數位資產追討：當理想與法治發生衝突時

在數位資產領域，遺失或被盜資產的恢復仍然是一個有爭議的問題。過去，去中心化和不變性的傳統原則常常阻礙資產追回。然而，英國法院已經開創了將數位資產視為財產的先例，為追回數位資產鋪平了道路。鬱金香交易等正在進行的案件可能會決定區塊鏈開發人員是否有返還被盜或失去資產的信託責任，這可能會挑戰去中心化和不變性的教條。儘管如此，像 BSV 這樣的區塊鏈平台已經滿足了對資產回收工具的需求，為面臨這些挑戰的投資者提供了可行的解決方案。

Recovering one’s property when lost through theft, fraud, or simply misplacing it should not be a controversial topic. Yet, in the digital asset space, certain foundational principles and the ideologues that cling to them often prove a barrier to asset recovery. However, in the United Kingdom, courts have laid down a marker for treating digital assets as property, and an ongoing asset recovery case could force blockchain miners and developers to choose between their commitment to ideals—real or imagined—and the rule of law.

當財產因盜竊、欺詐或丟失而丟失時，如何追回財產不應該成為一個有爭議的話題。然而，在數位資產領域，某些基本原則和堅持這些原則的意識形態往往成為資產追討的障礙。然而，在英國，法院已經制定了將數位資產視為財產的標誌，而正在進行的資產追回案件可能會迫使區塊鏈礦工和開發人員在他們對理想（真實的或想像的）的承諾與法治之間做出選擇。

Crypto-anarchists, and before them, the Cypherpunk movement of the 80s and 90s, advocated for the use of cryptography and decentralized technologies to protect privacy, promote individual freedoms, and counteract third-party surveillance. Two of the fundamental principles that came out of these movements and were applied to the blockchain were ‘decentralization‘ and ‘immutability,‘ the mantras of many blockchain philosophers.

加密無政府主義者以及在他們之前的 80 年代和 90 年代的密碼朋克運動主張使用密碼學和去中心化技術來保護隱私、促進個人自由並對抗第三方監視。這些運動產生並應用於區塊鏈的兩個基本原則是“去中心化”和“不變性”，這是許多區塊鏈哲學家的口頭禪。

Decentralization refers to the distribution of power and control among a network of participants rather than relying on a central authority—in theory—preventing single points of failure and reducing the risk of censorship or manipulation by any one entity. Immutability refers to the inability to change or alter data once it has been recorded on the blockchain, which is intended to ensure that transactions and data recorded are tamper-proof and resistant to revision after the fact, thus fostering trust in the integrity of the blockchain and its historical record.

去中心化是指在參與者網路之間分配權力和控制權，而不是依賴中央權威（理論上），防止單點故障並降低任何一個實體審查或操縱的風險。不變性是指資料一旦記錄在區塊鏈上就無法更改或更改，旨在確保記錄的交易和資料防篡改且不可修改，從而培養對區塊鏈完整性的信任及其歷史記錄。

Unfortunately for proponents of these ‘foundational principles,’ there’s a growing recognition that decentralization in the blockchain space might be a myth, and as for immutability, opinion is split on whether it is necessary to always maintain it or if there are some situations that may also warrant a rethink of this seemingly non-negotiable characteristic.

不幸的是，對於這些「基本原則」的支持者來說，人們越來越認識到區塊鏈領域的去中心化可能是一個神話，而至於不變性，對於是否有必要始終維護它或是否在某些情況下可能會發生變化，意見存在分歧。

One such situation, which, to some extent, challenges both of these core principles, is the contentious topic of digital asset recovery.

其中一種情況在某種程度上挑戰了這兩個核心原則，那就是數位資產追回這個有爭議的話題。

Before getting into the meat and potatoes of the debate, it’s necessary to clarify that there are two distinct types of recovery to speak of: that involving assets lost through frauds, such as Ponzi schemes (FTX being a recent high-profile example) and those stolen through hacks or otherwise made inaccessible (e.g., lost keys).

在進入爭論的重點之前，有必要澄清一下，有兩種不同類型的追回：涉及透過欺詐而損失的資產，例如龐氏騙局（FTX 是最近引人注目的例子）和那些涉及欺詐的資產損失的追回。

The two present very different challenges, with recovery of the former being relatively
commonplace and uncontroversial, the latter decidedly not.

兩者提出了截然不同的挑戰，前者的恢復相對常見且沒有爭議，而後者則絕對不是。

Recovering assets lost to fraud often involves legal recourse, investigation, and potential restitution efforts. Investors losing money due to fraud is not exclusive to the digital asset space, and when a fraud is uncovered and those behind it put to trial, the courts generally make every effort to reimburse or compensate victims where possible.

追回因詐欺而損失的資產通常涉及法律追索、調查和潛在的歸還工作。投資者因詐欺而蒙受損失的現象並非數位資產領域所獨有，當詐欺行為被發現且幕後黑手受到審判時，法院通常會盡一切努力在可能的情況下補償或補償受害者。

In the case of FTX, for example, victims of Sam Bankman-Fried’s fraud look likely to get a large amount, if not all, of their investment returned, with the caveat that this is partly due to FTX having a large portion of its remaining assets in tokens, the price of which has skyrocketed since the FTX fraud was uncovered.

