# kaal:claim:2992962-013

**Claim.** 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.

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

**Holds when.**

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

**Source quote.**

> 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.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, *Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution* (2017), a) Anonymity of Blockchain Transactions, page 36

**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.** anonymity-voids-personal-jurisdiction  (family: jurisdictional-conflict)

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems, smart-contracts

**Keywords.** personal-jurisdiction, minimum-contacts, anonymity, smart-contracts

**Related claims.**

- contested_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5554218-004

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