Technology or phenomenon: Why blockchain is not a technology

Lee, Byunguk Article Technology or phenomenon: Why blockchain is not a technology Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Lee, Byunguk (2025) : Technology or phenomenon: Why blockchain is not a technology, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020057 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321201 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 20 November 2024 Revised: 8 February 2025 Accepted: 10 February 2025 Published: 11 February 2025 Citation: Lee, B. (2025). Technology or Phenomenon: Why Blockchain Is Not a Technology. Administrative Sciences, 15(2), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15020057 Copyright: © 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Technology or Phenomenon: Why Blockchain Is Not a Technology Byunguk Lee Seoul Business School, aSSIST University, Seoul 03767, Republic of Korea; [email protected] Abstract: Blockchain was introduced in 2008, yet it remains poorly defined over a decade later. Despite the lack of a universally accepted definition, its utility continues to be widely advocated. However, a function or feature can only be classified as a technology if it addresses a specific human discomfort. A mere combination of ambiguous functionalities without a clear purpose cannot be considered a technology. This paper investigates whether blockchain is an appropriate term for a specific technology or merely an ambiguous amalgamation of features. It further argues that technologies with analogous functionalities should be classified as distinct technologies if their applications differ. Through a literature review of the criteria for defining a technology, this paper finds that blockchain does not meet these requirements. Additionally, existing definitions of blockchain often fail to meet proper criteria or inaccurately describe its functionality. In the academic context, the term “blockchain technology” is a clear misnomer that should be discouraged. The findings can guide decision making for stakeholders, including companies, regulators, and legislators involved in the virtual asset market. Keywords: technology; definition; blockchain; human discomfort; function; feature 1. Introduction Technology is a set of functions or features, and there are countless ways to combine these functions and features. Consequently, the mere act of combining functions and features in a novel manner does not necessarily result in a new technology. A combination of these elements qualifies as technology when it exhibits certain intrinsic properties. Moreover, technology must be beneficial to humanity; therefore, tricks employed in gambling or methods of torture that are not conducive to the well-being of humankind are not considered technology (Mumford,1950). Meanwhile, to define a technology, there are specific criteria that the defining statement must fulfill. For instance, it is necessary to provide a precise and clear description of its scope and to indicate with equal clarity what it does not encompass (Hempel,1965). Many people mention the term blockchain, yet it is surprising that no established definition exists. Moreover, little effort has been made to properly define blockchain from a technological perspective. This raises the question of whether this gap is due to a lack of research or if blockchain itself does not qualify as a technology, making a definitive definition inherently unattainable. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the term blockchain meets the necessary criteria for technology. In order to achieve this, the Bitcoin white paper is subjected to a comprehensive analysis in order to identify the specific functions, features and the original rationale behind the development of blockchain. Subsequently, these findings are evaluated in comparison to the fundamental requirements that a technology must Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020057 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 2 of 17 fulfill. To be precise, three distinct analyses are conducted. Firstly, an analysis is conducted to determine whether blockchain is merely a combination of features and functions or qualifies as a standalone technology based on requisite criteria. Secondly, the market’s widely accepted blockchain definitions are examined to ascertain whether they meet the necessary criteria for a technical definition. Finally, the market’s descriptions of blockchain are checked to determine whether they accurately describe the true functions and features of blockchain. In particular, this study investigates whether the term “distributed ledger” as a definition of blockchain and “security tool” as its characterization accurately represent the underlying technology. Technology evolves over time, and its components naturally change and adapt. Over the past decades, blockchain has undergone significant evolution, giving rise to numerous variants. While the components of a technology may evolve, its core objective must remain consistent. A shift in this objective signifies a fundamental change in the