以FTX 為例，山姆·班克曼·弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried) 欺詐行為的受害者看起來可能會獲得大量（如果不是全部）投資返還，但需要注意的是，這部分是由於FTX擁有其剩餘投資的很大一部分。

On the other hand, recovering assets stolen through hacks or lost due to inaccessible keys is a more complex and technical challenge. In many cases, once funds are stolen or keys are lost, they become irretrievable without specific technical solutions. Progress is being made in this regard, but it remains limited to certain blockchains, BSV Blockchain (BSV) being a prominent example.

另一方面，恢復因駭客攻擊而被盜或因無法存取金鑰而遺失的資產是一項更複雜和技術性的挑戰。在許多情況下，一旦資金被盜或鑰匙遺失，如果沒有特定的技術解決方案，它們將無法挽回。這方面正在取得進展，但仍僅限於某些區塊鏈，BSV 區塊鏈（BSV）就是一個突出的例子。

Such progress, on top of returning assets to their rightful owners, serves to dispel the common misconception that digital asset investors must sign a Faustian pact when getting into the space: to enjoy the benefits of the technology, one must accept that lost or stolen assets often cannot be recovered.

除了將資產返還給其合法所有者之外，這種進步還有助於消除一種普遍的誤解，即數位資產投資者在進入該領域時必須簽署一份浮士德協議：為了享受該技術的好處，人們必須接受遺失或被盜的資產往往無法恢復。

UK courts setting the standard

英國法院制定標準

“The point is that we can recover it, and there have been successful recoveries,” says Charlotte Hill, Partner at international law firm Penningtons Manches Cooper, which is a board member of the Crypto Fraud and Asset Recovery Network (CFAAR).

國際律師事務所Penningtons Manches Cooper 的合夥人、加密貨幣欺詐和資產追回網絡(CFAAR) 的董事會成員夏洛特·希爾(Charlotte Hill) 表示：「關鍵是我們可以追回它，而且已經成功追回了。

Launched in August 2021, CFAAR brought together lawyers, barristers, forensic accountants, corporate intelligence, and asset recovery professionals with the purpose of developing “best practices” in digital asset recovery.

CFAAR 於 2021 年 8 月推出，匯集了律師、大律師、法務會計師、企業情報和資產追回專業人士，旨在開發數位資產追回的「最佳實踐」。

Speaking with CoinGeek, Hill points out that when it comes to digital asset recovery, the U.K. courts have been meeting the challenges head-on.

希爾接受 CoinGeek 採訪時指出，在數位資產追回方面，英國法院一直在正面應對挑戰。

“The English courts were very quick to deal with the problems that were arising, which predominantly stemmed out of fraudulent actions or theft or some sort of scam,” says Hill.

「英國法院非常迅速地處理了出現的問題，這些問題主要源於欺詐行為或盜竊或某種騙局，」希爾說。

One such problem was whether digital assets could be classified as property within the traditional legal framework. If something can be considered property, then the theft of loss of it does not change who the rightful owner is, and any service or network that is responsible for overseeing such assets may owe a duty of care to the owner, and thus could be compelled to do anything within its power to return said assets to their rightful owner.

其中一個問題是數位資產是否可以在傳統法律框架內被歸類為財產。如果某物可以被視為財產，那麼它的被盜或丟失並不會改變其合法所有者是誰，並且任何負責監督此類資產的服務或網絡都可能對所有者負有註意義務，因此可能將被強制在其權力範圍內盡一切努力將上述資產歸還給其合法所有者。

Some blockchain advocates and developers argue that digital assets such as Bitcoin exist outside of the laws that apply to other assets, such as property law. As a novel asset type, its status should be decided by fresh legislation, not the courts applying old ones.

一些區塊鏈倡導者和開發者認為，比特幣等數位資產存在於適用於其他資產的法律（例如物權法）之外。作為一種新型資產類型，其地位應由新的立法決定，而不是由法院適用舊的立法。

This is certainly the case being made by the likes of Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) and Ripple
in the United States, both of whom face court cases against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). They have persistently argued the financial sector regulator is overstepping its jurisdiction by attempting to apply existing securities laws to their ‘unique’ asset type and demands to be left alone until Congress comes up with digital asset-specific legislation.

美國的 Coinbase（納斯達克股票代碼：COIN）和 Ripple 等公司就是這樣，它們都面臨著針對美國證券交易委員會（SEC）的法庭訴訟。他們一直認為，金融部門監管機構試圖將現有的證券法應用於其「獨特」的資產類型，這是越權行為，並要求在國會出台針對數位資產的立法之前不要干涉。

Whether digital assets are securities is another debate—spoiler, they almost all are—however, on the question of whether they can be considered property, several cases in the U.K. have set a precedent for recognizing that the industry is not so different in nature to other sectors, clearing a potential hurdle to recovery.

