives of actors in the consensus mechanism, with a main focus on builders, relays and validators. It also looks into the complexities introduced by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). The paper critically assesses Ethereum's potential to function as a regulatory enforcement tool by discussing its inherent limitations, the current stance on adhering to OFAC sanction lists, and other relevant decision-making factors. It also considers the risks associated with leveraging this decentralised platform for regulatory purposes, including the potential for unintended consequences such as privacy and security concerns, and the erosion of core values. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide insights into whether Ethereum can effectively be leveraged as a regulatory enforcement technology while maintaining its fundamental attributes. We find that Ethereum can leverage compliance to a certain degree, particularly through mechanisms that incentivise validators to exclude sanctioned transactions, and with simple regulation to adhere to. However, the platform's decentralised nature and commitment to censorship resistance means that complete alignment with traditional regulatory frameworks is unlikely. This highlights the fundamental trade-offs that are inherent to attempting to impose centralised control on a decentralised system.

Links

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Boss, S
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-17
T1  - Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices
JO  - Journal of Law, Market & Innovation
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
SP  - 304-326
DO  - https://doi.org/10.13135/2785-7867/12272
AB  - This paper examines the evolving role of the Ethereum blockchain\'s consensus layer as a potential tool for decentralised law enforcement, with a focus on its Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism and its implications for moderation practices. While it was traditionally designed for credible neutrality, Ethereum\'s consensus layer is now facing increasing pressure to assist in regulatory enforcement, particularly concerning the U.S. OFAC sanction list. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether a decentralised platform can effectively meet regulatory requirements without compromising its core principles of transparency, security, decentralisation and censorship resistance. This paper dives into the roles and incentives of actors in the consensus mechanism, with a main focus on builders, relays and validators. It also looks into the complexities introduced by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). The paper critically assesses Ethereum\'s potential to function as a regulatory enforcement tool by discussing its inherent limitations, the current stance on adhering to OFAC sanction lists, and other relevant decision-making factors. It also considers the risks associated with leveraging this decentralised platform for regulatory purposes, including the potential for unintended consequences such as privacy and security concerns, and the erosion of core values. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide insights into whether Ethereum can effectively be leveraged as a regulatory enforcement technology while maintaining its fundamental attributes. We find that Ethereum can leverage compliance to a certain degree, particularly through mechanisms that incentivise validators to exclude sanctioned transactions, and with simple regulation to adhere to. However, the platform\'s decentralised nature and commitment to censorship resistance means that complete alignment with traditional regulatory frameworks is unlikely. This highlights the fundamental trade-offs that are inherent to attempting to impose centralised control on a decentralised system.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices},
	author = {Boss, S and Bodó, B.},
	url = {https://ojs.unito.it/index.php/JLMI/article/view/12272},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.13135/2785-7867/12272},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-17},
	journal = {Journal of Law, Market & Innovation},
	volume = {4},
	issue = {2},
	pages = {304-326},
	abstract = {This paper examines the evolving role of the Ethereum blockchain\'s consensus layer as a potential tool for decentralised law enforcement, with a focus on its Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism and its implications for moderation practices. While it was traditionally designed for credible neutrality, Ethereum\'s consensus layer is now facing increasing pressure to assist in regulatory enforcement, particularly concerning the U.S. OFAC sanction list. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether a decentralised platform can effectively meet regulatory requirements without compromising its core principles of transparency, security, decentralisation and censorship resistance. This paper dives into the roles and incentives of actors in the consensus mechanism, with a main focus on builders, relays and validators. It also looks into the complexities introduced by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). The paper critically assesses Ethereum\'s potential to function as a regulatory enforcement tool by discussing its inherent limitations, the current stance on adhering to OFAC sanction lists, and other relevant decision-making factors. It also considers the risks associated with leveraging this decentralised platform for regulatory purposes, including the potential for unintended consequences such as privacy and security concerns, and the erosion of core values. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide insights into whether Ethereum can effectively be leveraged as a regulatory enforcement technology while maintaining its fundamental attributes. We find that Ethereum can leverage compliance to a certain degree, particularly through mechanisms that incentivise validators to exclude sanctioned transactions, and with simple regulation to adhere to. However, the platform\'s decentralised nature and commitment to censorship resistance means that complete alignment with traditional regulatory frameworks is unlikely. This highlights the fundamental trade-offs that are inherent to attempting to impose centralised control on a decentralised system.},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex