The Role of Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Blockchain-Based Property Transactions to Ensure Data Privacy and Compliance with UK Regulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Property transactions in the UK are increasingly adopting blockchain technology to enhance efficiency, transparency, and security. However, the inherent transparency of blockchain raises significant data privacy risks and regulatory compliance challenges, particularly under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). This study examines the role of Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) in addressing these concerns by enabling transaction validation while preserving confidentiality. Using entropy measures, k-anonymity analysis, and logistic regression, this research quantitatively assesses the privacy risks, effectiveness of ZKPs, and regulatory acceptance in blockchain-based property transactions. The findings reveal that 65.5% of transactions remain highly or moderately identifiable, posing privacy vulnerabilities under UK data protection laws. ZKP-enabled transactions significantly enhance confidentiality, achieving a 92.5% transaction privacy score, compared to 48.3% for non-ZKP transactions. However, these privacy gains come at a 67.8% increase in transaction costs, highlighting a critical trade-off between security and efficiency. Regulatory approval rates for ZKP-based blockchain platforms stand at 72.5%, suggesting a strong potential for compliance advantages. While ZKPs improve privacy and regulatory alignment, challenges remain in terms of computational overhead, transaction costs, and adoption barriers. To facilitate large-scale implementation, this study recommends optimizing zk-Rollups for efficiency, developing clear policy frameworks, and enhancing collaboration between regulators, industry stakeholders, and blockchain developers. These steps are essential to ensuring a balance between privacy, scalability, and compliance, paving the way for secure and legally sound blockchain-based property transactions in the UK.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".