數位資產是否屬於證券是另一場爭論——幾乎所有的數位資產都是證券——但是，在它們是否可以被視為財產的問題上，英國的幾個案例已經樹立了一個先例，讓人們認識到該行業在本質上與證券業並沒有太大不同。

“The English Courts grappled with it and very quickly decided on an interim basis that crypto can be treated as property, we really refined our concepts to this new asset class,” explains Hill.

「英國法院對此進行了努力，並很快臨時決定將加密貨幣視為財產，我們確實針對這一新資產類別完善了我們的概念，」希爾解釋道。

The implication of this, says Hill, is that “in short, we can take steps to recover this new asset class.”

希爾表示，這意味著“簡而言之，我們可以採取措施恢復這種新的資產類別。”

The key cases in question include AA v Persons Unknown & Ors Re Bitcoin (2019), in which the court was willing to grant proprietary injunctions against all defendants, freezing fraudulently obtained Bitcoin. In granting the injunctions, Judge Bryan ruled that “crypto assets such as Bitcoin are property.”

相關的關鍵案件包括 AA v Persons Unknown & Ors Re Bitcoin (2019)，法院願意對所有被告頒發專有禁令，凍結以欺詐方式獲得的比特幣。在授予禁令時，布萊恩法官裁定「比特幣等加密資產屬於財產」。

Incidentally, the case also demonstrates another innovation of the U.K. courts, being able to sue ‘persons unknown.’ This is a useful tool when dealing with the frequently anonymous and pseudo-anonymous digital asset space.

順便說一句，該案還展示了英國法院的另一項創新，能夠起訴「身份不明的人」。

The property question was later affirmed in the case of Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Others (2023), in which the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether Bitcoin developers owe fiduciary duties to the user, specifically whether the developers should be required to return the claimant’s lost property (Bitcoin) to them if they can prove ownership. The Court unanimously held that there was a serious issue to be tried on this point and remitted the case for trial before the High Court.

財產問題後來在 Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Others (2023) 案中得到確認，其中上訴法院被要求考慮比特幣開發商是否對用戶負有信託責任，特別是開發商是否應該如果索賠人能夠證明所有權，則需要將其丟失的財產（比特幣）歸還給他們。法院一致認為，這一點存在嚴重問題需要審理，並將案件發回高等法院審理。

The U.K. Law Commission referenced this judgment in its June 2023 report on digital assets, stating that the case had “brought a high degree of certainty to the law of England and Wales: it recognizes that crypto-tokens can be things to which personal property rights can relate.”

英國法律委員會在其2023 年6 月的數位資產報告中引用了這一判決，指出該案件“為英格蘭和威爾斯的法律帶來了高度確定性：它認識到加密代幣可以是個人財產權的對象” 。

This cleared one barrier to recovery (in the U.K. at least) but several other significant obstacles remain.

這清除了復甦的一個障礙（至少在英國），但其他幾個重大障礙仍然存在。

“The challenges lie around enforcement and around jurisdiction, because by virtue of this asset class, they are borderless and many of the entities, to the extent that they are centralized in some way, are typically offshore,” says Hill.

「挑戰在於執法和管轄權方面，因為由於這種資產類別，它們是無國界的，而且許多實體，在某種程度上以某種方式集中化，通常都是離岸的，」希爾說。

Another issue she notes is simply the costs involved.

她指出的另一個問題就是所涉及的成本。

“You have individual investors that have lost money or had however many thousands of crypto stolen, but unfortunately, because of the cost of the litigation—if it’s quite a legally challenging case that takes time and effort, it will cost. It quite often means, unfortunately, individuals can’t afford to take the action required in order to recover the assets.”

「有些個人投資者損失了錢，或者有成千上萬的加密貨幣被盜，但不幸的是，由於訴訟成本——如果這是一個相當具有法律挑戰性的案件，需要時間和精力，那麼它就會付出代價。不幸的是，這通常意味著個人無力採取必要的行動來追回資產。

This means bad luck for smaller investors, where the cost of the process, barring getting involved in a large class action, simply outweighs the benefit and chance of recovery.

這對小投資者來說意味著厄運，除非捲入大規模集體訴訟，否則這個過程的成本根本超過了收益和復甦的機會。

Despite these challenges, Hill is optimistic about digital asset recovery from fraud, pointing out that the odds are improving.

儘管面臨這些挑戰，希爾對從詐欺中追回數位資產持樂觀態度，並指出可能性正在提高。

“In terms of actually seeking to recover the asset, if it’s in, for example, a centralized wallet, it is more often than not possible, as long as that exchange or whoever is holding the wallet is willing to play ball with you.”

“就實際尋求收回資產而言，如果它位於中心化錢包中，那麼只要該交易所或持有錢包的人願意與你合作，那麼通常是不可能的。”

Whether a prominent exchange, such as Binance or Coinbase, is willing to play ball may be a big if, but this rosier take on digital asset recovery clashes with a common conception, or perhaps misconception, of the process being prohibitively difficult.

Binance 或 Coinbase 等知名交易所是否願意參與可能是一個很大的假設，但這種對數位資產追回的樂觀態度與人們普遍認為這一過程極其困難的看法相衝突，或者可能是誤解。

Easier than it looks?

比看起來容易嗎？

The idea that recovering digital assets once ‘lost’ is a fool’s errand likely stems from conflating assets lost through fraud and Ponzi schemes with those stolen through hacking or literally lost, i.e., misplaced keys.

認為一旦「遺失」就恢復數位資產是一件愚蠢的事情的想法可能源於將透過詐欺和龐氏騙局遺失的資產與透過駭客竊取或字面上遺失的資產（即遺失的金鑰）混為一談。

In the case of the former, it could be argued that it’s actually an easier process than with certain other asset classes.

就前者而言，可以說它實際上比某些其他資產類別更容易。

“At the moment, I’ve got a cryptocurrency tracing case on, I’ve got a couple of traditional payment fraud cases where you’re tracing fiat currency through bank accounts, and I’ve also got a third case where a guy was defrauded into buying gold bars. Having those three sets of cases is a real stark reminder of just how traceable crypto is,” explains Dan Wyatt, partner at RPC, one of the founding law firms of CFAAR.

「目前，我有一個加密貨幣追蹤案例，我有幾個傳統的支付詐欺案例，透過銀行帳戶追蹤法定貨幣，我還有第三個案例，一個人在被騙購買金條。這三組案例清楚地提醒我們，加密貨幣是多麼可追蹤。

“If it’s gone through a mixer and been spread right around the world it’s more difficult, but it’s completely possible.”

“如果它通過混合器並傳播到世界各地，那就更困難了，但這是完全可能的。”

So, in contrast to ‘traditional’ assets, blockchain-based assets are actually easier to trace, thanks to the clear and public transaction records. Barring the assets going through a mixer or mixing service—platforms that can obfuscate the origin of digital assets funds by mixing coins with others and sending them to different wallet addresses to make transactions anonymous and difficult to trace—it’s relatively straightforward to follow the paper trail.

因此，與「傳統」資產相比，基於區塊鏈的資產實際上更容易追踪，這要歸功於清晰且公開的交易記錄。除非資產通過混合器或混合服務——這些平台可以通過將代幣與其他貨幣混合併將其發送到不同的錢包地址來混淆數位資產資金的來源，從而使交易匿名且難以追踪——追踪紙質線索相對簡單。

These controversial mixer services are also becoming increasingly difficult to access as they often find themselves on the sanctions list, particularly in the U.S., due to their utility for money laundering and terrorist financing— Tornado Cash, Sinbad.io, and ChipMixer are prominent examples.

這些有爭議的混合器服務也變得越來越難以訪問，因為它們經常發現自己被列入製裁名單，特別是在美國，因為它們用於洗錢和恐怖主義融資- Tornado Cash、Sinbad.io 和ChipMixer就是突出的例子。

Comparatively, Wyatt states that in a standard payment fraud case, “there’s nothing you can do at all; all you know is that your client has instructed a payment to a bank account. You have to go to that bank; you have to ask it for disclosure, you have to probably get an order, then you’ll get account payment to another ten bank accounts, you’ll have to go to those banks, that’s ten more orders for ten more disclosures. It’s actually really clunky and time-consuming.”

相較之下，懷亞特表示，在標準的支付詐欺案件中，「你根本無能為力；您所知道的是您的客戶已指示向銀行帳戶付款。你必須去那家銀行；你必須要求它披露，你可能必須得到一個訂單，然後你將得到另外十個銀行帳戶的帳戶付款，你必須去那些銀行，這就是十個訂單，十個更多的披露。它實際上非常笨重且耗時。

Rather than this awkward process, digital assets can often be traced to or via exchanges, at which point the next stage is to freeze and repossess them. Hill suggests this can also be a straightforward affair, with embattled digital asset exchanges increasingly wanting to be perceived as legitimate and law-abiding businesses.

數位資產通常可以追溯到交易所或透過交易所進行追踪，而不是這個尷尬的過程，此時下一階段就是凍結和收回它們。希爾認為，這也可能是一件簡單的事情，因為陷入困境的數位資產交易所越來越希望被視為合法且守法的企業。

“More known exchanges will usually want to uphold their reputation, with the right court order or documentation to prove ownership, they will return it. Whereas if it was in an offshore bank or something like that, that’s a very different challenge and actually takes a lot longer and requires a lot more cooperation.”

「更知名的交易所通常會希望維護自己的聲譽，只要有正確的法院命令或文件來證明所有權，他們就會歸還它。但如果是在離岸銀行或類似機構，那就是一個非常不同的挑戰，實際上需要更長的時間，需要更多的合作。

This positive take on digital asset recovery will come as music to the ears of the legion of victims of crypto-fraud and Ponzi schemes, such as FTX, whereas Hill points out, “ironically, it appears that not only are the victims going to be paid in full but there’s going to be a profit.”

這種對數位資產追回的積極態度將成為加密貨幣詐欺和龐氏騙局（例如 FTX）受害者耳中的美妙旋律，而 Hill 指出，「諷刺的是，受害者似乎不僅會全額付款，但會有利潤。

However, the outlook remains decidedly less optimistic for the many digital asset investors who have lost access to their property, thanks to misplaced keys or hacks.

然而，對於許多因鑰匙遺失或駭客攻擊而失去財產存取權的數位資產投資者來說，前景仍然不容樂觀。

Recovering stolen or lost assets

追回被竊或遺失的資產

In 2017, digital asset research firm Chainalysis estimated that between 2.78 and 3.79 million, or between 17% and 23% of all BTC, at the time, had been lost. In March last year, economist Timothy Peterson went further, suggesting that “six million of the 19.3 million bitcoin mined have been irretrievably lost.”

2017 年，數位資產研究公司 Chainaanalysis 估計，當時有 278 至 379 萬枚（即所有 BTC 的 17% 至 23%）遺失。去年 3 月，經濟學家蒂莫西·彼得森 (Timothy Peterson) 更進一步指出，“已開采的 1930 萬枚比特幣中，有 600 萬枚已經無可挽回地丟失了。”

The reason such a huge cache of assets is considered ‘irretrievable’ is due to the complexity of the process, throwing up roadblocks at several different stages of recovery.

如此巨大的資產快取被認為是「無法檢索」的原因是由於過程的複雜性，在幾個不同的恢復階段遇到了障礙。

First, the person or entity that suffered the loss or theft would need to prove ownership. This is arguably the easiest and least controversial part of the process, especially now that digital assets are established as property in law (in the U.K., at least).

首先，遭受損失或被竊的個人或實體需要證明所有權。這可以說是過程中最簡單且爭議最小的部分，尤其是現在數位資產已被確立為法律財產（至少在英國）。

Second, it would need to be established who, if anyone, is responsible for a certain blockchain; in the case of BTC, for example, this would be the ‘BTC Core Developers,’ a somewhat anomalous and distributed group of people who contribute to the ongoing development and maintenance of the BTC protocol and its implementation. Lastly, a court order would need to be issued compelling the group of developers, miners, or custodial organizations to implement the reassignment of coins, either by getting enough hash power to undo approved transactions or adding new code.

其次，需要確定誰（如果有的話）負責某個區塊鏈；例如，就 BTC 而言，這將是“BTC 核心開發人員”，這是一個有點異常且分散的群體，他們為 BTC 協議及其實施的持續開發和維護做出了貢獻。最後，需要發布法院命令，迫使開發人員、礦工或託管組織實施代幣的重新分配，要么獲得足夠的算力來撤消已批准的交易，要么添加新代碼。

But even with a court order, implementing changes to a pseudo-decentralized network like BTC would be extremely challenging. If the significant hash power required to implement changes was attained or new code added to the protocol, there’s still no guarantee that all network participants would accept these changes, potentially leading to a contentious hard fork or individuals refusing to comply with the court order.

但即使有法院命令，對 BTC 這樣的偽去中心化網路實施改變也將極具挑戰性。如果實現了實施更改所需的重要算力或在協議中添加了新代碼，仍然不能保證所有網路參與者都會接受這些更改，這可能會導致有爭議的硬分叉或個人拒絕遵守法院命令。

Robin Smith, founder of ToHonesty, a startup company aiming to carve out a niche as an intermediary in the digital asset recovery field, suggests that part of the problem is a matter of mindset rather than technical barriers.

ToHonesty 是一家致力於在數位資產回收領域作為中介機構開拓市場的新創公司，其創辦人 Robin Smith 表示，部分問題在於心態問題，而不是技術障礙。

“If people thought stealing digital assets and recovering or resigning coins—getting the hash power to do it—was just the same as a bailiff going to a thief’s house and getting the property back, people wouldn’t dispute it at all,” Smith tells CoinGeek.

「如果人們認為竊取數位資產並恢復或放棄硬幣（獲得哈希能力來做到這一點）就像法警去小偷家取回財產一樣，那麼人們根本不會對此提出異議，」史密斯告訴 CoinGeek。

He goes on to suggest that the process itself is not the problem.

他接著表示，過程本身並不是問題。

“Technically, the mechanics of it are really well understood. You wouldn’t even need to get the developers to change the code. You could get an injunction, theoretically, that would compel the miners to patch the code themselves. If they say ‘we can’t do this,’ then it’s possibly contempt of court.”

「從技術上講，它的機制確實很好理解。您甚至不需要讓開發人員更改程式碼。從理論上講，你可以獲得一項禁令，迫使礦工自己修補程式碼。如果他們說‘我們不能這樣做’，那麼這可能是藐視法庭。

Compelling enough of a disparate network of miners to comply with an injunction or court order might seem even more fanciful than compelling a developer group, but industrial-sized mining operations are big business. Depending on jurisdiction, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that a large digital asset mining company might feel it needs to comply with court orders for the purposes of legitimacy, or even PR.

迫使足夠多的不同礦工網絡遵守禁令或法院命令似乎比強迫開發商團體更加異想天開，但工業規模的採礦作業是一筆大生意。根據司法管轄區的不同，大型數位資產挖礦公司可能會出於合法性甚至公關的目的而認為需要遵守法院命令。

By way of example, U.S.-based mining company Marathon Digital (NASDAQ: MARA) has cooperated with two different SEC subpoenas related to its operations; while they were not asking the firm to do something as seemingly drastic as partake in a reassigning of coins or changing of code, it does at least show a willingness to cooperate with authorities when compelled to do so.

舉例來說，美國礦業公司 Marathon Digital（納斯達克股票代碼：MARA）已配合 SEC 發出與其營運相關的兩份不同傳票；雖然他們並沒有要求該公司做一些看似激烈的事情，例如參與重新分配硬幣或更改代碼，但它至少表明願意在被迫這樣做時與當局合作。

However, even if this was a possibility, without total consensus, controversial decisions made on a blockchain have a habit of resulting in forks. One of the most notable instances occurred on the Ethereum blockchain.

然而，即使這是一種可能性，在沒有完全共識的情況下，在區塊鏈上做出的有爭議的決定往往會導致分叉。最引人注目的實例之一發生在以太坊區塊鏈上。

The DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) was a smart contract platform built on Ethereum, essentially a venture capital fund in the form of a smart contract. In 2016, a vulnerability in the DAO’s code was exploited, resulting in the theft of approximately $50 million worth of ETH.

DAO（去中心化自治組織）是一個建立在以太坊上的智慧合約平台，本質上是智慧合約形式的創投基金。 2016 年，DAO 程式碼中的漏洞被利用，導致價值約 5,000 萬美元的 ETH 被盜。

In response to the hack, the Ethereum community faced a difficult decision, some arguing for a hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain to effectively reverse the unauthorized transactions and restore the stolen funds to their rightful owners, while others argued that such an action would violate the principles of ‘immutability’ and ‘decentralization.’

為了應對這次駭客攻擊，以太坊社群面臨一個艱難的決定，有些人主張對以太坊區塊鏈進行硬分叉，以有效逆轉未經授權的交易，並將被盜資金歸還給其合法所有者，而另一些人則認為這種行為將違反「不變性」和「去中心化」原則。

Ultimately, the community chose to proceed with a hard fork to reverse the transactions associated with the hack, which led to the creation of two separate blockchains: Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC). Ethereum continued with the hard fork, undoing the hack and returning the stolen funds, while Ethereum Classic remained on the original blockchain.

最終，社群選擇進行硬分叉來逆轉與駭客攻擊相關的交易，從而創建了兩個獨立的區塊鏈：以太坊（ETH）和以太坊經典（ETC）。以太坊繼續進行硬分叉，撤銷駭客攻擊並返還被盜資金，而以太坊經典則保留在原始區塊鏈上。

In this case, the controversial decision was taken due to the huge number of people affected by the hack, and the value of the assets involved. But even then, the decision was taken reluctantly and with consequences for the blockchain’s future.

在這種情況下，由於受駭客影響的人數眾多以及所涉資產的價值，做出了有爭議的決定。但即便如此，這個決定還是不情願地做出的，並對區塊鏈的未來產生了影響。

Imagine, then, how difficult it would be for a single individual to retrieve lost assets. As Hill points out, “if you’ve lost your private key, there’s nothing at the moment you can do.” However, she does add the caveat, “unless, of course, the Tulip Trading case changes a lot.”

那麼想像一下，對一個人來說，找回失去的資產會有多困難。正如希爾指出的那樣，“如果你丟失了私鑰，那麼目前你無能為力。”然而，她確實補充了警告，“當然，除非鬱金香交易案發生很大變化。”

This is the same Tulip Trading case which, as we’ve seen, more or less settled the ‘are digital assets property?’ question in the U.K., and, depending on how the case pans out, it may have an even more landmark precedent up its sleeve.

正如我們所看到的，這與鬱金香交易案相同，或多或少解決了「數位資產在英國是財產嗎？」的問題，並且根據案件的結果，它可能有一個更具里程碑意義的先例袖手旁觀。

Tulip Trading

鬱金香貿易

In December 2023, the U.K. High Court ruled that if Tulip Trading Limited can prove it owns 110,000 BTC at a preliminary issue trial in 2025, there is a case to be heard that the defendants owe fiduciary duties to return those BTC to their rightful owner.

2023 年 12 月，英國高等法院裁定，如果 Tulip Trading Limited 能夠在 2025 年的初步問題審判中證明其擁有 110,000 BTC，則被告負有信託義務，將這些 BTC 返還給其合法所有者。

Bitcoin Association for BSV (now called BSV Association) has already settled the case with Tulip, and the remaining ‘others’ are essentially a list of BTC Core Developers.

BSV 比特幣協會（現稱為 BSV 協會）已經與 Tulip 達成和解，剩下的「其他人」基本上就是 BTC 核心開發者名單。

Tulip Trading, which is owned by Dr. Craig Wright—who claims to have lost access to the coins following a hack on his home in 2020—is arguing that developers of blockchains owe fiduciary and common law duties to owners of digital assets, in large part due to the centralized nature of blockchain development.

