# kaal:claim:3002908-006

**Claim.** Traditional jurisdictional tests fail for blockchain because the concepts of location and presence do not apply: the blockchain has no location, physical or electronic, and no single node holds the entire chain.

**Type.** mechanism  **Support.** argued

**Source quote.**

> The concept of location or presence in jurisdictional means does not apply to the blockchain. A location for the blockchain does not exist - not physically or even electronically.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Marco Dell'Erba, *Blockchain Innovation in Private Investment Funds - A Comparative Analysis of the United States and* (2017), III. Regulatory Recognition of Blockchain Technology, page 12

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Marco Dell'Erba, Blockchain Innovation in Private Investment Funds - A Comparative Analysis of the United States and (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002908

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `06a7b61e75f905ee07e422e875d83a65c5033a248a6e05a213523b034e5db534` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Dell%27Erba%20-%202017%20-%20Blockchain%20Innovation%20in%20Private%20Investment%20Funds%20-%20A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20the%20United%20States%20and.pdf

**Failure mode.** location-based-jurisdiction-failure  (family: jurisdictional-conflict)

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

**Keywords.** jurisdiction, nodes, cyberspace, blockchain

**Related claims.**

- restated_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3441904-032

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