over regulating Block chain

[ From The Verge ]

At least seven states have enacted or adopted laws that reference blockchain: Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming. (Separately, eight states have amended their money transmitter laws, which usually specify strict requirements for companies like Western Union that deal with money transfers, to address cryptocurrencies as of March 1st, 2018.)

Walch has written extensively about the slipperiness of defining terms like “blockchain” in legislation before the technology and terminology has had time to coalesce. Her scrutiny of definitions in state laws has also led her to conclude that many lawmakers are passing these bills without truly understanding the technology.

She combed through the Tennessee law, pointing out oddities like the use of “execute” in two different ways within paragraphs of one another: one to mean a computer program executing; the other seemingly refers to the execution, as in satisfaction, of a contract. “We still have a lot of buzzwords that are ambiguous in the statute,” she said. “It looks to me like they threw kind of the kitchen sink into the distributed ledger technology definition. They just put a bunch of words in there hoping that they covered everything.”

Blockchains still face serious challenges around scaling and security in order to be competitive with centralized databases, and there is limited real-world data about them. Furthermore, there is widespread misunderstanding about what the tech can accomplish; claims that it is “immutable,” “secure,” and “trustless” are arguable and these features vary widely depending on the type of blockchain and how it’s implemented.

Some early blockchain projects have run into obstacles as expectations meet reality. A number of high-profile projects in the financial sector have stalled. “Basically, it became a solution in search of a problem,” an executive at one Wall Street services firm that had been trying to position itself as a leader in the technology told Reuters. Vermont was considering blockchain-based public recordkeeping, but a report found that a switch would have high costs and “very limited possible benefits.” (One benefit? Luring blockchain companies to Vermont “may result in some economic benefit to the state.”)