Trust in Blockchain Decision Schemes: A Study by the University of Birmingham

Monday - January 29 2024, 18:44 UTC - 10 months ago

New research from the University of Birmingham reveals biases and flaws in the use of blockchain decision schemes (BDSs), which may lead individuals and businesses to make uninformed decisions about using the technology. The most commonly used schemes focus primarily on data and participation attributes, neglecting important factors such as security and performance. Standardization and peer review of these tools are necessary to ensure accurate and trustworthy guidance.

In recent years, the use of blockchain technology has gained significant attention and popularity, largely due to its association with the well-known cryptocurrency Bitcoin. However, new research from the University of Birmingham suggests that in most cases, the use of blockchain may not be necessary.

When faced with the decision of whether or not to use blockchain, many turn to blockchain decision schemes (BDSs) to provide guidance. These tools use a series of questions and outcomes to help individuals and businesses determine if blockchain is the right solution for their specific needs.

Led by Dr. Joseph Preece, a Computer Scientist and Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham, the study analyzed a wide range of FC-BDSs (formalized criteria-based blockchain decision schemes). These schemes allow users to input specific criteria and generate a recommendation on whether or not to use blockchain. However, the researchers found that most FC-BDSs had a bias towards avoiding blockchain technology, potentially leading individuals and businesses to make uninformed decisions.

According to Dr. Preece, many of these biases stem from the fact that most FC-BDSs focus solely on data and participation attributes, neglecting factors such as security and performance. This narrow focus can result in recommendations that do not paint a holistic picture of the potential benefits and drawbacks of blockchain technology.

Another significant finding from the study was the lack of standardization and formal peer review in the production of FC-BDSs. With ease of access and the ability to copy and modify existing models, many of these schemes end up with a high degree of similarity. While this may seem like a positive development, it actually highlights potential flaws in the recommendations produced by these tools.

Moving forward, the researchers plan to compare the performance of FC-BDSs with other forms of blockchain decision schemes. They also hope to create their own FC-BDS, incorporating the findings of the study, and advocate for standardizing the production and publication of these tools.

In conclusion, while blockchain technology has immense potential, the use of FC-BDSs to make decisions about its implementation may not be entirely reliable. Dr. Preece stresses the need for caution and the importance of addressing biases and promoting standardization in the production of these tools. Ultimately, informed decision-making about the use of blockchain technology is crucial for its success and widespread adoption.