technology’s purpose, transforming it into a different technology altogether. Bitcoin is built on blockchain, and it would be illogical to continue using the term “blockchain” to describe systems that have significantly altered or even completely reversed its fundamental functions and attributes. Currently, numerous entities in the market use the term “blockchain”, yet some exhibit characteristics entirely opposite to those of Bitcoin. In other words, entities with fundamentally different attributes are labeled under the same term. As a result, claiming that a system is built on blockchain provides little meaningful insight into the specific technology employed. Blockchain has thus become a vague term, lacking clarity in both functionality and purpose. The debate over whether blockchain and cryptocurrencies are inseparable exemplifies the prevailing confusion. Some argue they are inherently linked, while others dispute this claim. In reality, the answer is straightforward: in some cases, they are inseparable, while in others, they are not. However, these opposing views refer to entirely different architecture while using the same terminology. Given the multitude of systems currently labeled as blockchain, a key objective of this paper is to assess whether “blockchain” is an appropriate designation for a technology. The precise definition of blockchain is currently lacking, and the ambiguity resulting from this deficiency has been discussed in various scholarly works, which have highlighted numerous issues that arise as a result (Ghiro et al.,2021;Hoffman et al.,2020;Sultan et al., 2018;Tabatabaei et al.,2023). The concept of blockchain was not clearly defined from its inception. It is notable that the term “blockchain” is absent from the original 2008 white paper of Bitcoin in which it was first introduced. Instead, the terms “block” and “chain”, which are common in the field of computer science, are mentioned separately on several occasions (Nakamoto,2008). In computer science, the term “block” is used to describe a unit of data that is processed simultaneously (Black,1998;Jaradat et al.,2022). The term “chain”, on the other hand, is used to refer to the arrangement that establishes the sequence of processed data, typically indicating a temporal relationship between the data elements (Cormen et al.,2022;Graham, 1994). Consequently, if we take the term “blockchain” and interpret it based on the meanings of the individual words in the context of computer science, it could be described as “data processed simultaneously, arranged in a sequence that specifies their temporal relationship”. “The processed data having a temporal relationship” precisely matches the characteristics of a ledger. A ledger is a record of transactions, and the most critical aspect of these records is the timestamping of events that occur at specific points in time. This alignment is also why blockchain is often referred to as a Timestamp Machine (Konstantinidis et al.,2018; Kumaresh,2021). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 3 of 17 The term “blockchain” did not originate from an academic or technical definition; rather, it was created by combining the general terms “block” and “chain” from computer science, which appeared in the Bitcoin white paper, and was initially used to describe the functions and features of Bitcoin. Consequently, the term “blockchain” is an inherently ambiguous concept, rendering it challenging to identify a specific technology at the outset. The findings of this study indicate that blockchain fails to meet the essential criteria for a technology. Consequently, it cannot be classified as a technology in its own right, but rather as a mere combination of functions and features. Moreover, a considerable number of the terms currently in use to explain or define blockchain, including distributed ledgers, have been found to be inadequate in accurately describing blockchain or failing to meet the criteria of a proper definition. Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that the numerous attributes of blockchain that are frequently cited, including its purported security and database capabilities, are based on erroneous assumptions and are, in fact, not closely related to the actual functionalities of blockchain. This study enhances the understanding of blockchain functionality and terminology, benefiting both potential adopters in technical areas and researchers examining its role in the virtual asset market. By addressing ambiguities and proposing criteria for precise definitions, it mitigates the risks associated with misinformation-driven trial and error, facilitates more informed decision making, and promotes the broader adoption of accurate terminology. Ultimately, it contributes to a more structured and reliable foundation for blockchain-related research and practical applications. In this paper, the terms “Bitcoin” and “blockchain” are used interchangeably. The term “Bitcoin” is primarily used when referencing blockchain in accordance with the interpretation of the concept set forth in the white paper. In contrast, the term “blockchain” is used to refer to a broader concept that encompasses all potential future forms, extending beyond the scope of the white paper. 