Advertisement

Blockchain and Trust: A Practice-Based Inquiry

  • Michael HeidtEmail author
  • Arne Berger
  • Andreas Bischof
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11588)

Abstract

Blockchain technologies, such as the distributed cryptocurrency Bitcoin, present us with a vast array of possible applications. They promise to fundamentally transform traditional systems of managing property, conducting governance, organising smart devices, and establishing online identities.

At the same time, few large scale real-world applications of the technology exist apart from Bitcoin. This makes designing Blockchain systems difficult, since there are few guidelines and frameworks available for interaction designers. Furthermore, due to the allegedly disruptive nature of these systems, user studies and observations based on current data are of limited utility. In this paper, we propose and discuss a design methodology combining practice-based research methods with elements of speculative design. In so doing we focus on one key aspect of Blockchain systems: trust. We thus want to show how practice-based methods can inform blockchain designs while providing an elucidative conceptualisation of the key category of trust.

Keywords

Practice-based research Blockchain Smart contracts Critical technical practice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Andrea von Braun Foundation, Munich, under the grant “Blockchain – A Practice-Based Inquiry Into a Future Agent of Social Transformation”.

References

  1. 1.
    Elsden, C., Manohar, A., Briggs, J., Harding, M., Speed, C., Vines, J.: Making sense of blockchain applications: a typology for HCI. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2018, pp. 458:1–458:14. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swan, M.: Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy, 1st edn. O’Reilly Media, Beijing, Sebastopol (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., Kalyanaraman, V.: Blockchain technology: beyond bitcoin. Appl. Innov. 2, 6–10 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pschetz, L., Tallyn, E., Gianni, R., Speed, C.: Bitbarista: exploring perceptions of data transactions in the Internet of Things. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2964–2975. ACM, February 2017Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Speed, C., Maxwell, D., Pschetz, L.: Blockchain City: economic, social and cognitive ledgers. In: Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T., McArdle, G. (eds.) Data and the City. Regions and Cities. Routledge, August 2017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunphy, P., Petitcolas, F.A.: A first look at identity management schemes on the blockchain. IEEE Secur. Priv. 16(4), 20–29 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, Y., Wang, Q.: An e-voting protocol based on blockchain. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Technical report 1043:2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tapscott, D., Tapscott, A.: Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World. Portfolio, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ito, J., Narula, N., Ali, R.: The Blockchain Will Do to the Financial System What the Internet Did to Media. Harvard Business Review, March 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scrivener, S., Chapman, P.: The practical implications of applying a theory of practice based research: a case study. Working Papers in Art and Design, vol. 3 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mäkelä, M.: Knowing through making: the role of the artefact in practice-led research. Knowl. Technol. Policy 20(3), 157–163 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holmes, A.: Reconciling Experimentum and Experientia: Ontology for Reflective Practice Research in New Media (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunne, A., Raby, F.: Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blythe, M.: Research through design fiction: narrative in real and imaginary abstracts. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2014, pp. 703–712. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bleecker, J.: Design Fiction: a short essay on design, science, fact and fiction. Near Future Laboratory 29 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sterling, B.: Design fiction. Interactions 16(3), 20–24 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heidt, M., Kanellopoulos, K., Pfeiffer, L., Rosenthal, P.: Diverse ecologies – interdisciplinary development for cultural education. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8120, pp. 539–546. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heidt, M.: Examining interdisciplinary prototyping in the context of cultural communication. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013. LNCS, vol. 8013, pp. 54–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39241-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berger, A., Heidt, M.: Exploring prototypes in interaction design - qualitative analysis & playful design method. In: Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference 2015 - Interplay, Brisbane, Australia (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maxwell, D., Speed, C., Campbell, D.: ‘Effing’ the ineffable: opening up understandings of the blockchain. In: Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference, British HCI 2015, pp. 208–209. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33(7), 14–26 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heidt, M., Kanellopoulos, K., Berger, A., Rosenthal, P.: Incommensurable writings - examining the status of gender difference within HCI coding practices. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2015. LNCS, vol. 9187, pp. 196–205. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20898-5_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Latour, B.: Technology is society made durable. Sociol. Rev. 38(S1), 103–131 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M.: Human-computer non-interaction: the activity of non-use. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, DIS Companion 2014, pp. 57–60. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heidt, M., Kanellopoulos, K., Pfeiffer, L., Rosenthal, P.: HCI and the community of non-users. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2015. LNCS, vol. 9186, pp. 44–52. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20886-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nake, F., Grabowski, S.: Aesthetics and algorithmics. In: Aesthetic Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luhmann, N.: Trust and Power. Wiley, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trust, Relational, Assurance, Transactional: Socioeconomic Bricolage on the Blockchain: Relational Trust, Transactional Assurance: Socioeconomic Bricolage on the Blockchain. In: CHI 2018 Workshop HCI for Blockchain, Montreal, Canada, April 2018, p. 10 (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim, H., Laskowski, M.: A perspective on blockchain smart contracts: reducing uncertainty and complexity in value exchange. In: 2017 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), pp. 1–6, July 2017Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heidt, M.: Reconstructing Coding Practice - Towards a Methodology for Source-Code. In: Boll, S., Maaß, S., Malaka, R. (eds.) Mensch & Computer 2013 - Workshopband, München, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 271–275 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berger, A., Heidt, M., Eibl, M.: Conduplicated symmetries: renegotiating the material basis of prototype research. In: Chakrabarti, A. (ed.) ICoRD’15 – Research into Design Across Boundaries Volume 1. SIST, vol. 34, pp. 71–78. Springer, New Delhi (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2232-3_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bischof, A., Heidt, M.: Die Verkomplizierung des Komplexen. Latours Unterscheidung “komplex/kompliziert” als Perspektive auf die Genese von Kommunikations- und Medientechnologien. In: Tagungsband - Medienkommunikation Zwischen Komplexität Und Vereinfachung: Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GeDISUniversity of KasselKasselGermany
  2. 2.Chair Media InformaticsChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations