Blockchain technology has enabled so-called smart contracts between different parties on a decentralized network. These self-enforceable and self-executable computerized contracts could initiate a fundamental paradigm shift in the understanding and functioning of our legal practices. Opportunities for their application are increasingly understood, and numerous tests of feasibility have been completed. However, only very few use cases have yet been implemented at scale. This article—as the first of its kind—comprehensively analyzes the underlying challenges and locates a key reason for the slow adoption in the discrepancy between legal requirements and IT capabilities. Our work combines a wide range of academic sources and interviews with 30 domain experts from IT, the legal domain and private industry. First, we establish that smart contracts still fall within the boundaries of the general legal framework. We then systematically dissect current shortcomings of smart contracts on three distinct levels, namely, (1) how smart contracts are likely to cause conflicts with existing laws, (2) how smart contracts are intrinsically limited on an individual contract level and (3) how they are impeded by their current technical design. Across those levels, we dissect 20 distinct issues concerning the current implementation of smart contracts for which we derive potential remedies. We further outline implications for policy-makers as well as IT management, and examine how information systems research can play an important role in advancing smart contracts. Finally, we show how managerial and organizational issues might represent an ongoing challenge for the widespread adoption of smart contracts.
AbeRWatanabeHOhashiS, et al. (2018) Storage protocol for securing blockchain transparency. In: IEEE 42nd annual computer software and applications conference, Tokyo, Japan, 23–27 July, pp. 577–581. New York: IEEE.
2.
AbrahamsonERosenkopfL (1997) Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science8(3): 289–309.
3.
AlcesPA (2011) A Theory of Contract Law: Empirical Insights and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
AllesM (2002) A critical analysis of the innovator’s dilemma: Why should new technologies cause great firms to fail?International Journal of Digital Accounting Research2(4): 235–266.
5.
Al-SaqafWSeidlerN (2017) Blockchain technology for social impact: Opportunities and challenges ahead. Journal of Cyber Policy2(3): 338–354.
6.
AmaniSBégelMBortinM, et al. (2018) Towards verifying ethereum smart contract bytecode in Isabelle/HOL. In: 7th ACM SIGPLAN international conference (eds AndronickJFeltyA), pp. 66–77. New York: The Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. DOI: 10.1145/3167084.
7.
AtzeiNBartolettiMCimoliT (2017) A survey of attacks on ethereum smart contracts (SoK). In: MaffeiMRyanM (eds) International Conference on Principles of Security and Trust. Berlin: Springer, pp. 164–186.
8.
AvitalMBeckRKingJ, et al. (2016) Jumping on the blockchain bandwagon: Lessons of the past and outlook to the future. In: International conference on information systems, Dublin (ICIS 2016), Dublin, 11–14 December, pp. 5–25. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
9.
BachLMMihaljevicBZagarM (2018) Comparative analysis of blockchain consensus algorithms. International Convention on Information and Communication Technology2018: 1545–1550.
10.
BaiXTsaiW-TJiangX (2019) Blockchain design: A PFMI viewpoint. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on service-oriented system engineering (SOSE), San Francisco, CA, 4–9 April, pp. 146–14609. New York: IEEE.
11.
BartolettiMPompianuL (2017) An empirical analysis of smart contracts: Platforms, applications, and design patterns. In: BrennerMRohloffKBonneauJet al. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Cham: Springer, pp. 494–509.
12.
BauerM (2017) Discussion paper on distributed ledger technology. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) discussion paper DP 17/3. London: Financial Conduct Authority.
BeckRCzepluchJSLollikeN, et al. (2016) Blockchain: The gateway to a trust-free cryptographic economic world. In: European conference on information systems, Istanbul (ECIS 2016), Istanbul, 12–15 June, pp. 2–25. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
15.
BenhamoudaFHaleviSHaleviT (2019) Supporting private data on hyperledger fabric with secure multiparty computation. IBM Journal of Research and Development63(2/3): 1–3.
16.
