Preliminary Reflections on the Ontological Significance of Blockchain Technology for Trust and Trustworthiness

A. J. Butler
{"title":"Preliminary Reflections on the Ontological Significance of Blockchain Technology for Trust and Trustworthiness","authors":"A. J. Butler","doi":"10.5771/9783748924012-211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, there has been a great deal of excitement regarding the promise of blockchain technology (Aste et al. 2017). Yet, not all of this excitement has been positive (Schneier 2019). In fact, the furore raised by the assurance afforded by the capacities of blockchain technology (henceforth: Blockchain) is multifaceted: three such are noteworthy. The first is that Blockchain precipitates a reshaping of our social reality (Reijers & Coeckelbergh 2018). The second is that Blockchain can be trusted (Aste et al. 2017). The third is that Blockchain can “optimize” trust (Swan & De Filippi 2017). For this discussion, I shall focus only on the aforementioned three claims, namely: (1) reshaping our social reality (2) bearing the onus of trust (3) optimization of trust. These three claims clearly have implications for one another. Were Blockchain able to reshape the social reality, then it would thereby reshape trust. This would, in turn, influence the answer to the question: ‘Can one trust Blockchain?’ This would, likewise, influence an answer to the question, namely: Can Blockchain “optimize” trust?, by the simple fact that it would affect the very nature of the item Blockchain putatively can optimize. The upshot here being: How do these claims form, if at all, a coherent rationally evaluable picture of Blockchain’s potential effects in human affairs of great value given, at the very least, the clear implications the first claim has for the latter two? In this paper, I shall attempt to answer this fundamental question by means of an examination of the associated respective claims. However, in doing so, I shall focus on the first claim and its implications for the other two. What this means is that I shall proceed on the supposition that Blockchain can reshape our social reality. Then, from this supposition, examine how the social ontology of trust and trustworthiness must need be affected. Nonetheless, I shall, through the course of the examination, also evaluate the trust-based claims of Blockchain: as to its trustworthiness and ability to optimize both trust and trustworthiness. 1.","PeriodicalId":286489,"journal":{"name":"Digitalisierung aus theologischer und ethischer Perspektive","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digitalisierung aus theologischer und ethischer Perspektive","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748924012-211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a great deal of excitement regarding the promise of blockchain technology (Aste et al. 2017). Yet, not all of this excitement has been positive (Schneier 2019). In fact, the furore raised by the assurance afforded by the capacities of blockchain technology (henceforth: Blockchain) is multifaceted: three such are noteworthy. The first is that Blockchain precipitates a reshaping of our social reality (Reijers & Coeckelbergh 2018). The second is that Blockchain can be trusted (Aste et al. 2017). The third is that Blockchain can “optimize” trust (Swan & De Filippi 2017). For this discussion, I shall focus only on the aforementioned three claims, namely: (1) reshaping our social reality (2) bearing the onus of trust (3) optimization of trust. These three claims clearly have implications for one another. Were Blockchain able to reshape the social reality, then it would thereby reshape trust. This would, in turn, influence the answer to the question: ‘Can one trust Blockchain?’ This would, likewise, influence an answer to the question, namely: Can Blockchain “optimize” trust?, by the simple fact that it would affect the very nature of the item Blockchain putatively can optimize. The upshot here being: How do these claims form, if at all, a coherent rationally evaluable picture of Blockchain’s potential effects in human affairs of great value given, at the very least, the clear implications the first claim has for the latter two? In this paper, I shall attempt to answer this fundamental question by means of an examination of the associated respective claims. However, in doing so, I shall focus on the first claim and its implications for the other two. What this means is that I shall proceed on the supposition that Blockchain can reshape our social reality. Then, from this supposition, examine how the social ontology of trust and trustworthiness must need be affected. Nonetheless, I shall, through the course of the examination, also evaluate the trust-based claims of Blockchain: as to its trustworthiness and ability to optimize both trust and trustworthiness. 1.
区块链技术对信任和可信赖的本体论意义的初步思考
近年来,人们对区块链技术的前景感到非常兴奋(Aste et al. 2017)。然而,并非所有这些兴奋都是积极的(Schneier 2019)。事实上,区块链技术(以下简称区块链)的能力所带来的保证所引起的骚动是多方面的:其中有三个值得注意。首先,区块链促成了我们社会现实的重塑(Reijers & Coeckelbergh 2018)。其次,区块链是可信的(Aste et al. 2017)。第三,区块链可以“优化”信任(Swan & De Filippi 2017)。在这里,我将只关注前面提到的三个主张,即:(1)重塑我们的社会现实(2)承担信任的责任(3)优化信任。这三种说法显然是相互关联的。如果区块链能够重塑社会现实,那么它将重塑信任。这反过来又会影响这个问题的答案:“一个人能信任区块链吗?”同样,这也会影响一个问题的答案,即:区块链能否“优化”信任?因为它会影响区块链可以优化的项目的本质。这里的结论是:考虑到第一个主张对后两个主张的明确影响,如果有的话,这些主张是如何形成一个连贯的、合理的、可评估的区块链在人类事务中潜在影响的图景的?在本文中,我将试图通过对相关的各自主张的审查来回答这个基本问题。然而,在这样做的时候,我将把重点放在第一个主张及其对其他两个主张的影响上。这意味着我将继续假设区块链可以重塑我们的社会现实。然后,从这一假设出发,考察信任和诚信的社会本体论必须如何受到影响。尽管如此,我也将通过考试的过程来评估区块链基于信任的主张:关于它的可信度和优化信任和可信度的能力。1.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信