克雷格·賴特(Craig Wright) 博士擁有的鬱金香交易公司(Tulip Trading) 聲稱，在2020 年他的家遭到駭客攻擊後，他失去了對這些代幣的訪問權限。鏈開發人員在很大程度上對數位資產所有者負有信託和普通法義務部分原因是區塊鏈開發的中心化性質。

“The key points in Tulip Trading is whether the developers of the Bitcoin network, who support and run the Bitcoin network, owe duties to the victims of fraud, effectively to amend the blockchain and all the code to help them recover assets where they’ve had keys stolen,” explains Wyatt.

「鬱金香交易的關鍵點是，支援和營運比特幣網路的比特幣網路開發者是否對詐欺受害者負有責任，有效地修改區塊鏈和所有程式碼，以幫助他們追回資產。鑰匙被盜了，」懷亞特解釋。

“It’s a fundamentally important case because if the claimant wins, well, all hell would break loose, most likely.”

“這是一個非常重要的案件，因為如果索賠人獲勝，那麼一切都很有可能會崩潰。”

The seismic significance revolves around developers of blockchains having largely managed to avoid any legal liability arising from their control of vast networks that govern trillions of dollars in assets. If blockchain developers were found to owe fiduciary duties—the legal responsibility to act solely in the best interest of another party—to the owners of assets on the blockchain they oversee, then certain blockchains would have to radically change their philosophy and way of operating – or else potentially find themselves in contempt of numerous court orders and injunctions.

其重大意義在於，區塊鏈開發商在很大程度上設法避免了因控制管理數萬億美元資產的龐大網路而產生的任何法律責任。如果區塊鏈開發人員被發現對他們所監管的區塊鏈上的資產所有者負有信託義務（僅以另一方最佳利益行事的法律責任），那麼某些區塊鏈將不得不從根本上改變他們的理念和運作方式 -否則可能會發現自己藐視眾多法院命令和禁令。

For this reason, even in the instance of a Tulip Trading win, Wyatt suggests the fight wouldn’t end there:

基於這個原因，即使在鬱金香交易獲勝的情況下，懷亞特表示戰鬥也不會就此結束：

“I imagine people wouldn’t comply with it for a start, but if they were to comply with it, I imagine it would result in a new version of Bitcoin because it would be fundamental to how the whole ecosystem operates.”

“我想人們一開始不會遵守它，但如果他們遵守它，我想這將導致比特幣的新版本，因為它將是整個生態系統運作的基礎。”

It appears then, like so many who have lost digital assets, Tulip Trading is running up against that dogmatic brick wall of ‘decentralization’ and ‘immutability,’ which comes part and parcel with many blockchain ecosystems.

看來，就像許多失去數位資產的人一樣，鬱金香交易正在遭遇「去中心化」和「不變性」的教條磚牆，而這正是許多區塊鏈生態系統的重要組成部分。

However, this is not universally the case when it comes to blockchain technology and digital assets. BSV Association, the Switzerland-based steward organization of the BSV blockchain (and former defendant in the Tulip Trading case), has taken a more proactive approach to digital asset recovery.

然而，對於區塊鏈技術和數位資產而言，情況並非普遍如此。 BSV 協會是總部位於瑞士的 BSV 區塊鏈管理組織（也是鬱金香交易案的前被告），它採取了更積極主動的方法來追回數位資產。

BSV and DAR

BSV 和 DAR

Connor Murray, Stewardship Director at BSV Association, described the organization’s role as “ensuring network integrity and compliance with legal standards,” with the intention of making BSV “a reliable and trustworthy platform for digital innovation.”

BSV 協會管理總監 Connor Murray 將該組織的角色描述為“確保網路完整性並遵守法律標準”，旨在使 BSV 成為“可靠且值得信賴的數位創新平台”。

Putting its money where its mouth is, in October 2022, the BSV Association launched the
Blacklist Manager software tool to permit miners to freeze digital assets on the BSV blockchain—provided that a court order or equivalent documentation has been secured. Blacklist Manager was a key first step towards digital asset recovery on the BSV blockchain.

言歸正傳，BSV 協會於 2022 年 10 月推出了 Blacklist Manager 軟體工具，允許礦工凍結 BSV 區塊鏈上的數位資產——前提是已獲得法院命令或同等文件。 Blacklist Manager 是 BSV 區塊鏈上數位資產復原的關鍵第一步。

This year, the Association took the next step by introducing the Digital Asset Recovery (DAR) tool, which “enables the recovery or freezing of digital assets in cases of loss, theft, or if they require ownership or transfer” and delivers “a protocol that aligns blockchain technology with existing legal frameworks for asset protection.”

今年，該協會採取了下一步措施，推出了數位資產恢復 (DAR) 工具，該工具“可以在數位資產遺失、被盜或需要所有權或轉讓的情況下恢復或凍結”，並提供“一個協議”使區塊鏈技術與現有的資產保護法律框架保持一致。

When announcing the package of security enhancements in which DAR was introduced, the BSV Association said it was “essential in establishing a regulatory-compliant network and framework for digital assets, as well as for enforcement and compliance with existing property laws.”

BSV 協會在宣布引入 DAR 的一攬子安全增強措施時表示，這對於「為數位資產建立符合監管的網路和框架，以及執行和遵守現有財產法至關重要」。

Of course, the BSV Association is a centralized organization and, as such, has drawn criticism from the crypto-anarchist purists that cling to decentralization as a fundamental pillar of the technology. But the key difference between the BSV Association and those groups in charge of other blockchains is that the former does not have any power to change the underlying BSV protocol—it is, as the BSV Association says, a steward of a set in stone protocol. Other blockchains—as shown by the Ethereum DAO fiasco—are very much in the business of exercising centralized power to make drastic changes to the underlying technology.

當然，BSV 協會是一個中心化組織，因此受到了加密無政府主義純粹主義者的批評，他們堅持將去中心化作為該技術的基本支柱。但 BSV 協會與負責其他區塊鏈的組織之間的主要區別在於，前者沒有任何權力更改底層 BSV 協議——正如 BSV 協會所說，它是一套固定協議的管理者。其他區塊鏈（如以太坊 DAO 慘敗所顯示的那樣）在很大程度上是在行使集中權力，對底層技術進行徹底改變。

Where we are and where we’re going with asset recovery

資產追回的現況與發展方向

When it comes to asset recovery from fraud or Ponzi schemes, the outlook appears a little more positive if situational.

當涉及從詐欺或龐氏騙局中追回資產時，如果情況不同，前景似乎會更樂觀一些。

“The right case is where you can trace the crypto, or some of it, to an exchange; where enough has been lost to be worth the effort; where you have a party who is willing and able to fund the recovery work; and it’s the right jurisdiction,” says Wyatt. With these “four key things” in place, recovery is possible and frequently happens.

「正確的情況是你可以將加密貨幣或其中的一部分追蹤到交易所；已經失去的夠多，值得付出努力；您有一方願意並且能夠資助恢復工作；這是正確的管轄權，」懷亞特說。有了這“四件關鍵的事情”，恢復就有可能並且經常發生。

In terms of the law, as Wyatt points out, “there’s nothing particular new there. It’s all just applying existing principles to a new asset class.”

正如懷亞特指出的那樣，就法律而言，「沒有什麼特別新的東西。這一切只是將現有原則應用於新的資產類別。

In terms of recovery from theft, hack, or misplaced keys, while proponents of many blockchains may not like the idea and developers may not want to do it, similar asset recovery tools to DAR could be implemented on the likes of BTC, BCH, ETH, or any other blockchain. It’s worth noting that on the BSV blockchain, transactions do not get reversed since there is a full record of everything in the system just like an accounting system. Instead the transaction is appended and all of the relevant transaction information that caused the transaction to be appended is available to view creating an audit trail of why things changed, when and by what authority.

在從盜竊、駭客攻擊或遺失金鑰中恢復方面，雖然許多區塊鏈的支持者可能不喜歡這個想法，開發人員可能也不想這樣做，但與DAR 類似的資產恢復工具可以在BTC、BCH、 ETH 等上實施，或任何其他區塊鏈。值得注意的是，在 BSV 區塊鏈上，交易不會被逆轉，因為系統中的所有內容都有完整的記錄，就像會計系統一樣。相反，事務會被附加，並且導致事務被附加的所有相關事務資訊都可用於查看，創建審計跟踪，了解更改的原因、時間和權限。

As things stand, until Tulip Trading or another case sets down a marker for the recovery of lost or stolen assets and the resulting court orders are actually enforced and complied with, this kind of recovery is going to be restricted to the BSV blockchain.

就目前情況而言，在Tulip Trading 或其他案件為丟失或被盜資產的追回設定一個標記並且由此產生的法院命令得到實際執行和遵守之前，這種追回將僅限於BSV 區塊鏈。

“Even if you can’t get BTC to comply with fiduciary duties, to recover assets from BTC – which, after all, is where a lot of the value really is in the digital asset space – why not just let the BTC network carry on without asset recovery. The BSV network is running,” says Smith.

「即使你無法讓 BTC 遵守信託義務，從 BTC 中收回資產——畢竟，數位資產領域的許多價值確實存在——為什麼不讓 BTC 網路繼續下去？沒有資產追回。 BSV 網路正在運行，」史密斯說。

“If BSV can be adopted by app developers or institutionally adopted by people, then if you did get something lost or stolen from the BSV network, the recovery tools are all there, ready to go.”

“如果 BSV 可以被應用程式開發人員採用或被人們機構採用，那麼如果您確實從 BSV 網路中丟失或被盜了某些東西，那麼恢復工具就已經準備好了。”

It appears then that digital asset investors and businesses have a clear choice to make, as things stand: use the blockchain that recognizes the need for asset recovery capabilities and respects property rights or the one that doesn’t. Ideology vs. security, dogma or duty.

從目前的情況來看，數位資產投資者和企業似乎需要做出明確的選擇：使用認識到資產追回能力的必要性並尊重產權的區塊鏈，或使用不尊重產權的區塊鏈。意識形態與安全、教條或責任。

Watch: Digital Asset Recovery on Bitcoin

觀看：比特幣數位資產恢復

New to blockchain? Check out CoinGeek’s Blockchain for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about blockchain technology.

區塊鏈新手？請參閱 CoinGeek 的區塊鏈初學者部分，這是了解更多有關區塊鏈技術的終極資源指南。