News
Who needs blockchain? New research says many decisions about using blockchain are unnecessary
New research has revealed that blockchain technology is probably not necessary in most cases, despite its popularity.
Published January 24, 2024•2 minute read
Blockchain technology has made headlines and grown in popularity in recent years, thanks in part to its use in the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. But new research from the University of Birmingham published in Telematic and IT reports found that in most cases the use of blockchain may not be necessary.
When someone wants to explore whether they should use blockchain, they can turn to blockchain decision schemes (BDS) to help them decide whether to use it or not.
Dr Joseph Preece, a computer scientist and researcher at the University of Birmingham who led the research, said: “Blockchain is a powerful data structure that provides a traceable and tamper-proof record of transactions. Using one can reduce the need for centralized authorities, and as such, researchers, entrepreneurs, and companies have been exploring ways to use the technology for their specific needs.
“For many, FC-BDS can help with decision making. However, our research has found that there are a huge number of FC-BDS to choose from, many of which suffer from inherent biases in one way or another. Overall, these patterns tend to suggest blockchain avoidance, meaning that people decide to use blockchain when a different solution might be just as good, or even better.”
Researchers have reviewed and conducted an in-depth analysis of FC-BDS. They found that the average model used eight questions and four outcomes to help users decide whether or not to use blockchain. Most questions focused on data and participation attributes, rather than safety and performance, which does not provide a holistic picture and can lead people to make an uninformed decision.
The study revealed that despite the vast number of different FC-BDS available, some schemes had similarities above 90%. The researchers argue that this may be because publishing the FC-BDS is not a formalized process, despite the significant role it could play in an important decision.
Dr Preece explained: “If you want to create and publish an FC-BDS you don’t necessarily have to subject it to peer review. It’s also incredibly easy to draw inspiration or copy previous models to build on. This means that some of these patterns end up having a lot of similarities, with only minor modifications to fit a specific need. Again, this flaw in the system could mean people are being pointed in the wrong direction.”
The next step in the research is to compare the performance of FC-BDSs with other forms of blockchain decision-making schemes. The researchers also want to create their own FC-BDS, taking into account the results of the study, and seek to promote the standardization of the production and publication of these tools.
Dr Preece concluded: “Blockchain is a very powerful technology and can be incredibly useful. But currently, the tools used to make decisions about its use cannot be considered as accurate as the advice of a domain expert. Without addressing the biases present in FC-BDS and without making the production of these schemes more rigorous, we will have people and companies deciding to use blockchain, when this may not be the right tool for them. These could be costly and time-consuming mistakes, and in some cases, blockchain implementation could end up causing more harm than good.”