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) [bit.ly/BlockchainLexicon], 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

Corporate Counsel Business Journal

Leave a Comment