BenstonGJ (2000) Consumer protection as justification for regulating financial-services firms and products. Journal of Financial Services Research17(3): 277–301. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1008154820305.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
17.
BhargavanKSwamyNZanella-BéguelinS, et al. (2016) Formal verification of smart contracts. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM workshop on programming languages and analysis for security (ed MurrayT), pp. 91–96. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2993600.2993611 (accessed 21 May 2020).
18.
BigiGBraccialiAMeacciG, et al. (2015) Validation of decentralised smart contracts through game theory and formal methods. In: DeganoPBodeiCFerrariGL, et al. (eds) Programming Languages With Applications to Biology and Security. Cham: Springer, pp. 142–161.
19.
BixB (2006) Robert Alexy’s Radbruch formula, and the nature of legal theory. Rechtstheorie37: 139–149.
20.
BodóBGervaisDQuintaisJP (2018) Blockchain and smart contracts: The missing link in copyright licensing?International Journal of Law and Information Technology26(4): 311–336.
21.
BöhmeRChristinNEdelmanB, et al. (2015) Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives29(2): 213–238.
22.
BourqueSTsuiS (2014) A Lawyer’s Introduction to Smart Contracts. Łask: Scientia Nobilitat.
23.
BoyerRSMooreJS (1984) A mechanical proof of the unsolvability of the halting problem. Journal of the ACM31(3): 441–458.
24.
BrekoulakisSDevaneyM (2017) Public-private arbitration and the public interest under English law. The Modern Law Review80(1): 22–56.
25.
Bu-PashaS (2017) Cross-border issues under EU data protection law with regards to personal data protection. Information & Communications Technology Law26(3): 213–228.
CarterPB (1980) B private international law. British Yearbook of International Law50(1): 241–256.
29.
CaseyMCraneJGenslerG, et al. (2018) The Impact of Blockchain Technology on Finance: A Catalyst for Change (Vol. 21: Geneva Reports on the World Economy). Geneva: International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies. Available at: https://www.cimb.ch/uploads/1/1/5/4/115414161/geneva21_1.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
30.
ChansonMBognerAWortmannF, et al. (2017) Blockchain as a privacy enabler. In: LeeSTakayamaLTruongK (eds) Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. New York: ACM Press, pp. 13–16.
31.
ChauhanAMalviyaOPVermaM, et al. (2018) Blockchain and scalability. In: 2018 IEEE 18th international conference on software quality, reliability, and security companion (ed R IEEE International Conference on Software Quality and Security), Lisbon, 16–20 July, pp. 122–128. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
32.
ChoiHKimSLeeJ (2010) Role of network structure and network effects in diffusion of innovations. Industrial Marketing Management39(1): 170–177.
33.
ChristensenCM (2013) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
34.
ChristidisKDevetsikiotisM (2016) Blockchains and smart contracts for the internet of things. IEEE Access4: 2292–2303.
35.
ClackCBakshiVBraineL (2016) Smart contract templates: Foundations, design landscape and research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00771. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00771 (accessed 21 May 2020).
36.
ClarkJ (2016) Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2016 International Workshops (Vol. 9604). Heidelberg: Springer.
37.
CoblenzMSunshineJAldrichJ, et al. (2019) Smarter smart contract development tools. In: Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on emerging trends in software engineering for blockchain (WETSEB), Montreal, QC, Canada, 27 May, pp. 1–4. New York: IEEE.
38.
CohenRSmithPArulchandranV, et al. (2018) Automation and blockchain in securities issuances. Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law33: 144–150.
39.
CongLWHeZ (2019) Blockchain disruption and smart contracts. The Review of Financial Studies32(5): 1754–1797.
40.
ConleyJ (2017) Blockchain and the economics of crypto-tokens and initial coin offerings. Working paper, Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
41.
ConstantinidesPHenfridssonOParkerGG (2018) Introduction—Platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research29(2): 381–400.
42.
CorneliusK (2018) Smart contracts and the freedom of contract doctrine. Journal of Internet Law22(5): 3–11.
43.
