数字资产追回：当理想与法治发生冲突时

在数字资产领域，丢失或被盗资产的恢复仍然是一个有争议的问题。过去，去中心化和不变性的传统原则常常阻碍资产追回。然而，英国法院已经开创了将数字资产视为财产的先例，为追回数字资产铺平了道路。郁金香交易等正在进行的案件可能会决定区块链开发商是否有返还被盗或丢失资产的信托责任，这可能会挑战去中心化和不变性的教条。尽管如此，像 BSV 这样的区块链平台已经满足了对资产回收工具的需求，为面临这些挑战的投资者提供了可行的解决方案。

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.

当财产因盗窃、欺诈或丢失而丢失时，如何追回财产不应该成为一个有争议的话题。然而，在数字资产领域，某些基本原则和坚持这些原则的意识形态往往成为资产追回的障碍。然而，在英国，法院已经制定了将数字资产视为财产的标志，而正在进行的资产追回案件可能会迫使区块链矿工和开发商在他们对理想（真实的或想象的）的承诺与法治之间做出选择。

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.

加密无政府主义者以及在他们之前的 80 年代和 90 年代的密码朋克运动主张使用密码学和去中心化技术来保护隐私、促进个人自由并对抗第三方监视。这些运动产生并应用于区块链的两个基本原则是“去中心化”和“不变性”，这是许多区块链哲学家的口头禅。

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.

去中心化是指在参与者网络之间分配权力和控制权，而不是依赖中央权威（理论上），防止单点故障并降低任何一个实体审查或操纵的风险。不变性是指数据一旦记录在区块链上就无法更改或更改，旨在确保记录的交易和数据防篡改且不可修改，从而培养对区块链完整性的信任及其历史记录。

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，对于这些“基本原则”的支持者来说，人们越来越认识到区块链领域的去中心化可能是一个神话，而至于不变性，对于是否有必要始终维护它或者是否在某些情况下可能会发生变化，意见存在分歧。也值得重新思考这个看似不可协商的特征。

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

其中一种情况在某种程度上挑战了这两个核心原则，那就是数字资产追回这一有争议的话题。

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).

在进入争论的重点之前，有必要澄清一下，有两种不同类型的追回：涉及通过欺诈而损失的资产，例如庞氏骗局（FTX 是最近引人注目的例子）和那些涉及欺诈的资产损失的追回。通过黑客窃取或以其他方式无法访问（例如丢失密钥）。

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

两者提出了截然不同的挑战，前者的恢复相对常见且没有争议，而后者则绝对不是。

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.

追回因欺诈而损失的资产通常涉及法律追索、调查和潜在的归还工作。投资者因欺诈而蒙受损失的现象并非数字资产领域所独有，当欺诈行为被发现且幕后黑手受到审判时，法院通常会尽一切努力在可能的情况下补偿或补偿受害者。

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 为例，山姆·班克曼·弗里德 (Sam Bankman-Fried) 欺诈行为的受害者看起来可能会获得大量（如果不是全部）投资返还，但需要注意的是，这部分是由于 FTX 拥有其剩余投资的很大一部分。代币资产，自 FTX 欺诈案曝光以来，代币价格飙升。

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，恢复因黑客攻击而被盗或因无法访问密钥而丢失的资产是一项更加复杂和技术性的挑战。在许多情况下，一旦资金被盗或钥匙丢失，如果没有特定的技术解决方案，它们将无法挽回。这方面正在取得进展，但仍然仅限于某些区块链，BSV 区块链（BSV）就是一个突出的例子。

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.

除了将资产返还给其合法所有者之外，这种进步还有助于消除一种普遍的误解，即数字资产投资者在进入该领域时必须签署一份浮士德协议：为了享受该技术的好处，人们必须接受丢失或被盗的资产往往无法恢复。

UK courts setting the standard

英国法院制定标准

“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).

国际律师事务所 Penningtons Manches Cooper 的合伙人、加密货币欺诈和资产追回网络 (CFAAR) 的董事会成员夏洛特·希尔 (Charlotte Hill) 表示：“关键是我们可以追回它，而且已经成功追回了。”

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 于 2021 年 8 月推出，汇集了律师、大律师、法务会计师、企业情报和资产追回专业人士，旨在开发数字资产追回的“最佳实践”。

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.

