kaal:claim:2992962-004

Personal jurisdiction technically still applies to parties transacting in encrypted distributed smart contracts, but the practicability of enforcement is impossible because physical identifiers are separated from the encrypted distributed contracts.

Source quote, verbatim

While technically personal jurisdiction would still apply to parties transacting in encrypted distributed smart contracts, the practicability of enforcement is impossible given the separation of physical identifiers and encrypted distributed smart contracts.

From

Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017), I. Introduction, p. 7
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 · source PDF

Cite as

Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962

Holds when

parties anonymized through public-key encryption and virtual private networks

Classification

failuresupport: arguedfailure: enforcement-impracticabilityfamily: enforcement-gaplaw-and-legal-systemscompliance

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/7f146edad919e2a7...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-004.md | sha256sum