CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationOpen Source Software Innovations

Understanding the Role of Actor Heterogeneity in Blockchain Splits: An Actor-Network Perspective of Bitcoin Forks

Open access
Islam, Najmul, Mäntymäki, Matti, Turunen, Marja·2019·Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
DOI 10.24251/hicss.2019.556
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper investigates the focal actors and their heterogeneity in blockchain splits. Disagreements in blockchain communities often lead to splits in the blockchain and the community. For example, disagreements within the Bitcoin community on increasing the block size led to the blockchain split and creation of Bitcoin Cash. We build on actor-network theory to investigate blockchain split as a translation process, 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 ideologies, exchanges and computer programs involved in Bitcoin splits. Our results show that actor heterogeneity, that is, the complex constellation of diverse actors, plays a key role in blockchain splits. We further describe how the human and non-human actors’ fluid moves into micro and macro positions in the network affect the development of the split. We also discuss the role of these actors and their engagement in forming micro and macro agencies in blockchain splits. Our study adds to the understanding of actor behavior and network dynamics in decentralized information systems such as blockchain and open source software.

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 · 10.24251/hicss.2019.556

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Some, but not all, relicensing events by vendors have resulted in hard forks of the original project.

    “Some, but not all, relicensing events by vendors have resulted in hard forks of the original project, providing an option for organizations and individuals to decide that they cannot or will not continue using the original project under the terms of a new licence.”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Islam et al. 2019

    Section 2 describes hard forks of blockchains, and Section 1 discusses forks of open-source software, but neither links forks to vendor relicensing. Searches for relicensing, vendors, and licence changes found no passage addressing whether some such events produced hard forks. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Benbasat, I., and R.W. Zmud, "The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties," MIS Quarterly, 2003, 27 (2), pp. 183-194.
  2. Bijker, W.E., T.P. Hughes, T. Pinch, and D.G. Douglas, The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, MIT Press, Boston, MA, 2012.
  3. Callon, M, "Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieux Bay". In J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1986, pp. 197-225.
  4. Callon, M, "Techno-economic networks and irreversibility." In J. Law (ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination, Routledge, London, 1991, pp. 132-161.
  5. Callon, M., and E. Latour, "Unscrewing the big leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so." In K.D. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel (eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1981, pp. 277-303.
  6. De Filippi, P, and B. Loveluck, "The Invisible Politics of Bitcoin: Governance Crisis of a Decentralized Infrastructure." Internet Policy Review, 2016, 5 (4) pp. 1- 28.
  7. DuPont, Q, Experiments in algorithmic governance: A history and ethnography of "The DAO," a failed decentralized autonomous organization, Bitcoin and Beyond, Routledge, London, 2017, pp. 157-177.
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M, "Building theories from case study research," Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14 (4), pp. 532-550.
  9. Freeman, M, Modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis, Routledge, New York, NY, 2017.
  10. Iansiti, M., and K.R. Lakhani, "The Truth about blockchain", Harvard Business Review, 2017, 95 (1) pp. 118-127.
  11. Kow, Y. M., and C. Lustig, "Imaginaries and Crystallization Processes in Bitcoin Infrastructuring," Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2017, pp. 1-24.
  12. Latour, B, "On actor-network theory: A few clarifications," Soziale Welt, 1996, 47 (4), pp. 369-381.
  13. Latour, B, Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.
  14. Latour, B, Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
  15. Latour, B, "Some experiments in art and politics," In: Aranda J, Wood BK, Vidokle A (eds) The Internet does not exist-e-flux Journal, Sternberg Press, Berlin, 2015, pp. 40-53.
  16. Latour, B, Technology is society made durable, A Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Law, J. (Ed), Routledge, London, 1991, pp. 103-131.
  17. Latour, B, "The Powers of Association. Power, Action and Belief. A new sociology of knowledge?" Sociological Review Monograph 32, Law, J. (Ed), Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1986, pp. 264-280.
  18. Law, J, After method: Mess in social science research, Routledge, New York, NY, 2004.
  19. Leonard-Barton, D, "A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites," Organization Science, 1990, 1(3), pp. 248-266.
  20. Leonardi, P. M., and S.R. Barley, "Materiality and Change: Challenges to Building Better Theory about Technology and Organizing," Information and Organization, 2008, (18), pp. 159-176.
  21. Lindman, J., V. K. Tuunainen, and M. Rossi, "Opportunities and risks of blockchain technologies -A research agenda," In Proceedings of the 50 tth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 2017.
  22. Nyman, L., T. Mikkonen, J. Lindman, and M. Fougere, "Perspective of code forking and sustainability in open source software," In Hammouda, I., Lundell, B., Mikkonen, T., and Scacchi, W. (eds.), Open Source Systems: Long-term sustainability, Proc. 8 th IFIP WG 2.3 International Conference, OSS, 2012, 378, pp. 274-279.
  23. Orlikowski, W. J, The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2009, 34 (1), pp. 125-141.
  24. Pickering, A, "The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science," American Journal of Sociology, 1993, 99 (3), pp. 559-589.
  25. Rastogi, A., and N. Nagappan, "Forking and the sustainability of the developer community participation - An empirical investigation on outcomes and reason," In IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, Suita, Japan, 2016.
  26. Robles, G., and J. Gonzalez-Barahona, "A comprehensive study of software forks: Dates, reasons, and outcomes," In Proceedings of the 8 th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference, Hammamet, Tunisia, 2012.
  27. Sarker, S., S. Sarker, and A. Sidorova, "Understanding business process change failure: An actor-network perspective." Journal of Management Information Systems, 2006, 23 (1), pp. 51-86.
  28. Venturini, T., D. Ricci, M. Mauri, L. Kimbell and A. Meunier, "A, Designing Controversies and Their Publics," Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press (MIT Press), Design Issues, 2015, 31 (3), pp. 74 -87.
  29. Viseur, R, "Forks impacts and motivations in free and open source projects," International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 2012, 3 (2), pp. 117- 122.
  30. Walsham, G, "Doing interpretive research," European journal of information systems, 2006, 15(3), pp. 320-330.
  31. Walsham, G, "Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method," European Journal of Information Systems, 1995, 4 (2), pp. 74-81.
  32. Yli-Huumo, J., D. Ko, S. Choi, S. Park, and K. Smolander, "Where is current research on blockchain technology?-a systematic review," PloS ONE, 2016, 11(10), pp. 1-27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Islam, N., Mäntymäki, M., & Turunen, M.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Publisher
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Published
2019
ISSN
  • 1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
  • 2572-6862
DOI
10.24251/hicss.2019.556
OpenAlex
W2932969965
Cited by
24
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
actor heterogeneity, actor-network theory, translation process, Bitcoin Cash, non-human actors, decentralized information systems, open source software, network dynamics

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