DahmenGLiermannV (2019) Hyperledger composer—Syndicated loans. In: LiermannVStegmannC (eds) The Impact of Digital Transformation and FinTech on the Finance Professional. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 45–70.
44.
DaiJVasarhelyiMA (2017) Towards blockchain-based accounting and assurance. Journal of Information Systems31: 5–21.
45.
DaleR (2019) Law and word order: NLP in legal tech. Natural Language Engineering25(1): 211–217.
46.
de ReuverMSørensenCBasoleRC (2017) The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology33: 124–135.
47.
DelmolinoKArnettMMillerA (2015) Step by step towards creating a safe smart contract. SSRN working paper. Available at: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/460.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
48.
DennisRDissoJP (2019) An analysis into the scalability of Bitcoin and Ethereum. In: SherrattSDeyNJoshiA (eds) Third International Congress on Information and Communication Technology, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Singapore: Springer, pp. 619–627.
49.
DestefanisGMarchesiMOrtuM, et al. (2018) Smart contracts vulnerabilities: A call for blockchain software engineering? In: 2018 IEEE 1st international workshop on blockchain oriented software engineering (IWBOSE), Campobasso, 20 March, pp. 19–25. New York: IEEE.
50.
DhillonVMetcalfDHooperM (2017a) The DAO hacked. In: DhillonVMetcalfDHooperM (eds) Blockchain Enabled Applications. New York: Apress, pp. 67–78.
51.
DhillonVMetcalfDHooperM (2017b) The hyperledger project. In: DhillonVMetcalfDHooperM (eds) Blockchain Enabled Applications. New York: Apress, pp. 139–149.
52.
DobzinskiSNisanNSchapiraM (2012) Truthful randomized mechanisms for combinatorial auctions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences78(1): 15–25.
53.
DomingoR-SPiñeiro-ChousaJLópez-CabarcosM (2020) What factors drive returns on initial coin offerings?Technological Forecasting and Social Change153: 119915.
54.
DooleyK (2012) The LIBOR scandal. Review of Banking and Financial Law32: 2–565.
55.
DowlinNGilad-BachrachRLaineK, et al. (2017) Manual for using homomorphic encryption for bioinformatics. Proceedings of the IEEE105(3): 552–567.
56.
DrummerDFeuerriegelSNeumannD (2017) Crossing the next frontier: The role of ICT in driving the financialization of credit. Journal of Information Technology32(3): 218–233.
57.
DubovitskayaAXuZRyuS, et al. (2017) Secure and trustable electronic medical records sharing using blockchain. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings2017: 650–659.
58.
DziembowskiSFaustSHostákováK (2018) General state channel networks. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security (ed LieD), Toronto, ON, Canada, 15–19 October, pp. 949–966. ACM.
59.
Eenmaa-DimitrievaHSchmidt-KessenM (2019) Creating markets in no-trust environments: The law and economics of smart contracts. Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice35(1): 69–88.
60.
Egelund-MüllerBElsmanMHengleinF, et al. (2017) Automated execution of financial contracts on blockchains. Business & Information Systems Engineering59(6): 457–467.
61.
ESMA Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group (2016) Summary of conclusions: Recent market developments February 2016. ESMA publication 2016/SMSG/004. Paris: ESMA.
62.
EyalISirerEG (2013) Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. arXiv e-prints. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0243 (accessed 21 May 2020).
63.
EyassuSE (2019) Overview of blockchain legislation and adoption: Status and challenges. Issues in Information Systems20: 12–21.
FarmerWMHuQ (2016) A formal language for writing contracts. In: 2016 IEEE 17th international conference on information reuse and integration (IRI), Pittsburgh, PA, 28–30 July, pp. 134–141. New York: IEEE.
66.
FengYTorlakEBodikR (2019) Precise attack synthesis for smart contracts. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.06067v1 (accessed 21 May 2020).
67.
FilbyM (2013) Code is law: Assessing architectural file sharing regulation in the online environment. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology8: 81–103.
68.
FrankenreiterJ (2019) The limits of smart contracts. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics175: 149–162.