2. Theoretical Framework Conceptual analysis is a process that involves the synthesis of existing literature in order to refine and systematize definitions. These definitions are then applied to specific cases or objects of study. This approach integrates terminologies used in prior research in order to derive a common definition and examines whether a given subject aligns with the established conceptual framework. Wilson’s Concept Analysis (Wilson,1970) examines various contexts in which a term is used to extract its core meaning, while Sartori’s Concept Formation (Sartori,1970) defines a concept and then conducts a comparative analysis to determine whether a given subject fits within that definition. This paper employs a conceptual analysis framework for comparative analysis with the objective of determining whether blockchain can be classified as a technology. In order to achieve this, we use a methodology which involves the extraction of the common elements that a technology should possess. This is achieved through a review of the existing literature, which is then compared to blockchain to determine whether blockchain can be considered a technology. For the attainment of this goal, an examination of the literature was conducted on the essential elements of technology over the past several decades, with the objective of extracting the common elements. Similarly, the prerequisites for a technical definition are examined through a systematic review of the literature and then contrasted with the diverse definitions and descriptions of blockchain that are currently available in the marketplace. Figure 1illustrates the theoretical framework of this paper. Initially, a literature review was conducted to identify the conditions that a technology must fulfill and the requirements for a valid technical definition. First, through path 1  , we examine whether Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 4 of 17 the functions and features of Bitcoin meet the requirements of a technology. Similarly, through path 2  , we assess whether the definitions of blockchain available in the market meet the requirements of a valid technical definition. Likewise, through path 3  , we compare whether the descriptions of blockchain’s functions in the market are accurate and free from errors or falsehoods. Figure 1. Conceptual framework with comparative analysis. 2.1. Requirements of Technology The definition of technology itself remains a challenging task, due to the complexity of the concept. This complexity has led to multiple disputes over its definition, even at the Supreme Court level, particularly in cases involving patent litigation and other legal matters (Morris,2014). However, despite the diverse perspectives and definitions of technology, there exist common and essential components that all definitions share. These core elements function as criteria for determining whether a specific set of functions qualifies as technology. Lewis Mumford was one of the early researchers who studied the conditions that technology must meet. He argued that technology has evolved as a means to satisfy human material and psychological needs, and that it should advance in a way that alleviates human discomfort and improves life. If it fails to do so, then technology has lost its original purpose (Mumford,1950). Similarly, Gilbert Simondon believed that the purpose of technology is to fulfill human needs and eliminate discomfort. He argued that technology must contribute to improving human life and creating better living conditions (Simondon, 2011). Donald A. Norman argued that designs which are easy for users to engage with and that alleviate everyday inconveniences are prime examples of good technology. He maintained that if technology fails to meet users’ needs and expectations, it cannot be considered successful. Norman emphasized that the practicality of technology, particularly in terms of usability, is crucial for addressing human discomfort (Norman,2013). Ivan Illich argued that technology should enhance human autonomy and alleviate discomfort. He criticized technology that complicates or disrupts human life, suggesting that such technology is heading in the wrong direction. Illich proposed that technology should serve as a tool to make life more convenient and enjoyable for people (Illich,1973). These various works share a common concept: technology must contribute to alleviating human discomfort and improving quality of life. If technology fails to improve human life or even causes inconvenience, it deviates from its essential purpose. This critical perspective emphasizes that true technology should enhance the quality of life rather than complicate it. For blockchain to be considered within the realm of technology, it must contribute to the alleviation of some form of discomfort or inconvenience. In other words, there must be Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 5 of 17 a specific inconvenience that blockchain resolves—something that would make life