希尔在接受 CoinGeek 采访时指出，在数字资产追回方面，英国法院一直在正面应对挑战。

“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.

“英国法院非常迅速地处理了出现的问题，这些问题主要源于欺诈行为或盗窃或某种骗局，”希尔说。

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.

其中一个问题是数字资产是否可以在传统法律框架内被归类为财产。如果某物可以被视为财产，那么它的被盗或丢失并不会改变其合法所有者是谁，并且任何负责监督此类资产的服务或网络都可能对所有者负有注意义务，因此可能会被强制在其权力范围内尽一切努力将上述资产归还给其合法所有者。

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.

一些区块链倡导者和开发者认为，比特币等数字资产存在于适用于其他资产的法律（例如物权法）之外。作为一种新型资产类型，其地位应由新的立法决定，而不是由法院适用旧的立法。

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.

美国的 Coinbase（纳斯达克股票代码：COIN）和 Ripple 等公司就是这样，它们都面临着针对美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的法庭诉讼。他们一直认为，金融部门监管机构试图将现有的证券法应用于其“独特”的资产类型，这是越权行为，并要求在国会出台针对数字资产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.

数字资产是否属于证券是另一场争论——几乎所有的数字资产都是证券——但是，在它们是否可以被视为财产的问题上，英国的几个案例已经树立了一个先例，让人们认识到该行业在本质上与证券行业并没有太大不同。其他部门，清除复苏的潜在障碍。

“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.

“英国法院对此进行了努力，并很快临时决定将加密货币视为财产，我们确实针对这一新资产类别完善了我们的概念，”希尔解释道。

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

希尔表示，这意味着“简而言之，我们可以采取措施恢复这种新的资产类别。”

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.”

相关的关键案件包括 AA v Persons Unknown & Ors Re Bitcoin (2019)，其中法院愿意对所有被告颁发专有禁令，冻结以欺诈方式获得的比特币。在授予禁令时，布莱恩法官裁定“比特币等加密资产属于财产”。

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.

顺便说一句，该案还展示了英国法院的另一项创新，能够起诉“身份不明的人”。在处理频繁出现的匿名和伪匿名数字资产领域时，这是一个有用的工具。

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.

财产问题后来在 Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Others (2023) 案中得到确认，其中上诉法院被要求考虑比特币开发商是否对用户负有信托责任，特别是开发商是否应该如果索赔人能够证明所有权，则需要将其丢失的财产（比特币）归还给他们。法院一致认为，这一点存在严重问题需要审理，并将案件发回高等法院审理。

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.”

英国法律委员会在其 2023 年 6 月的数字资产报告中引用了这一判决，指出该案件“为英格兰和威尔士的法律带来了高度确定性：它认识到加密代币可以是个人财产权的对象”。可以联系起来。”

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

这清除了复苏的一个障碍（至少在英国），但其他几个重大障碍仍然存在。

“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.

“挑战在于执法和管辖权方面，因为由于这种资产类别，它们是无国界的，而且许多实体，在某种程度上以某种方式集中化，通常都是离岸的，”希尔说。

Another issue she notes is simply the costs involved.

她指出的另一个问题就是所涉及的成本。

“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.”

“有些个人投资者损失了钱，或者有成千上万的加密货币被盗，但不幸的是，由于诉讼成本——如果这是一个相当具有法律挑战性的案件，需要时间和精力，那么它就会付出代价。不幸的是，这通常意味着个人无力采取必要的行动来追回资产。”

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.

这对小投资者来说意味着厄运，除非卷入大规模集体诉讼，否则这一过程的成本根本超过了收益和复苏的机会。

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

尽管面临这些挑战，希尔对从欺诈中追回数字资产持乐观态度，并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.”

“就实际寻求收回资产而言，如果它位于中心化钱包中，那么只要该交易所或持有钱包的人愿意与你合作，那么通常是不可能的。”

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 等知名交易所是否愿意参与可能是一个很大的假设，但这种对数字资产追回的乐观态度与人们普遍认为这一过程极其困难的看法相冲突，或者可能是误解。

Easier than it looks?

比看起来容易吗？

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.

