CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Ethics and Social Impacts of AIInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationBlockchain Technology Applications and Security

Algorithmic Authority: The Case of Bitcoin

Open access
Lustig, Caitlin, Nardi, Bonnie·2015·2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
DOI 10.1109/hicss.2015.95
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a new concept for understanding the role of algorithms in daily life: algorithmic authority. Algorithmic authority is the legitimate power of algorithms to direct human action and to impact which information is considered true. We use this concept to examine the culture of users of Bit coin, a crypto-currency and payment platform. Through Bit coin, we explore what it means to trust in algorithms. Our study utilizes interview and survey data. We found that Bit coin users prefer algorithmic authority to the authority of conventional institutions, which they see as untrustworthy. However, we argue that Bit coin users do not have blind faith in algorithms, rather, they acknowledge the need for mediating algorithmic authority with human judgment. We examine the tension between members of the Bit coin community who would prefer to integrate Bit coin with existing institutions and those who would prefer to resist integration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/hicss.2015.95

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People often regard technologically-run institutions to be more 'trustworthy' than human-led institutions.

    “As a result, people often regard technologically-run institutions to be more 'trustworthy' than human-led institutions [20], which, as the article will argue, is in fact the capacity of technology to build confidence.”

    From Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance (2020) · cites this paper as [20]

    Section 5.2 (p. 9) says algorithmic authority was preferred over governments and banks by many Bitcoin users. That supports the comparison in the claim, but the paper’s finding concerns Bitcoin users, not people’s views of technologically run institutions generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ledger maintainers and token users characterize blockchain governance as much as the other governance purposes it can be used for, contrary to Lustig and Nardi's focus on algorithms.

    “Lustig and Nardi [26] pose special attention onto algorithms as defining aspect of Bitcoin, whereas we argue that ledger's maintainers and tokens' users are what characterize the governance of blockchain as much as the other governance purposes it can be used for.”

    From Tribal Governance: The Business of Blockchain Authentication (2018) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Having confidence in the system ultimately means trusting the whole assemblage of actors associated with that network.

    “Having confidence in the system ultimately means trusting the whole assemblage of actors associated with that network [20].”

    From Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance (2020) · cites this paper as [20]

  • Despite the decentralized nature of a blockchain-based system, some level of oversight is nonetheless necessary in order to ensure the proper functioning of the network.

    “Accordingly, despite the decentralized nature of a blockchain-based system, some level of oversight is nonetheless necessary in order to ensure the proper functioning of the network [20].”

    From Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance (2020) · cites this paper as [20]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. DuPont, Q., "The Politics of Cryptography: Bitcoin and the Ordering Machines", Journal of Peer Production , 4, 2014.
  2. Goffey, A., "Algorithm", in (Fuller, M., 'ed.') Software Studies: A Lexicon, MIT Press, 2008.
  3. Medvinsky, G. & Neuman, C., 'NetCash: A design for practical electronic currency on the Internet', In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security , 1993, pp. 102-106.
  4. Miconi, A., 'Under the Skin of the Networks. How Concentration Affects Social Practices in Web 2.0 Environments', Unlike Us Reader: Social Media Monopolies and Their Alternatives , 2013, pp. 89-102.
  5. Nardi, B., Appropriating Theory. Forthcoming in (Sonnenwald, D., 'ed.'): Theory Development in Information: Reflecting on the Process .,Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014.
  6. Pasquale, F. A., 'Restoring Transparency to Automated Authority', Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 9(325), 2011.
  7. Trudell, M., "The Occupy Movement and Class Politics in the Us", International Socialism: A Quarterly Journal of Socialist Theory , 133, 2012.
  8. Vigna, P., "5 Things About Mt. Gox's Crisis", The Wall Street Journal , 2014.
  9. Ziewitz, M., 'Evaluation as Governance: The Practical Politics of Reviewing, Rating and Ranking on the Web', Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford , 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lustig, C., & Nardi, B.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
ORCID
Venue
2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-01
Pages
743-752
ISSN
1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/hicss.2015.95
OpenAlex
W1558585115
Cited by
166
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
47.95
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
Keywords
algorithmic authority, Bitcoin, cryptocurrency users, trust in algorithms, institutional authority, human judgment, algorithmic governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review