more difficult or uncomfortable in its absence. As illustrated in Table 1, the fundamental prerequisite for a technology is the resolution of human discomfort and the contribution to human welfare. Consequently, for an entity to be categorized as a technology and not merely a meaningless assemblage of characteristics, there must be a human discomfort that it addresses. In the absence of such discomfort or if it is unable to alleviate the existing discomfort, it should not be classified as a technology. Table 1. Requirement of a Technology. Literature Key Point Lewis Mumford (Mumford,1950) Alleviates human discomfort and improves life. Ivan Illich (Illich,1973) Enhances human autonomy and alleviates discomfort. Gilbert Simondon (Simondon,2011) Fulfills human needs and eliminates discomfort. Don Norman (Norman,2013) Crucial for addressing human discomfort. In the recent literature on technology, research does not reject or deny the characteristics of traditional technology definitions but rather seeks to inherit them while attempting to expand their definition. Coccia M expanded the concept of technology beyond humans to include animals, defining it as a complex system enabling organisms to adapt, achieve goals, and solve problems. Despite this broader scope, technology remains fundamentally practical and economically driven, emphasizing its systematic and purposeful nature (Coccia,2019). Adam Thierer analyzed 27 existing definitions of technology, noting the lack of a singular definition. Some definitions focus solely on its form, while others incorporate its purpose. He highlights that technological definitions evolve based on historical and societal contexts, yet practicality and the fulfillment of human purposes remain constant across eras (Adam Thierer,2024). This study defines the essential requisites of technology as the “alleviation of human discomfort and the improvement of life” as a universal criterion, as it is a common factor in technology definitions throughout history and encompasses purposefulness, economic viability, and efficiency. Alleviating human discomfort requires identifying a specific discomfort, eliminating it through technology and thereby improving quality of life. For blockchain to qualify as a technology, it must (1) clearly define the discomfort it addresses, (2) prove that its removal enhances life quality (3) and demonstrate that existing technologies are either incapable or highly inefficient in resolving it. 2.2. Requirements of Technical Definition In science and technology, there are necessary requirements that a definition must fulfill, and the literature commonly discusses several major attributes. Bridgman, P.W. emphasized clarity and precision, specificity and consistency arguing that definitions must be clear and free from ambiguity. In other words, a definition should be described accurately so that it can be universally understood by its intended audience and should clearly delineate the concept being defined, differentiating it from others (Bridgman,1927). Carnap, R. discusses the importance of consistency, stating that a definition must be consistent with existing science or laws. In other words, a definition should not contradict previous research and should seamlessly integrate into the established framework of theories (Carnap,1988). Hempel, C.G. addressed the importance of scope and boundaries, Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 6 of 17 emphasizing that a good definition should clearly explain the range that the concept encompasses and delineate its boundaries. This means it should specifically indicate what is included in the definition and, importantly, what is not (Hempel,1965). As can be seen from Table 2, a technical definition must provide a clear and precise delineation of its scope and utility, with accuracy that distinctly differentiates it from other entities, and must align with existing research and theories. It is of paramount importance that a clear and detailed explanation of what is not included is provided. Therefore, any definition whose scope is not clearly defined or that contradicts the framework of existing theories cannot be considered a valid definition. Table 2. Requirement of a technical definition. Literature Keyword Bridgman, P.W (Bridgman,1927) Accuracy—understood by its intended and clearly delineate the concept being defined. Hempel, C.G (Hempel,1965) Indicate what is included and, importantly, what is not. Carnap, R. (Carnap,1988) Should not contradict previous research and should seamlessly integrate into the established framework of theories. Having established the fundamental requirements that a technology must satisfy and the criteria for a valid technical definition based on the existing literature, we will now examine whether blockchain can be classified as a technology, and whether the various definitions and descriptions of blockchain currently available on the market align with the requirements of a technical definition. 3. Analysis of Bitcoin Features and Functions The rationale behind the creation of Bitcoin and its intended functions are clearly outlined in the Bitcoin white paper. It identifies shortcomings in traditional transactional processes that rely on trust in third parties, noting that “completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes”. The paper argues that the involvement of a trusted third party necessitates mediation, which is inherently problematic. To address this, it proposes a solution: recording transactions in a way that makes them computationally infeasible to reverse, thereby eliminating the need for mediation. This is explicitly stated in both the introduction and the conclusion. (Nakamoto,2008). The majority of the Bitcoin white paper elucidates the methodologies used to make transactions computationally impractical to reverse. Notably, Section 10 of the white paper highlights another function of Bitcoin: privacy. Bitcoin ensures privacy by concealing the identities of transaction participants through addresses generated from hidden keys, in contrast to traditional transactions. The paper does not explicitly describe any other purposes or functions, except for the removal of a trusted third party, which can lead to reduced transaction fees. However, since this is merely a side effect rather than a primary purpose, it should not be considered. Moreover, this rationale is valid only if the argument that mediation itself is the core problem is justified. In light of the above, the functions of Bitcoin, as outlined in the white paper, can be distilled into two fundamental principles: first, the implementation of a ledger that is inherently resistant to computational reversal to eliminate the need for mediation; and second, the facilitation of transactions through addresses generated from hidden keys. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 7 of 17 This study examines the relationship between these two aspects and human discomfort, assessing whether blockchain technology effectively addresses these issues and contributes to human well-being. This analysis will determine whether blockchain can be considered a technology in its own right. The assertion that a technology eliminates human discomfort implies that, in its absence, such discomfort would resurface. Therefore, examining the human discomfort that blockchain addresses is essentially an analysis of the potential discomfort that would arise without it. 3.1. Ledger That Is Inherently Resistant to Reversal Through Computational Means The white paper argues that mediation itself is fundamentally flawed, ultimately framing it as a form of human discomfort that must be eliminated. Consequently, it proposes that mediation should be made impossible. To address this, the concept of a P2P ledger is introduced, designed to be computationally infeasible to reverse. Bitcoin’s first real implementation in 2009 employed proof-of-work to make altering records prohibitively expensive in terms of energy consumption. The concept of proof-of-work was originally proposed in 1992 by Cynthia Dwork and colleagues as a method to combat the spread of unsolicited electronic messages, or spam, by intentionally consuming substantial computational resources to hinder spammers’ ability to distribute messages (Dwork & Naor,1992). We will now analyze whether mediation qualifies as a form of human discomfort to be addressed and the extent to which blockchain has contributed to resolving this challenge. In contrast, mediation represents a fundamental aspect of financial operations (Ilaria & Paech,2018). Transaction errors can arise from various factors, including phishing scams and simple human mistakes. When such errors occur, financial institutions are required to intervene through mediation, which is conducted in strict compliance with established laws and regulatory procedures to ensure proper governance. While instances of improper mediation, such as fraud, may occur, the argument that mediation itself is fundamentally flawed is not valid. Considering the human discomfort caused by losses that cannot be remedied due to the absence of mediation, it becomes clear that mediation functions as an intermediary technology designed to alleviate human discomfort. The Bitcoin system avoids mediation not through established rules or governance, but solely by obstructing record changes through prohibitively expensive computational methods. As a result, mediation is almost impossible in cases of erroneous transfers, phishing, or loss of encryption keys. Conversely, those with superior computing power can alter records at their discretion. This is accomplished through the decentralized consensus protocol, which requires longer chains to override shorter ones. This process is not subject to any regulation. In conclusion, the objective of Bitcoin, which is to eliminate the need for intermediaries, does not alleviate human discomfort but rather increases it. Furthermore, it has also failed to achieve this goal, even from a technical point of view. Indeed, in the absence of any form of governance, the mere presence of superior computational resources enables the enforcement of mediation, even in instances of illicit activities. This is commonly referred to as a 51% attack (Aponte-Novoa et al.,2021). 