69.
FurmstonMPTolhurstG (2010) Contract Formation: Law and Practice (Cont. MikE). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
GaltierMMariniC (2017) Morpheo: Traceable machine learning on hidden data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05017. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05017 (accessed 21 May 2020).
71.
GarciaM (2016) Racist in the machine: The disturbing implications of algorithmic bias. World Policy Journal33(4): 111–117.
72.
GarrettM (2010) Efficiency and certainty in uncertain times: The material adverse change clause revisited. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems43(3): 333–362.
73.
GatteschiVLambertiFDemartiniC, et al. (2018) Blockchain and smart contracts for insurance: Is the technology mature enough?Future Internet10(2): 20. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/10/2/20/pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
74.
GentryC (2009) Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. Symposium on Theory of Computing9: 169–178.
75.
GiancasproM (2017) Is a “smart contract” really a smart idea? Insights from a legal perspective. Computer Law & Security Review33: 825–835.
76.
GideonL (2012) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New York: Springer.
77.
GlaserF (2017) Pervasive decentralisation of digital infrastructures: A framework for blockchain enabled system and use case analysis. In: 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2017), pp. 1543–1552. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/859d/0535e16095f274df4d69df54954b21258a13.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
78.
GoldenfeinJLeiterA (2018) Legal engineering on the blockchain: “Smart contracts” as legal conduct. Law and Critique29(2): 141–149.
79.
GoldwasserSMicaliSRackoffC (1989) The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM Journal on Computing18(1): 186–208.
80.
GomberPHaferkornM (2013) High-frequency-trading. Business & Information Systems Engineering55(2): 99–102.
81.
GovernatoriGIdelbergerFMilosevicZ, et al. (2018) On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law26(4): 377–409.
82.
GriggI (2004) The Ricardian contract. In: WEC 2004 (eds BenatallahBGodartCShanMC), San Diego, CA, 6 July, pp. 25–31. New York: IEEE.
83.
GroenbaekM (2016) Blockchain 2.0, smart contracts and legal challenges. Computers and Law27(2): 34–37.
84.
GuoYLiangC (2016) Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financial Innovation2(1): 24.
85.
GurkaynakGYilmazIHakseverG (2016) Stifling artificial intelligence: Human perils. Computer Law & Security Review32(5): 749–758.
86.
GutwirthSLeenesRDe HertP (2016) Data Protection on the Move: Current Developments in ICT and Privacy/Data Protection. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag.
87.
HansRZuberHRizkA, et al. (2017) Blockchain and smart contracts: Disruptive technologies for the insurance market. In: Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2017), pp. 1–10. Association for Information Systems. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=amcis2017 (accessed 21 May 2020).
88.
HartnellHE (2015) Civil justice as governance in the European Union: Reflections on civil procedure, private international law (conflict of laws) and the administration of justice since the Roman empire. Helsinki legal studies research paper no 40. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2698610.
89.
HarzDBomanM (2019) The scalability of trustless trust. In: ZoharAEyalITeagueVet al. (eds) Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Berlin: Springer, pp. 279–293.
90.
HerianR (2018a) Legal Recognition of Blockchain Registries and Smart Contracts. Milton Keynes: EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum.
91.
HerianR (2018b) Regulating disruption: Blockchain, GDPR and questions of data sovereignty. Journal of Internet Law22(2): 1–16.
HoTHSuX (2013) A dynamic level- k model in sequential games. Management Science59(2): 452–469.
94.
HuangA (2015) Reaching within silk road: The need for a new subpoena power. Boston College Law Review56(85): 2093–2125.
95.
HuckleS (2016) Internet of things, blockchain and shared economy applications. Procedia Computer Science98(C): 461–466.
96.
HyvärinenHRisiusMFriisG (2017) A blockchain-based approach towards overcoming financial fraud in public sector services. Business & Information Systems Engineering59: 441–456.
97.
IansitiMLakhaniKR (2017) The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review95(1): 118–127.
98.