认为一旦“丢失”就恢复数字资产是一件愚蠢的事情的想法可能源于将通过欺诈和庞氏骗局丢失的资产与通过黑客窃取或字面上丢失的资产（即丢失的密钥）混为一谈。

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，可以说它实际上比某些其他资产类别更容易。

“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，我有一个加密货币追踪案例，我有几个传统的支付欺诈案例，通过银行账户追踪法定货币，我还有第三个案例，一个人在被骗购买金条。这三组案例清楚地提醒我们，加密货币是多么可追踪。”CFAAR 创始律师事务所之一 RPC 合伙人丹·怀亚特 (Dan Wyatt) 解释道。

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

“如果它通过混合器并传播到世界各地，那就更困难了，但这是完全可能的。”

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，与“传统”资产相比，基于区块链的资产实际上更容易追踪，这要归功于清晰且公开的交易记录。除非资产通过混合器或混合服务——这些平台可以通过将代币与其他货币混合并将其发送到不同的钱包地址来混淆数字资产资金的来源，从而使交易匿名且难以追踪——追踪纸质线索相对简单。

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.

这些有争议的混合器服务也变得越来越难以访问，因为它们经常发现自己被列入制裁名单，特别是在美国，因为它们用于洗钱和恐怖主义融资 - 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.”

相比之下，怀亚特表示，在标准的支付欺诈案件中，“你根本无能为力；您所知道的是您的客户已指示向银行帐户付款。你必须去那家银行；你必须要求它披露，你可能必须得到一个订单，然后你将得到另外十个银行帐户的帐户付款，你必须去那些银行，这就是十个订单，十个更多的披露。它实际上非常笨重且耗时。”

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.

数字资产通常可以追溯到交易所或通过交易所进行追踪，而不是这个尴尬的过程，此时下一阶段就是冻结和收回它们。希尔认为，这也可能是一件简单的事情，因为陷入困境的数字资产交易所越来越希望被视为合法且守法的企业。

“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会希望维护自己的声誉，只要有正确的法院命令或文件来证明所有权，他们就会归还它。但如果是在离岸银行或类似机构，那就是一个非常不同的挑战，实际上需要更长的时间，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.”

这种对数字资产追回的积极态度将成为加密货币欺诈和庞氏骗局（例如 FTX）受害者耳中的美妙旋律，而 Hill 指出，“具有讽刺意味的是，受害者似乎不仅会全额付款，但会有利润。”

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，对于许多因钥匙丢失或黑客攻击而失去财产访问权的数字资产投资者来说，前景仍然不容乐观。

Recovering stolen or lost assets

追回被盗或丢失的资产

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，数字资产研究公司 Chainaanalysis 估计，当时有 2.78 至 379 万枚（即所有 BTC 的 17% 至 23%）丢失。去年 3 月，经济学家蒂莫西·彼得森 (Timothy Peterson) 更进一步指出，“已开采的 1930 万枚比特币中，有 600 万枚已经无可挽回地丢失了。”

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.

如此巨大的资产缓存被认为是“无法检索”的原因是由于过程的复杂性，在几个不同的恢复阶段遇到了障碍。

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，遭受损失或被盗的个人或实体需要证明所有权。这可以说是该过程中最简单且争议最小的部分，尤其是现在数字资产已被确立为法律财产（至少在英国）。

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，需要确定谁（如果有的话）负责某个区块链；例如，就 BTC 而言，这将是“BTC 核心开发人员”，这是一个有点异常且分散的群体，他们为 BTC 协议及其实施的持续开发和维护做出了贡献。最后，需要发布法院命令，迫使开发商、矿工或托管组织实施代币的重新分配，要么获得足够的算力来撤消已批准的交易，要么添加新代码。

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，对 BTC 这样的伪去中心化网络实施改变也将极具挑战性。如果实现了实施更改所需的重要算力或在协议中添加了新代码，仍然不能保证所有网络参与者都会接受这些更改，这可能会导致有争议的硬分叉或个人拒绝遵守法院命令。

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 是一家致力于在数字资产回收领域作为中介机构开拓市场的初创公司，其创始人罗宾·史密斯 (Robin Smith) 表示，部分问题在于心态问题，而不是技术障碍。

“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.

“如果人们认为窃取数字资产并恢复或放弃硬币（获得哈希能力来做到这一点）就像法警去小偷家取回财产一样，那么人们根本不会对此提出异议，”史密斯告诉 CoinGeek。

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

他接着表示，过程本身并不是问题。

“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.”

