<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ArticleSet>
  <Article>
    <Journal>
      <PublisherName></PublisherName>
      <JournalTitle>Legal Studies in Digital Age</JournalTitle>
      <Issn></Issn>
      <Volume></Volume>
      <Issue>In Press</Issue>
      <PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
        <Year>2027</Year>
        <Month>06</Month>
        <Day>01</Day>
      </PubDate>
    </Journal>
    <ArticleTitle>Evidentiary Challenges in the Attribution of Electronic Evidence in Disputes Arising from Smart Technology Transfer Contracts Based on Public Blockchains</ArticleTitle>
    <VernacularTitle>Evidentiary Challenges in the Attribution of Electronic Evidence in Disputes Arising from Smart Technology Transfer Contracts Based on Public Blockchains</VernacularTitle>
    <FirstPage>1</FirstPage>
    <LastPage>11</LastPage>
    <Language>EN</Language>
    <AuthorList>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
    </AuthorList>
    <PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
    <History>
      <PubDate PubStatus="received">
        <Year>2026</Year>
        <Month>07</Month>
        <Day>21</Day>
      </PubDate>
    </History>
    <Abstract>&lt;p&gt;In smart technology transfer contracts concluded on public blockchain platforms (such as Ethereum), establishing the attribution of data, transactions, or algorithmic outputs to a contracting party entails fundamental evidentiary challenges. The concealment of real-world identities behind public keys, the possibility of insider attacks by employees of either contracting party, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities in log-storage infrastructures disrupt the three principal links in the chain of attribution. Using a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on comparative sources, particularly German and United States case law, the authors conclude that recognizing the “public-key appearance rule” as a judicial presumption, requiring the use of X.509 digital certificates, incorporating “non-repudiation” and “segregation of duties” clauses into contracts, and establishing standardized frameworks for the attribution of evidence in decentralized environments are indispensable measures. Furthermore, unless the concept of a “secure electronic signature” is redefined so as to expressly encompass blockchain-based public keys, and unless clear evidentiary rules are developed for decentralized environments, courts will, in practice, be unable to reliably establish the identity of contracting parties in disputes arising from smart contracts.&lt;/p&gt;</Abstract>
    <ObjectList>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">attribution of evidence, public blockchain, smart contract, public-key appearance rule, secure electronic signature.</Param>
      </Object>
    </ObjectList>
    <ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://jlsda.com/index.php/lsda/article/download/529/454</ArchiveCopySource>
  </Article>
</ArticleSet>