IdelbergerFGovernatoriGRiveretR, et al. (2016) Evaluation of logic-based smart contracts for blockchain systems. In: AlferesJJBertossiLGovernatoriGet al. (eds) Rule Technologies (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Cham: Springer, pp. 167–183.
99.
JacksonO (2018) Is It Possible to Comply With GDPR Using Blockchain?London: International Financial Law Review.
100.
JaiswalAK (2018) Parsec: A state channel for the internet of value. arXiv:1807.11378. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.11378v1 (accessed 21 May 2020).
101.
JuelsAKosbaAShiE (2016) The ring of Gyges: Investigating the future of criminal smart contracts. In: ACM conference on computer and communications security (CCS 2016), October, pp. 283–295. ACM. Available at: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/358.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
102.
KimHMLaskowskiM (2017) A perspective on blockchain smart contracts: Reducing uncertainty and complexity in value exchange. In: 26th international conference on computer communication and networks (ICCCN), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 31July–3August. New York: IEEE.
103.
KimHMLaskowskiM (2018) Toward an ontology-driven blockchain design for supply-chain provenance. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management25(1): 18–27.
104.
KimSKwonYChoS (2018) A survey of scalability solutions on blockchain. In: International conference on information and communication technology convergence (ICTC), Jeju, South Korea, 17–19October, pp. 1204–1207. New York: IEEE.
105.
KishigamiJFujimuraSWatanabeH, et al. (2015) The blockchain-based digital content distribution system. In: Fifth international conference on big data and cloud computing, Dalian, China, 26–28August, pp. 187–190. New York: IEEE.
106.
KiviatTI (2015) Beyond Bitcoin: Issues in regulating blockchain transactions. Duke Law Journal65(3): 568–608.
107.
KorpelaKHallikasJDahlbergT (2017) Digital supply chain transformation toward blockchain integration. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2017), pp. 4182–4191. Available at: https://elk.adalidda.com/2017/05/paper0517.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
108.
KoržeSZ (2019) How smart tourism embrace blockchains and smart contracts. Mednarodno Inovativno Poslovanje11(2): 32–40.
109.
KosbaAMillerAShiE, et al. (2016) Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. In: IEEE symposium on security and privacy, San Jose, CA, 22–26 May, pp. 839–858. New York: IEEE.
110.
KouluR (2016) Blockchains and online dispute resolution: Smart contracts as an alternative to enforcement. SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology & Society13(1): 40–69.
111.
KünnapasK (2016) From Bitcoin to smart contracts: Legal revolution or evolution from the perspective ofde lege ferenda? In: KerikmäeTRullA (eds) The Future of Law and eTechnologies. Cham: Springer, pp. 111–131.
112.
LacityMC (2018) Addressing key challenges to making enterprise blockchain applications a reality. MIS Quarterly Executive17(3): 201–222.
113.
LamportLShostakRPeaseM (1982) The byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems4(3): 382–401.
LeeJLongAMcRaeM, et al. (2015) Bitcoin basics: A primer on virtual currencies. Business Law International16(1): 21–481.
116.
LessigL (1999) Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
117.
LessigL (2006) Code: Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.
118.
LevyKEC (2017) Book-smart, not street-smart: Blockchain-based smart contracts and the social workings of law. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society3: 1–15.
119.
LewisP (2017) Smart Contracts and Distributed Ledger: A Legal Perspective. New York: International Swaps and Derivatives Association.
LiuB (2016) Can artificial intelligence ever give legal advice?Law Society of Western Australia43(6): 8–9.
122.
LowKMikE (2020) Pause the Blockchain legal revolution. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly69(1): 135–175.
123.
LuQXuXLiuY, et al. (2019) uBaaS: A unified blockchain as a service platform. Future Generation Computer Systems101: 564–575.
124.
LuuLChuD-HOlickelH, et al. (2016) Making smart contracts smarter. In: CCS’16 (eds WeipplEKatzenbeisserSKruegelC, et al.), Vienna, 24–28 October, pp. 254–269. New York: The Association for Computing Machinery.
