# kaal:claim:2992962-005

**Claim.** Even if every user and supporter of the blockchain and their locations were known, it would still not be possible to exercise jurisdiction in the traditional meaning of the word, because the system operates largely autonomously.

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

**Holds when.**

- autonomously run public blockchains

**Source quote.**

> Because the system operates largely autonomously, even if every user and supporter of the blockchain and their location were known, it would still not be possible to exercise jurisdiction in the traditional meaning of the word.

**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.** autonomy-defeats-jurisdiction  (family: jurisdictional-conflict)

**Topics.** ai-and-agents, law-and-legal-systems, compliance, decentralization, blockchain

**Keywords.** autonomy, jurisdiction, enforcement, distributed-ledger

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