# kaal:claim:2992962-004

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- parties anonymized through public-key encryption and virtual private networks

**Source quote.**

> 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, page 7

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

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Calcaterra%20-%202017%20-%20Crypto%20Transaction%20Dispute%20Resolution.pdf

**Failure mode.** enforcement-impracticability  (family: enforcement-gap)

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems, compliance

**Keywords.** personal-jurisdiction, enforcement, encryption, anonymity

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.