125.
McCarthyJ (1989) Artificial intelligence, logic and formalizing common sense. In: ThomasonRH (ed.) Philosophical Logic and Artificial Intelligence. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 161–190.
126.
MacneilIR (1977) Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review72: 854.
127.
MagazzeniDMcBurneyPNashW (2017) Validation and verification of smart contracts: A research agenda. Computer500(9): 50–57.
128.
MashatanARobertsZ (2017) An enhanced real estate transaction process based on blockchain technology. In: Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2017), pp. 1–5. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4af1/12878d7ba2dbce42a250bdf03da143190940.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
129.
MasiakC (2019) Initial coin offerings (ICOs): Market cycles and relationship with Bitcoin and ether. Small Business Economics. Epub ahead of print May. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-019-00176-3.
130.
MeharM (2019) Understanding a revolutionary and flawed grand experiment in blockchain: The DAO attack. Journal of Cases on Information Technology21(1): 19–32.
131.
MehrabiNMorstatterFSaxenaN, et al. (2019) A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.09635v2 (accessed 21 May 2020).
132.
Moreno-SanchezPZafarMBKateA (2016) Listening to whispers of ripple: Linking wallets and deanonymizing transactions in the ripple network. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2016(4): 436–453.
NehaiZBobotF (2019) Deductive proof of Ethereum smart contracts using why3. ArXiv e-prints. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11281 (accessed 21 May 2020).
135.
NgI (2017) The art of contract drafting in the age of artificial intelligence. Working paper, Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA.
136.
NiedermanFApplegateLMBeckR, et al. (2017) IS research and policy: Notes from the 2015 ICIS senior scholar’s forum. Communications of the AIS40: 82–92.
137.
NoferMGomberPHinzO, et al. (2017) Blockchain. Business & Information Systems Engineering59(3): 183–187.
138.
NovoO (2018) Blockchain meets IoT: An architecture for scalable access management in IoT. IEEE Internet of Things Journal5(2): 1184–1195.
139.
NugentTUptonDCimpoesuM (2016) Improving data transparency in clinical trials using blockchain smart contracts. F1000Research5: 2541.
140.
O’HaraK (2017) Smart contracts: Dumb Idea. IEEE Internet Computing21(2): 97–101.
141.
OmohundroS (2014) Cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, and artificial intelligence. AI Matters1(2): 19–21.
142.
O’ShieldsR (2017) Smart contracts: Legal agreements for the blockchain. North Carolina Banking Institute21: 177–194.
143.
OstromE (2012) Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales?Economic Theory49(2): 353–369.
144.
ParkDZhangYSaxenaM, et al. (2018) A formal verification tool for Ethereum VM bytecode. In: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM joint meeting on European software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering, Lake Buena Vista, FL, 4–9 November, pp. 912–915. New York: ACM.
145.
Parra MoyanoJRossO (2017) KYC optimization using distributed ledger technology. Business & Information Systems Engineering59(6): 411–423.
146.
PashkovVSoloviovO (2019) Legal implementation of blockchain technology in pharmacy. SHS Web of Conferences68: 01027.
147.
PetersGWPanayiE (2016) Understanding modern banking ledgers through blockchain technologies: Future of transaction processing and smart contracts on the internet of money. In: TascaPAsteTPelizzonLet al. (eds) Beyond Banks and Money. Cham: Springer, pp. 239–278.
PuschmannT (2017) Fintech. Business & Information Systems Engineering59(1): 69–76.
150.
RaskinM (2017) The law and legality of smart contracts. Georgetown Technology Review1(2): 305–341.
151.
ReidenbergJR (1997) Lex informatica: The formulation of information policy rules through technology. Texas Law Review76: 553.
152.
ReusB (2016) Limits of Computation: From a Programming Perspective (1st edn). Cham: Springer.
153.
ReynaAMartínCChenJ, et al. (2018) On blockchain and its integration with IoT challenges and opportunities. Future Generation Computer Systems88: 173–190.
154.
