A trustless society? A political look at the blockchain vision

Overview

• Blockchain technology is being heavily researched and applied in various industries, with the promise of eliminating the need for intermediaries like banks and notaries.
• However, the paper argues that in real-world applications, the power of central actors does not actually dissolve, but rather shifts to new, uncontrolled power centers.
• The paper concludes that blockchain does not efficiently solve any real-world problems and is not a substitute for traditional political processes or democratic regulation of power.

Plain English Explanation

The paper suggests that the excitement around blockchain technology may be misplaced. While the idea of a decentralized ledger that can eliminate the need for trusted intermediaries like banks and notaries is appealing, the reality is not so simple.

In practice, the power and control that these intermediaries hold does not disappear when using blockchain. Instead, it often just shifts to new, unregulated centers of power that are not subject to the same democratic oversight and control. This undermines the promise of blockchain to create a more equitable and transparent system.

The paper argues that blockchain has not actually solved any significant real-world problems more effectively than traditional approaches. It is not a replacement for the important role that political processes and democratic regulation play in governing power structures and interactions in society.

Technical Explanation

The paper examines the claims that blockchain technology can make intermediaries like banks and notaries "superfluous" and keep secure track of all interactions without the need for trusted third parties. It argues that in real-world applications of blockchain, the power of central actors does not actually dissolve, but rather shifts to new, uncontrolled power centers that lack democratic legitimacy.

The paper suggests that while blockchain is an interesting technical innovation, it does not effectively solve any pressing real-world problems. It is not a substitute for the essential role that traditional political processes and democratic regulation play in governing power structures and social interactions.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises valid concerns about the overhyped promises of blockchain technology. It rightly points out that the purported benefits of eliminating intermediaries and decentralizing power are often not realized in practice.

However, the paper could have delved deeper into specific case studies or examples to illustrate how the shift of power to new, uncontrolled centers manifests in real-world blockchain deployments. It would also have been helpful for the paper to explore in more depth the limitations of blockchain in solving real-world problems compared to traditional approaches.

While the paper's overall skepticism towards blockchain is understandable, a more balanced critique that acknowledges both the potential benefits and drawbacks of the technology may have been more constructive.

Conclusion

The paper presents a cautionary perspective on the use of blockchain technology, arguing that it does not live up to the promises of decentralization and eliminating the need for trusted intermediaries. Instead, it suggests that blockchain merely shifts power to new, uncontrolled centers, undermining its democratic potential.

The paper's core message is that blockchain is not a panacea for real-world problems and should not be viewed as a substitute for traditional political processes and democratic regulation of power structures. This is an important perspective to consider as the hype and excitement around blockchain continues to grow.