3.2. Privacy Through Hidden Key The second function extracted for Bitcoin analysis is its privacy feature, which conceals the transaction parties by employing a hidden encryption key and conducting transactions via an address generated by the user. The ability to identify transaction details in modern finance is not a consequence of a lack of technology to prevent it; rather, it is the result of the Know-Your-Customer (KYC) system, which has been designed with the specific purpose of preventing money laundering Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 8 of 17 and other illicit activities. Consequently, any technological endeavor to circumvent KYC does not negate the inherent discomfort of the process, but rather constitutes a criminal act in violation of the law. If the issue related to privacy is merely a matter of human discomfort, there would be no necessity for the development of a distinct technological solution to address it. The issue could be resolved by simply not implementing KYC. In other words, this is not a matter of technological deficiency, but rather a problem created by regulations and laws. If KYC were to be ignored, it would be possible for all transactions to be concealed and privacy to be guaranteed. In conclusion, the privacy feature implemented by Bitcoin can be considered a mere workaround that allows users to create their own addresses in order to circumvent KYC procedures. It is evident that this feature has no bearing on the fundamental issue of resolving human discomfort. 3.3. Smart Contract and Other Variations to Bitcoin Departing from Bitcoin’s original objective, some argue that its various functions and characteristics can be redefined as valuable technologies. For example, the computationally expensive method used to eliminate mediation is proposed as a potential security feature to prevent tampering. This perspective also reflects the view that while early blockchains had limited functionality, more advanced and versatile blockchains will emerge in the future. New technologies often build on existing ones, sometimes by combining them in novel ways for different purposes. Similarly, Bitcoin’s functions rely on previously developed technologies. The same applies to Bitcoin addresses designed for privacy. While the concept of independently generating addresses using the hash value of a public key introduces a novel feature—enabling anonymous transactions through cryptographic keys—it is merely an application of cryptographic hashing and asymmetric encryption within blockchain. This feature alone does not define blockchain. Similarly, later additions such as Decentralized Applications, though they expand functionality and attract interest, require a clear identification of the human discomfort they aim to address for classification as a distinct technology. Ultimately, even if different technologies share similar or identical functionalities, they must be considered separate technologies with different names if their purposes are fundamentally different. A change in purpose warrants a different term. Using the term “blockchain” for various technologies with different purposes is misleading from a technological standpoint and serves primarily as a marketing tactic. 3.4. Is Bitcoin Technology? Table 3presents a summary of the evaluation of whether Bitcoin meets the criteria for classification as a technology. Table 3. Assessment of functions of Bitcoin. Function Assessment Comment Neutralization of Mediation Mediation is not human discomfort; on the contrary, it is a core function in finance that must necessarily exist. In contrast to mediation based on legal legitimacy, Bitcoin is a system that enables any individual with superior computing resources to compel mediation. Privacy Protection The absence of privacy is not a source of human discomfort; rather, it is an institutional mechanism that has been established for the purpose of ensuring sound and transparent financial practices. The issue of privacy is not a purely technical matter; rather, it is a question of regulations and laws. As shown in Table 3, Bitcoin does not contribute to the alleviation of any human discomfort. Consequently, it cannot be classified as a technology, nor can blockchain. While existing technologies have been integrated in novel ways, the result is merely a collection Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 15 of 17 advancements. Blockchain is often presented as a symbol of novelty and innovation, reinforcing the perception that the virtual asset trading market is a future-oriented entity closely tied to blockchain’s progress. A recent paper by officials from the European Central Bank reveals that promoters of Bitcoin as an investment asset rarely mention any economic functions that justify its value. Moreover, since Bitcoin does not enhance the economy’s productive capacity, the wealth effect for early holders comes at the expense of broader societal consumption (Bindseil & Schaaf,2024). In essence, the virtual asset market exhibits characteristics of a Ponzi scheme, where early adopters accumulate wealth at the cost of later participants. It is imperative that future research delves deeply into the social impact of the virtual asset market. It is of paramount importance to define with precision the impact of the market for virtual assets on society, and to ascertain whether this impact is beneficial or harmful. It is anticipated that future research will aim to define the true nature of blockchain with greater technical clarity. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Adam Thierer. (2024). Defining “technology”. Medium. Available online: https://medium.com/@AdamThierer/defining-technology-0 c5c95c8360d (accessed on 30 January 2025). Alan Szepieniec. (2023). Proof-of-work is objective, proof-of-stake is not. Bitcoin Magazine. Available online: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/ technical/proof-of-work-is-objective-proof-of-stake-is-not?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 22 November 2024). Antonopoulos, A. M. (2014). Mastering bitcoin: Unlocking digital cryptocurrencies. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Aponte-Novoa, F. A., Orozco, A. L. S., Villanueva-Polanco, R., & Wightman, P. (2021). The 51% attack on blockchains: A mining behavior study. IEEE Access,9, 140549–140564. [CrossRef] Bel, L. (2021). 5 reasons to explain why Azure Blockchain Service was shutdown. Medium. Available online: https://medium.com/pernod -ricard-tech/5-reasons-to-explain-why-azure-blockchain-service-was-shutdown-e78e006e5cbb (accessed on 25 November 2024). Bindseil, U., & Schaaf, J. (2024). The distributional consequences of Bitcoin. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ?abstract_id=4985877 (accessed on 20 November 2024). Bizama, G., Wu, A., Paniagua, B., & Mitre, M. (2024). A Framework for Digital Currencies for Financial Inclusion in Latin America and the Caribbean. arXiv, arXiv:2401.09811. Black, P. E. (1998). Dictionary of algorithms and data structures. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J. A., & Felten, E. W. (2015, May 17–21). Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 104–121), San Jose, CA, USA. Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. Beaufort Brooks. Browne, R. (2022). Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee wants us to ‘ignore’ Web3: ‘Web3 is not the web at all’. CNBC. Available online: https:// www.cnbc.com/2022/11/04/web-inventor-tim-berners-lee-wants-us-to-ignore-web3.html (accessed on 20 January 2025). Carnap, R. (1988). Meaning and necessity: A study in semantics and modal logic (Vol. 30). University of Chicago Press. Chaum, D., Grothoff, C., & Moser, T. (2021). How to issue a central bank digital currency. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2103.00254 (accessed on 10 November 2024). Coccia, M. (2019). A new concept of technology with systemic-purposeful perpsective: Theory, examples and empirical application. arXiv, arXiv:1909.05689. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2022). Introduction to algorithms. MIT press. Corwin, S. (n.d.). Proof-of-stake (PoS). Ethereum Foundation. Available online: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus -mechanisms/pos/ (accessed on 15 December 2024). Coulouris, G. F., Dollimore, J., & Kindberg, T. (2005). Distributed systems: Concepts and design. Pearson Education. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 16 of 17 Daugherty, B. (2022, September). Proof-of-stake is proof of misunderstanding. CoinGeek. Available online: https://coingeek.com/ proof-of-stake-is-proof-of-misunderstanding/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 16 December 2024). Dujak, D., & Sajter, D. (2018). Blockchain applications in supply chain. Springer. Durigan Junior, C. A., Spinola, M. de M., Gonçalves, R., & Laurindo, F. J. B. (2022, December 19–21). Central bank digital currencies: The advent of its it governance in the financial markets. 19th Contecsi–International Conference on Information Systems and Technology Management, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Dwork, C., & Naor, M. (1992). Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail (pp. 139–147). Springer. Garcia-Molina, H. (2008). Database systems: The complete book. Pearson Education India. Ghiro, L., Restuccia, F., D’Oro, S., Basagni, S., Melodia, T., Maccari, L., & Cigno, R. L. (2021). What is a blockchain? A definition to clarify the role of the blockchain in the internet of things. arXiv, arXiv:2102.03750. Gortsos, C. (2021). The commission’s 2020 proposal for a markets in crypto-assets regulation (‘MiCAR’): A brief introductory overview. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3842824 (accessed on 20 November 2024). Graham, R. L. (1994). Concrete mathematics: A foundation for computer science. Pearson Education India. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Singh, R. P., Suman, R., & Rab, S. (2021). Blockchain technology applications in healthcare: An overview. International Journal of Intelligent Networks,2, 130–139. [CrossRef] Hawlitschek, F., Notheisen, B., & Teubner, T. (2018). The limits of trust-free systems: A literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,29, 50–63. [CrossRef] Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. Free Press. Hilary, G., & Liu, L. X. (2021). Blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies in finance. In The Palgrave Handbook of Technological Finance (pp. 243–268). Springer. Hoffman, M. R., Ibáñez, L.-D., & Simperl, E. (2020). Toward a formal scholarly understanding of blockchain-mediated decentralization: A systematic review and a framework. Frontiers in Blockchain,3, 35. [CrossRef] Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2017). The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review,95(1), 118–127. IEEE SA. (2023, May). The evolution of Wi-Fi technology and standards. IEEE. Available online: https://standards.ieee.org/beyond -standards/the-evolution-of-wi-fi-technology-and-standards/ (accessed on 27 November 2024). Ilaria, F., & Paech, P. (2018). Mediation of Financial Disputes. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract _ id=32 13847 (accessed on 5 December 2024). Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality calder & boyars. La Convivencialidad. Jaradat, A., Ali, O., & AlAhmad, A. (2022). Blockchain Technology: A Fundamental Overview (pp. 1–24). Springer. [CrossRef] Konstantinidis, I., Siaminos, G., Timplalexis, C., Zervas, P., Peristeras, V., & Decker, S. (2018, July 18–20). Blockchain for business applications: A systematic literature review. Business Information Systems: 21st International Conference, BIS 2018 (pp. 384–399), Berlin, Germany. Kumaresh, S. (2021). Academic blockchain: An application of blockchain technology in education system. In Data management, analytics and innovation: Proceedings of ICDMAI 2020 (pp. 435–448). Springer. Le Bris, D. (2016). Shiller, Robert J.: Irrational exuberance. Journal of Economics,117(2), 185. [CrossRef] Mayer, H. (2016). ECDSA security in bitcoin and ethereum: A research survey. CoinFaabrik,28(126), 50. Morris, E. M. (2014). What is “Technology”? BUJ Science & Technology Law,20, 24. Mumford, L. (1950). Technique et civilisation. ScienSea Cultiv’Art Livroscopie Satellite Évènements. Available online: http://medpress -dz.org/technique-civilisation-lewis-mumford/ (accessed on 9 February 2025). Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Satoshi Nakamoto. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books. Özsu, M. T., & Valduriez, P. (1999). Principles of distributed database systems (Vol. 2). Springer. Pilkington, M. (2016). Blockchain technology: Principles and applications. In Research handbook on digital transformations (pp. 225–253). Edward Elgar Publishing. Pooja, M., & Yadav, M. (2018). Digital signature. International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology (IJSRCSEIT),3(6), 71–75. Popejoy, S. (2019a). IBM’s hyperledger isn’t a real blockchain—Here’s why. TNW. Available online: https://thenextweb.com/news/ ibms-hyperledger-isnt-a-real-blockchain-heres-why? (accessed on 13 November 2024). Popejoy, S. (2019b). Why IBM’s blockchain isn’t a real blockchain. CoinTelegraph. Available online: https://cointelegraph.com/news/ why-ibms-blockchain-isnt-a-real-blockchain (accessed on 10 November 2024). Saari, A., Vimpari, J., & Junnila, S. (2022). Blockchain in real estate: Recent developments and empirical applications. Land Use Policy, 121, 106334. [CrossRef] Sahai, A., & Pandey, R. (2020, April 10–12). Smart contract definition for land registry in blockchain. 2020 IEEE 9th International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT) (pp. 230–235), Gwalior, India. Sarmah, S. S. (2018). Understanding blockchain technology. Computer Science and Engineering,8(2), 23–29. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 57 17 of 17 Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review,64(4), 1033–1053. [CrossRef] Sharma, R. (2024). What is decentralized finance (DeFi) and how does it work? Investopedia. Shifferaw, Y., & Lemma, S. (2021). Limitations of proof of stake algorithm in blockchain: A review. Zede Journal,39(1), 81–95. Silverstein, J. (2022, June 6). New York Times’ paul krugman calls cryptocurrencies a scam. Fox News. Simondon, G. (2011). On the mode of existence of technical objects. Deleuze Studies,5(3), 407–424. [CrossRef] Stephen, R., & Alex, A. (2018). A review on blockchain security. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,396, 012030. Sultan, K., Ruhi, U., & Lakhani, R. (2018). Conceptualizing blockchains: Characteristics & applications. arXiv, arXiv:1806.03693. Tabatabaei, M. H., Vitenberg, R., & Veeraragavan, N. R. (2023). Understanding blockchain: Definitions, architecture, design, and system comparison. Computer Science Review,50, 100575. [CrossRef] Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin. Townsend, R. M. (2020). Distributed ledgers: Design and regulation of financial infrastructure and payment systems. MIT Press. Wilson, J. (1970). Thinking with concepts. Cambridge University Press. Zhang, R., Xue, R., & Liu, L. (2019). Security and privacy on blockchain. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),52(3), 1–34. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.