“从技术上讲，它的机制确实很好理解。您甚至不需要让开发人员更改代码。从理论上讲，你可以获得一项禁令，迫使矿工自己修补代码。如果他们说‘我们不能这样做’，那么这可能是藐视法庭。”

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.

迫使足够多的不同矿工网络遵守禁令或法院命令似乎比强迫开发商团体更加异想天开，但工业规模的采矿作业是一笔大生意。根据司法管辖区的不同，大型数字资产挖矿公司可能会出于合法性甚至公关的目的而认为需要遵守法院命令。

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.

举例来说，美国矿业公司 Marathon Digital（纳斯达克股票代码：MARA）已配合 SEC 发出与其运营相关的两份不同传票；虽然他们并没有要求该公司做一些看似激烈的事情，例如参与重新分配硬币或更改代码，但它至少表明愿意在被迫这样做时与当局合作。

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，即使这是一种可能性，在没有完全达成共识的情况下，在区块链上做出的有争议的决定往往会导致分叉。最引人注目的实例之一发生在以太坊区块链上。

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（去中心化自治组织）是一个建立在以太坊上的智能合约平台，本质上是智能合约形式的风险投资基金。 2016 年，DAO 代码中的漏洞被利用，导致价值约 5000 万美元的 ETH 被盗。

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.’

为了应对这次黑客攻击，以太坊社区面临着一个艰难的决定，一些人主张对以太坊区块链进行硬分叉，以有效逆转未经授权的交易，并将被盗资金归还给其合法所有者，而另一些人则认为这种行为将违反“不变性”和“去中心化”原则。

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.

最终，社区选择进行硬分叉来逆转与黑客攻击相关的交易，从而创建了两个独立的区块链：以太坊（ETH）和以太坊经典（ETC）。以太坊继续进行硬分叉，撤销黑客攻击并返还被盗资金，而以太坊经典则保留在原始区块链上。

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.

在这种情况下，由于受黑客影响的人数众多以及所涉资产的价值，做出了有争议的决定。但即便如此，这个决定还是不情愿地做出的，并对区块链的未来产生了影响。

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.”

那么想象一下，对于一个人来说，找回丢失的资产会有多困难。正如希尔指出的那样，“如果你丢失了私钥，那么目前你无能为力。”然而，她确实补充了警告，“当然，除非郁金香交易案发生很大变化。”

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.

正如我们所看到的，这与郁金香交易案相同，或多或少解决了“数字资产在英国是财产吗？”的问题，并且根据案件的结果，它可能有一个更具里程碑意义的先例袖手旁观。

Tulip Trading

郁金香贸易

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，英国高等法院裁定，如果 Tulip Trading Limited 能够在 2025 年的初步问题审判中证明其拥有 110,000 BTC，则被告负有信托义务，将这些 BTC 返还给其合法所有者。

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 比特币协会（现称为 BSV 协会）已经与 Tulip 达成和解，剩下的“其他人”基本上是 BTC 核心开发者名单。

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·赖特 (Craig Wright) 博士拥有的郁金香交易公司 (Tulip Trading) 声称，在 2020 年他的家遭到黑客攻击后，他失去了对这些代币的访问权限。他认为，区块链开发商在很大程度上对数字资产所有者负有信托和普通法义务部分原因是区块链开发的中心化性质。

“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.

“郁金香交易的关键点是，支持和运营比特币网络的比特币网络开发者是否对欺诈受害者负有责任，有效地修改区块链和所有代码，以帮助他们追回资产。钥匙被盗了，”怀亚特解释道。

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

“这是一个非常重要的案件，因为如果索赔人获胜，那么一切都很有可能会崩溃。”

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.

其重大意义在于，区块链开发商在很大程度上设法避免了因控制管理数万亿美元资产的庞大网络而产生的任何法律责任。如果区块链开发商被发现对他们所监管的区块链上的资产所有者负有信托义务（仅以另一方最佳利益行事的法律责任），那么某些区块链将不得不从根本上改变他们的理念和运营方式 -否则可能会发现自己藐视众多法院命令和禁令。

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

出于这个原因，即使在郁金香交易获胜的情况下，怀亚特表示战斗也不会就此结束：

“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.”

“我想人们一开始不会遵守它，但如果他们遵守它，我想这将导致比特币的新版本，因为它将是整个生态系统运作的基础。”

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.

看来，就像许多失去数字资产的人一样，郁金香交易正在遭遇“去中心化”和“不变性”的教条砖墙，而这正是许多区块链生态系统的重要组成部分。

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，对于区块链技术和数字资产而言，情况并非普遍如此。 BSV 协会是总部位于瑞士的 BSV 区块链管理组织（也是郁金香交易案的前被告），它采取了更积极主动的方法来追回数字资产。

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 协会管理总监 Connor Murray 将该组织的角色描述为“确保网络完整性并遵守法律标准”，旨在使 BSV 成为“可靠且值得信赖的数字创新平台”。

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.

言归正传，BSV 协会于 2022 年 10 月推出了 Blacklist Manager 软件工具，允许矿工冻结 BSV 区块链上的数字资产——前提是已获得法院命令或同等文件。 Blacklist Manager 是 BSV 区块链上数字资产恢复的关键第一步。

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，该协会采取了下一步措施，推出了数字资产恢复 (DAR) 工具，该工具“可以在数字资产丢失、被盗或需要所有权或转让的情况下恢复或冻结”，并提供“一个协议”使区块链技术与现有的资产保护法律框架保持一致。”

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 协会在宣布引入 DAR 的一揽子安全增强措施时表示，这对于“为数字资产建立符合监管的网络和框架，以及执行和遵守现有财产法至关重要”。

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.

当然，BSV 协会是一个中心化组织，因此受到了加密无政府主义纯粹主义者的批评，他们坚持将去中心化作为该技术的基本支柱。但 BSV 协会与负责其他区块链的组织之间的主要区别在于，前者没有任何权力更改底层 BSV 协议——正如 BSV 协会所说，它是一套固定协议的管理者。其他区块链（如以太坊 DAO 惨败所表明的那样）在很大程度上是在行使集中权力，对底层技术进行彻底改变。

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

资产追回的现状和发展方向

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

当涉及从欺诈或庞氏骗局中追回资产时，如果情况不同，前景似乎会更乐观一些。

“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.

“正确的情况是你可以将加密货币或其中的一部分追踪到交易所；已经失去的足够多，值得付出努力；您有一方愿意并且能够资助恢复工作；这是正确的管辖权，”怀亚特说。有了这“四件关键的事情”，恢复就有可能并且经常发生。

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.”

正如怀亚特指出的那样，就法律而言，“没有什么特别新的东西。这一切只是将现有原则应用于新的资产类别。”

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.

在从盗窃、黑客攻击或丢失密钥中恢复方面，虽然许多区块链的支持者可能不喜欢这个想法，开发人员可能也不想这样做，但与 DAR 类似的资产恢复工具可以在 BTC、BCH、ETH 等上实施，或任何其他区块链。值得注意的是，在 BSV 区块链上，交易不会被逆转，因为系统中的所有内容都有完整的记录，就像会计系统一样。相反，事务会被附加，并且导致事务被附加的所有相关事务信息都可用于查看，创建审计跟踪，了解更改的原因、时间和权限。

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.

就目前情况而言，在 Tulip Trading 或其他案件为丢失或被盗资产的追回设定一个标记并且由此产生的法院命令得到实际执行和遵守之前，这种追回将仅限于 BSV 区块链。

“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.

“即使你无法让 BTC 遵守信托义务，从 BTC 中收回资产——毕竟，数字资产领域的许多价值确实存在——为什么不让 BTC 网络继续下去呢？没有资产追回。 BSV 网络正在运行，”史密斯说道。

“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 可以被应用程序开发人员采用或被人们机构采用，那么如果您确实从 BSV 网络中丢失或被盗了某些东西，那么恢复工具就已经准备好了。”

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.

从目前的情况来看，数字资产投资者和企业似乎需要做出明确的选择：使用认识到资产追回能力的必要性并尊重产权的区块链，或者使用不尊重产权的区块链。意识形态与安全、教条或责任。

Watch: Digital Asset Recovery on Bitcoin

观看：比特币数字资产恢复

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

区块链新手？查看 CoinGeek 的区块链初学者部分，这是了解更多有关区块链技术的终极资源指南。