Why do blockchains split? An actor-network perspective on Bitcoin splits

Abstract This paper investigates the focal actors in a blockchain network and their heterogeneity in splits. Disagreements in blockchain communities often lead to splits in both the blockchain and the community. We use three key elements of the actor-network theory — punctualization, translation, and actor heterogeneity—and employ case study methodology to examine Bitcoin splits. We identify several human actors, such as miners, developers, merchants, and investors, as well as non-human actors, including blockchain, exchanges, hardware manufacturers, and wallets, involved in Bitcoin splits. Our results show that the consolidation of actors in homogeneous groups plays a key role in blockchain splits. We further describe how the human and non-human actors' fluid moves into micro and macro actor positions in the network affect the development of the split. In addition, we discuss the roles of these actors and their engagement in forming micro and macro agencies in blockchain splits.

[1]  Primavera De Filippi,et al.  Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia , 2015 .

[2]  Nachiappan Nagappan,et al.  Forking and the Sustainability of the Developer Community Participation -- An Empirical Investigation on Outcomes and Reasons , 2016, 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER).

[3]  M. Iansiti,et al.  The Truth about Blockchain , 2017 .

[4]  Dorothy Leonard-Barton,et al.  A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites , 1990 .

[5]  Yong Ming Kow,et al.  Imaginaries and Crystallization Processes in Bitcoin Infrastructuring , 2018, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[6]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[7]  A. Pettigrew Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice , 1990 .

[8]  Primavera De Filippi,et al.  The Invisible Politics of Bitcoin: Governance Crisis of a Decentralized Infrastructure , 2016 .

[9]  R. Garud,et al.  The Banality of Organizational Innovations: Embracing the Substance–Process Duality , 2017 .

[10]  Bill Doolin,et al.  To reveal is to critique: actor–network theory and critical information systems research , 2002, J. Inf. Technol..

[11]  Yongwoon Shim,et al.  Smartness in techno-nationalism? Combining actor-network theory and institutionalization to assess Chinese smart TV development , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[12]  Juho Lindman,et al.  Opportunities and Risks of Blockchain Technologies (Dagstuhl Seminar 17132) , 2017, Dagstuhl Reports.

[13]  Robert Viseur,et al.  Forks impacts and motivations in free and open source projects , 2012 .

[14]  Vasilis Kostakis,et al.  Blockchain and Value Systems in the Sharing Economy: The Illustrative Case of Backfeed , 2017 .

[15]  Ghislaine M. Lawrence The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology , 1989, Medical History.

[16]  L. A. Brouwer,et al.  Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online , 2010 .

[17]  Gabrielle Durepos Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐Theory , 2008 .

[18]  Quinn DuPont Experiments in algorithmic governance : A history and ethnography of “The DAO,” a failed decentralized autonomous organization , 2017 .

[19]  K. K. Cetina,et al.  Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro- structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so , 2014 .

[20]  Sooyong Park,et al.  Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review , 2016, PloS one.

[21]  Tommi Mikkonen,et al.  Perspectives on Code Forking and Sustainability in Open Source Software , 2012, OSS.

[22]  Matti Mäntymäki,et al.  Understanding the Role of Actor Heterogeneity in Blockchain Splits: An Actor-Network Perspective of Bitcoin Forks , 2019, HICSS.

[23]  A. Pickering The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[24]  B. Latour,et al.  Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? , 1986 .

[25]  B. Latour On Recalling Ant , 1999 .

[26]  Maria-Lluïsa Marsal-Llacuna Future living framework: Is blockchain the next enabling network? , 2017 .

[27]  John Law,et al.  Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity , 1992 .

[28]  Dong-Hee Shin,et al.  Application of actor-network theory to network neutrality in Korea: Socio-ecological understanding of network dynamics , 2016, Telematics Informatics.

[29]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Materiality and Change: Challenges to Building Better Theory about Technology and Organizing , 2008, Inf. Organ..

[30]  Anna Sidorova,et al.  Understanding Business Process Change Failure: An Actor-Network Perspective , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[31]  J. Law After Method: Mess in Social Science Research , 2004 .

[32]  Dong-Hee Shin,et al.  A socio-technical framework for cyber-infrastructure design , 2010 .

[33]  M. Callon Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay , 1984 .

[34]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Process studies of change in organization and management : unveiling temporality, activity, and flow , 2013 .

[35]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change , 1990 .

[36]  Jonas Gamalielsson,et al.  Sustainability of Open Source software communities beyond a fork: How and why has the LibreOffice project evolved? , 2014, J. Syst. Softw..

[37]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[38]  SarkerSuprateek,et al.  Understanding Business Process Change Failure , 2006 .

[39]  Arthur Tatnall,et al.  Actor-Network Theory in Information Systems Research , 2005, Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology.

[40]  Frantz Rowe,et al.  Is IT Changing the World? Conceptions of Causality for Information Systems Theorizing , 2018, MIS Q..

[41]  Robert K. Yin,et al.  Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods , 2017 .

[42]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[43]  Hyunseung Choo,et al.  Socio-Technical Dynamics in the Development of Next Generation Mobile Network: Translation Beyond 3G , 2011 .

[44]  Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin : A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System , 2009 .

[45]  Rob Kling,et al.  Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research , 2003, MIS Q..

[46]  T. Venturini,et al.  Designing Controversies and Their Publics , 2015, Design Issues.

[47]  M. Freeman Modes of Thinking for Qualitative Data Analysis , 2016 .

[48]  Bruno Latour,et al.  Some Experiments in Art and Politics , 2013 .

[49]  M. Callon Techno-economic Networks and Irreversibility , 1990 .

[50]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties , 2003, MIS Q..