RhimY-YParkK (2019) The applicability of artificial intelligence in international law. Journal of East Asia and International Law12(1): 7–30.
155.
RighiRAlbertiAMSinghM (eds) (2020) Blockchain Technology for Industry 4.0: Secure, Decentralized, Distributed and Trusted Industry Environment. Singapore: Springer.
156.
RisslandEL (1989) Artificial intelligence and law: Stepping stones to a model of legal reasoning. Yale Law Journal99: 1957–1981.
157.
SaraphVHerlihyM (2019) An empirical study of speculative concurrency in Ethereum smart contracts. Cornell University working paper. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.01376v2 (accessed 21 May 2020).
158.
SavelyevA (2017) Contract law 2.0: “Smart” contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law. Information & Communications Technology Law26(2): 116–134.
159.
SaxenaAMisraJDharA (2014) Increasing anonymity in Bitcoin. In: BöhmeR (ed.) Financial Cryptography and Data Security (Vol. 8438). Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 122–139.
160.
SchulteSSigwartMFrauenthalerP, et al. (2019) Towards blockchain interoperability. In: Di CiccioCGabryelczykRGarcía-BañuelosL, et al. (eds) Business Process Management: Blockchain and Central and Eastern Europe Forum. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–10.
161.
SchultzeUAvitalM (2011) Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research. Information and Organization21(1): 1–16.
162.
SchwabK (2016) The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
163.
SieringMClaphamBEngelO, et al. (2017) A taxonomy of financial market manipulations: Establishing trust and market integrity in the financialized economy through automated fraud detection. Journal of Information Technology32(3): 251–269.
164.
SohPH (2010) Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design. Strategic Management Journal31(4): 438–461.
165.
SultanaTAlmogrenAAkbarM, et al. (2020) Data sharing system integrating access control mechanism using blockchain-based smart contracts for IoT devices. Applied Sciences10(2): 488.
166.
SuryU (2019) The right to be forgotten . . . so what?Informatik Spektrum42(3): 218–219.
167.
SwanM (2018) Chapter five: Blockchain for business: Next-generation enterprise artificial intelligence systems. In: RajPDekaGC (eds) Advances in Computers: Blockchain Technology: Platforms, Tools and Use Cases (Vol. 111). Elsevier, pp. 121–162. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065245818300287 (accessed 21 May 2020).
168.
SzaboN (1997) Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday, 1September, p. 9.
169.
TaiETT (2018) Force majeure and excuses in smart contracts. European Review of Private Law26(6): 787–804.
170.
TapscottDTapscottA (2016) Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World. New York: Penguin.
171.
TemteMN (2019) Blockchain challenges traditional contract law: Just how smart are smart contracts. Wyoming Law Review19(1): 87–117.
172.
TikhomirovS (2018) Ethereum: State of knowledge and research perspectives. In: ImineAFernándezJMMarionJYet al. (eds) Foundations and Practice of Security. Cham: Springer, pp. 206–221.
173.
TonelliR (ed.) (2019) IWBOSE ’19: 2019 IEEE 2nd International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE ’19). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
174.
TsaiWGeNJiangJ, et al. (2019) A new framework for smart contracts taking account of law. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering, San Francisco, CA, 4–9 April, pp. 134–13411. New York: IEEE.
175.
TweeddaleATweeddaleK (2005) Arbitration of Commercial Disputes: International and English Law and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
176.
United States District Court for the Western District of New York (2016) United States of America, v. Richard Petix. US Court ruling no 15-CR-227A. New York: United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
US Securities and Exchange Commission (2017b) Report of investigation pursuant to section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO. Release no 81207. Washington, DC: US Securities and Exchange Commission.
179.
US Securities and Exchange Commission (2018) Order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings pursuant to section 21X of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Release no. 84553, SEC announcement file no. 3-18888. Washington, DC: US Securities and Exchange Commission.
180.
US Structured Finance (2006) Thank you ISDA: New templates have caused an explosion in synthetic CDOs. International Financial Law Review25(11): 20.
181.
