Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A probative value for authentication use case blockchain

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digital Finance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Fintech industry has facilitated the development of companies using blockchain technology. The use of this technology inside banking system and industry opens the route to several questions regarding the business activity, legal environment, and insurance devices. In this paper, considering the creation of small companies interested to develop their business with a public blockchain, we analyse from different aspects why a company (in banking or insurance system, and industry) decides that a blockchain protocol is more legitimate than another one for the business which it wants to develop looking at the legal (in case of dispute) points of view. We associate with each blockchain a probative value which permits to assure in case of dispute that a transaction has been really done. We illustrate our proposal using 13 blockchains providing in that case a ranking between these blockchains for their use in business environment. We associate with this probative value some main characteristics of any blockchain as market capitalization and log-return volatilities that the investors need to also take into account with the new probative value for their managerial strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not discuss if it can arrive or not (it can always arrive, as a failure of a bank can arrive), we provide, at time t, an information that any investor can verify on the website).

  2. The notion of fork is illustrated in Sect. 4.2.1.

  3. On August 22, 2018, “ZenCash” changed its name to “Horizen”. We have kept the name used on June 30, 2018, the date of our data.

  4. PH: PetaHash = 1015 Hash.

  5. See blockchain.com.

  6. TH: TeraHash = 1012 Hash.

  7. These computations can be replicated for any date.

  8. The clarification provided in this paragraph has been done following a specific demand of one of the reviewers.

References

  • Aster, T. (2017). The fair cost of Bitcoin proof of work. London, UK: WP, UCL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, J., Michels, J. D., Millard, C., & Singh, J. (2017). Blockchain demystified. London, UK: WP Queen Mary University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D. G., Lee, A. D., & Hong, K. (2015). Bitcoin: Currency or investment. Sydney, Australia: OPUS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitfury Group. (2015). Proof of Stake versus Proof-of-Work. USA: Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blemus, S. (2017). Law and blockchain: A legal perspective on current regulatory trends worldwide. Paris, France: Revue trimestrielle de droit financier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blemus, S., & Guégan, D. (2018). Initial Crypto-asset Offerings (ICOs): tokenization and corporate governance,. Paris, France: WP Paris1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, D. (2013). The problem with Bitcoin. Computer Fraud and Security,11, 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buterin, V. (2015). A next generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. Ethereum White Paper.

  • Clark, D. (2016). 10 amazing ways Blockchain in assessment could be used in education. https://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.ro/2016/06/10-surprising-ways-blockchain-could-be.html .

  • de Filippi, P., & Wright, D. F. (2017). Blockchain and the law: the rule of the code. Harvard, USA: WP, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duong, T., Fan, L., & Zho, H.-S. (2017). 2-hop blockchain: Combining proof-of-work and proof-of-stake securely. USA: WP, Virginia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwork, C., & Naor, M. (1992). Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. In Annual international cryptology conference, 139–147 in lecture notes in computer science, book series, vol 70, Springer.

  • Eyal, I., Gencer, A. E., Sirer, E. G., & van Renesse, R. (2016). Bitcoin-NG: a scalable blockchain protocol. In Proceedings of the 13th USENIX symposium on networked systems design and implementation, Santa Clara, CA, USA.

  • Frunza, M. (2015). Solving modern crime in financial markets: Analytics and case studies. USA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattesci, V., Lamberti, F., & Demartini, C. (2017). Blockchain or not blockchain, that is the question of the insurance and other sectors. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/mitp.2017.265110355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guégan, D. (2017). Les ICOs: la nouvelle façon de lever des fonds sans contrainte. Revue Banque, 817.

  • Guégan, D. (2018a). The digital world: I The non mediatic side of Bitcoin. Bankers Markets Investor, 151, 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guégan, D. (2018b). The digital world: II—What are the alternatives to Bitcoin Blockchain? Bankers, markets, Investors, 152, 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guégan, D., & Soritopoulou, A. (2017). Bitcoin and the challenge for regulation. Capital Markets Law Journal, 4, 466–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson, M., & Juels, A. (1999). Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. Secure information networks (Vol. 23, pp. 258–272). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, J. A., Davey, I. C., & Felten, E. W. (2015). The Economics of Bitcoin Mining or, Bitcoin in the Presence of Adversaries? Working Paper, Princeton University, USA.

  • Landau, J. P., & Genais, A. (2018). Les crypto-monnaies. Paris, France: Rapport Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamoto, S. (2008). A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.

  • Pilkington, M. (2016). Blockchain technology, principles and applications. In F. X. Olleros & M. Zhegu (Eds.), Research handbook on digital transformation (pp. 225–251). Cheltenham: Edward Edgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reidenberg, J. R. (1997). Lex Informatica: the formulation of information policy rules through technology. Texas Law Review,17(3), 553–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (2017). Three reasons why the ICO market is cooling down, but crypto and blockchain are here to stay. Forbes, 27 Nov.

  • Xu, X., Pautasso, C., Zhu, L., Gramoli, V., Ponomarev, A., & Chen, S. (2016a). The blockchain as a software connector. Sydney, Australia: WP NICTA and CSIRO.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., Weber, I., Stapke, M., Zhu, L., Bosch, J., Bass, L., et al. (2016b). A taxonomy of blockchain-based systems for architecture design. Sydney: WP, CSIRO.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and LabEx ReFi, Paris, France

    Dominique Guégan & Christophe Henot

  2. Ca’Foscari University of Venezia, Venice, Italy

    Dominique Guégan

Authors
  1. Dominique Guégan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Henot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christophe Henot.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guégan, D., Henot, C. A probative value for authentication use case blockchain. Digit Finance 1, 91–115 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42521-019-00003-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42521-019-00003-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation