kaal:claim:2992962-013

Proving personal jurisdiction over smart contracting parties by physical presence, domicile or place of business, consent, or minimum contacts becomes impossible, because none of these elements are known of the parties to a smart contract.

To illustrate this point, proving personal jurisdiction by means of 1. Physical Presence, 2. Domicile/Place of Business, 3. Consent, and 4. Minimum Contacts becomes impossible as none of these elements are known of the parties in a smart contract.

Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017), a) Anonymity of Blockchain Transactions, p. 36
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 · source PDF

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

• smart contracts where parties are anonymized by public-key encryption and VPNs

failuresupport: arguedfailure: anonymity-voids-personal-jurisdictionfamily: jurisdictional-conflictlaw-and-legal-systemssmart-contracts

• contested_by kaal:claim:5554218-004 National courts and national law cannot be excluded from smart contract disputes, because almost all legal sys...

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/55f1dd5871e430a3...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-013.md | sha256sum