Venegas P and Krabec T (2017) Trust design: Balancing smart contracts utility and decentralisation risk. International Advances in Economic Research 23(4): 433–435.
182.
WahlgrenP (1992) Automation of Legal Reasoning: A Study on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law and Taxation.
183.
WallEMalmG (2016) Using blockchain technology and smart contracts to create a distributed securities depository. Working paper, Department of Electrical and Information Technology. Available at: http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8885750/file/8885765.pdf (accessed 21 May 2020).
184.
WaltlBSillaberCGallersdörferU, et al. (2018) Blockchains and smart contracts: A threat for the legal industry? In: TreiblmaierHBeckR (eds) Business Transformation Through Blockchain (Vol. II). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 287–315.
185.
WangSOuyangLYuanY, et al. (2019) Blockchain-enabled smart contracts: Architecture, applications, and future trends. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems49: 2266–2277.
186.
WangZDaiWChooK-KR, et al. (2020) FSFC: An input filter-based secure framework for smart contract. Journal of Network and Computer Applications154: 102530.
187.
WatanabeHFujimuraSNakadairaA, et al. (2016) Blockchain contract: Securing a blockchain applied to smart contracts. In: IEEE international conference on consumer electronics (ICCE 2016) (eds BellidoFJVunNCHDolarC), Las Vegas, NV, 7–11 January, pp. 467–468. New York: IEEE.
188.
WohrerMZdunU (2018) Smart contracts: Security patterns in the ethereum ecosystem and solidity. In: 2018 IEEE 1st international workshop on blockchain oriented software engineering (IWBOSE) (eds TonelliRDucasseSFenuG, et al.), Campobasso, 20 March, pp. 2–8. New York: IEEE.
WrightAde FilippiP (2015) Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2580664 (accessed 21 May 2020).
XuJJ (2016) Are blockchains immune to all malicious attacks?Financial Innovation2(1): 25.
193.
YeohP (2017) Regulatory issues in blockchain technology. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance25(2): 196–208.
194.
Yli-HuumoJKoDChoiS, et al. (2016) Where is current research on blockchain technology? A systematic review. PLoS ONE11(10): e0163477.
195.
ZavolokinaLDolataMSchwabeG (2017) FinTech transformation: How IT-enabled innovations shape the financial sector. In: FeuerriegelSNeumannD (eds) Enterprise Applications, Markets and Services in the Finance Industry (FinanceCom 2016) (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing). Cham: Springer, pp. 75–88.
196.
ZetzscheDABuckleyRPArnerDW, et al. (2019) The ICO gold rush: It’s a scam, it’s a bubble, it’s a super challenge for regulators. Harvard International Law Journal60(2): 315.
197.
ZhangLWangYLiF, et al. (2019) A game-theoretic method based on Q-learning to invalidate criminal smart contracts. Information Sciences498: 144–153.
198.
ZhangPWhiteJSchmidtDC, et al. (2018) FHIRChain: Applying blockchain to securely and scalably share clinical data. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal16: 267–278.
199.
ZhengZXieSDaiH-N, et al. (2020) An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms. Future Generation Computer Systems105: 475–491.
200.
ZhouRHwangK (2007) Gossip-based reputation aggregation for unstructured peer-to-peer networks. In: IEEE international parallel and distributed processing symposium, Rome, 26–30 March, pp. 1–10. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Operations Center.
ZimmermannRWhittakerS (2000) Good Faith in European Contract Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
203.
ZoharA (2015) Bitcoin: Under the hood. Communications of the ACM58(9): 104–113.
204.
ZouJWangYOrgunMA (2016) A dispute arbitration protocol based on a peer-to-peer service contract management scheme. In: IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), San Francisco, CA, 27 June–2 July, pp. 41–48. New York: IEEE.
205.
ZupanNKasinathanPCuellarJ, et al. (2020) Secure smart contract generation based on petri nets. In: RighiRAlbertiAMSinghM (eds) Blockchain Technology for Industry 4.0. Singapore: Springer, pp. 73–98.
