Angela Walch, an associate professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law and research fellow at the Centre for Blockchain Technologies at University College London, has a problem with blockchain terminology. In a recent paper, The Path of the Blockchain Lexicon (and the Law) [], she lays into the “notoriously confusing” array of blockchain definitions and how they are contributing to a “general bubbliness” in the industry. She is especially vexed by Arizona’s Electronic Transactions Act, amended last year to make it clear that it covers transactions done on a blockchain. The law attributes slippery concepts such as “uncensored truth” to the definition of blockchain, which, she writes, “ignores the fact that just because the data is in a blockchain doesn’t mean the data is accurate. Inaccurate data, such as a mistake on a medical record, can still be validated in a blockchain.” That’s especially worrisome because proposed legislation in other states such as California are leaning on the Arizona definition. “A bunch of states are really in a rush to pass some sort of legislation to demonstrate how crypto-friendly or tech-savvy they are,” she says. “What is a court supposed to do later when the definition there has no resemblance to the technology? Things can get very messy.”

About the author

Corporate Counsel Business Journal

Leave a Comment