Exploring Blockchain Through Philosophy: Immutability and Liberty
Sasha Shilina’s “Chain of Thought: Exploring blockchain through the lens of philosophy” explores blockchain technology, viewed through a philosophical lens, offering profound insights into decentralization, openness, and the redistribution of power. It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to understand the full implications of blockchain on society and philosophy. I would like to focus only on the concepts of immutability and liberty.
I.The Immutability Paradox
At the heart of blockchain technology lies the concept of immutability. Blockchain’s unchangeable ledgers promise unparalleled historical accuracy and trust. However, blockchain’s promise of an unchangeable truth can be both a blessing and a burden.
-
In the financial sector, blockchain enhances trust in digital records by ensuring transactions are transparent and tamper-proof. This prevents fraud and increases accountability. here
-
In legal systems, an unchangeable truth can be problematic. Let’s explore a practical example in the context of real estate transactions
Example: Imagine a real estate transaction where the ownership deed of a property is recorded on a blockchain. The deed includes all details of the property, the seller, and the buyer, and is considered final once entered into the blockchain.
What are the Potential Issues?
-
If the seller fraudulently misrepresented ownership of the property, and the transaction was recorded on the blockchain, this fraudulent transaction becomes an immutable part of the blockchain. Even if the fraud is discovered later, the blockchain record cannot be altered to reflect the true ownership.
-
Suppose there is a legal dispute about the property, such as a claim from an heir who was unaware of their inheritance rights at the time of the sale. Once the deed is on the blockchain, it cannot be updated to include this new claim, even if a court later rules in favor of the heir.
-
If there was a clerical error in entering the property details or ownership information on the blockchain, this mistake is permanent. The parties involved would have to create a new transaction to correct the error, but the incorrect record would still exist and could cause confusion or legal issues in the future.
What are the implications?
-
While blockchain is meant to enhance trust through transparency, these immutable errors or fraudulent entries can erode trust in the system.
-
Courts and legal authorities would need to develop new mechanisms to address disputes arising from immutable records, potentially leading to increased legal costs and complexities.
-
Real estate agents, lawyers, and property owners would need to implement cumbersome workarounds to manage and correct issues that arise due to the blockchain’s unchangeable nature.
II. The Liberty Dilemma
Does blockchain truly liberate individuals, or does it impose a new form of digital determinism? The technology’s transparency and permanence can, paradoxically, lead to a loss of privacy and control over one’s digital footprint.
I would like to delve into the ethical implications of this new form of liberty. Is it true freedom if our actions are permanently recorded and transparent to all? Or does this transparency create a new form of surveillance and control, hidden under the guise of decentralization? Both? Let's explore this through 3 examples:
-
Scenario: Users share opinions and content without censorship.
Implication: All posts and interactions are permanently recorded on the blockchain.
Ethical Concern: Users may hesitate to express themselves freely, knowing their content is permanently visible to everyone, including potential employers, law enforcement, and other entities.
Surveillance Risk: This permanent transparency can lead to self-censorship and a feeling of being constantly monitored.
-
Scenario: Citizens vote in elections using a blockchain system for transparency and security.
Implication: Each vote is recorded immutably on the blockchain.
Ethical Concern: Even if votes are anonymized, patterns can potentially be traced back to individuals.
Surveillance Risk: The system could be used to track and influence voting behaviors, undermining the concept of a private and free election process.
-
Scenario: People use cryptocurrency for transactions, enjoying financial freedom without traditional banking oversight.
Implication: Every transaction is permanently recorded on the blockchain.
Ethical Concern: The transparency of transactions can reveal spending habits, financial status, and personal information.
Surveillance Risk: This data can be mined and analyzed to control or manipulate individuals’ economic activities, potentially leading to financial profiling and loss of privacy.
Ethical Implications and Future Considerations
As an economist inspired by Hayek's libertarian ideals, I found blockchain technology incredibly appealing. Hayek championed decentralization and free markets, and blockchain embodies these principles by facilitating peer-to-peer transactions without the need for centralized control.
From a libertarian perspective, blockchain offers both liberation and digital determinism. Its decentralization empowers individuals by reducing reliance on intermediaries. However, its transparency and permanence can erode privacy, as actions are permanently recorded and accessible, contradicting libertarian ideals of personal freedom and control over one's digital footprint.
The philosophical inquiries posed by Sasha’s “Chain of Thought” challenge us to rethink the ethical frameworks within which we evaluate technological advancements. In particular, Blockchain’s principles of immutability and liberty are not just technical features but are deeply intertwined with our evolving notions of truth, autonomy, and trust.
