# kaal:claim:2992962-014

**Claim.** Even if a state or the federal government passed a law granting a court authority over blockchain smart contract disputes, it is hard to see how the court could in fact exercise that authority short of limiting access to the internet itself.

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

**Holds when.**

- anonymous parties transacting on public blockchains

**Source quote.**

> But even if a given State or even the Federal Government were to pass a law that would grant such authority to a court, it is hard to see how the court would in fact exercise such authority, short of limiting access to the internet itself.

**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.** unenforceable-statutory-grant  (family: enforcement-gap)

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

**Keywords.** subject-matter-jurisdiction, legislation, enforcement, internet-regulation

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