Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 209–232 | Cite as

Imaginaries and Crystallization Processes in Bitcoin Infrastructuring

  • Yong Ming Kow
  • Caitlin Lustig


Imaginaries is a concept from Neumann and Star that signifies ‘points of understanding’ of the various stakeholder visions of an infrastructuring project. Stakeholders use imaginaries to negotiate their differences and identify shared visions. The ways in which these stakeholders negotiate these differences to agree on concrete artifacts and practices is known as crystallization. However, the CSCW literature has not studied crystallization in detail. Our case study examines imaginaries and crystallization within the infrastructuring of Bitcoin, an open source digital currency and payment platform that is the first of emerging forms of peer-to-peer computer networks facilitating digital transactions. We conducted participant observation of two Bitcoin conferences held in December 2015. Each conference lasted between two to three days, amounting to 40 hours of observation. In these conferences, we examined Bitcoin infrastructuring taking place across different contexts, including open source development and startup communities. Each of these contexts contains pre-existing infrastructures along with powerful gatekeepers (e.g., software committers and financial regulators) who maintain its system of practices and artifacts. The Bitcoin actors, including open source developers and entrepreneurs, make use of imaginaries to identify differences among them, negotiate, and reach points of crystallization in order to integrate with these infrastructures. Based on these findings, we contribute the concept of imaginaries branching and discuss roles of imaginaries in an expansive infrastructuring work interacting with multiple installed bases, some of which also introduce practical limits to the imagined information system.


Bitcoin Blockchain Crystallization Imaginaries Infrastructuring 



The work described in this paper was partially supported by grants from City University of Hong Kong (Project No. 7004760).


  1. Andriopoulos, Constantine; and Marianne W. Lewis (2008). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, Robert D.; Lee Devin; and Erin E. Sullivan (2011). Accidental Innovation: Supporting Valuable Unpredictability in the Creative Process. Organization Science, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1505–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benkler, Yochai (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowker, Geoffrey C.; and Susan Leigh Star (1998). Building Information Infrastructures for Social Worlds: The Role of Classifications and Standards. In Toru Ishida (ed.): Community Computing and Support Systems: Social Interaction in Networked Communities. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowker, Geoffrey C.; and Susan Leigh Star (2000). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burk, Dan L (2010). Authorization and Governance in Virtual Worlds. First Monday, vol. 15, no. 5. Accessed 13 October 2017.
  7. Coleman, E. Gabriella; and Alex Golub (2008). Hacker Practice Moral Genres and the Cultural Articulation of Liberalism. Anthropological Theory, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Constantinides, Panos; and Michael Barrett (2014). Information Infrastructure Development and Governance as Collective Action. Information Systems Research, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, David S.; and Richard Schmalensee (2004). Paying with Plastic: The Digital Revolution in Buying and Borrowing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Foot, Kirsten; and Carole Groleau (2011). Contradictions, Transitions, and Materiality in Organizing Processes: An Activity Theory Perspective. First Monday, vol. 16, no. 6. Accessed 13 October 2017.
  11. Gregory, Judith (2000). Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Creating the Electronic Health Record, Re-Inventing Medical Records and Patient Care. PhD dissertation. University of California, San Diego: Department of Communication.Google Scholar
  12. Hackett, Robert (2017). Ethereum: JPMorgan, Microsoft, Banks Form Blockchain Alliance. Fortune, 28 February 2017. Accessed 28 September 2017.
  13. Higgins, Stan (2015). Factom Partners With Honduras Government on Blockchain Tech Trial. CoinDesk, 15 May 2015. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  14. Hyperledger (2017). Members – Hyperledger. Accessed 28 September 2017.
  15. Jabbar, Karim; and Pernille Bjorn (2017). Growing the Blockchain Information Infrastructure. In CHI '17. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 6487–6498.Google Scholar
  16. Jasanoff, Sheila; and Sang-Hyun Kim (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karasti, Helena; Karen S. Baker; and Florence Millerand (2010). Infrastructure Time: Long-Term Matters in Collaborative Development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 377–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khairuddin, Irni Eliana; Corina Sas; Sarah Clinch; and Nigel Davies (2016). Exploring Motivations for Bitcoin Technology Usage. In CHI EA '16. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 2872–2878.Google Scholar
  19. Khalid, Arsalan (2017). Deciding Between Ethereum or Hyperledger: Contributing Towards Open Source Development. Medium, 12 March 2017. Accessed 28 September 2017.
  20. Kow, Yong Ming (2017). Cryptocurrencies and Their Potential for Large-Crowd, Cost-Effective Transactions in Peer Production. First Monday, vol. 22, no. 8. Accessed 13 October 2017.
  21. Kow, Yong Ming; and Xianghua Ding (2016).“Hey, I Know What This Is!”: Cultural Affinities and Early-Stage Appropriation of the Emerging Bitcoin Technology. In GROUP '16. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, 13–16 Novemenber 2016. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 213–221.Google Scholar
  22. Kow, Yong Ming; and Bonnie Nardi (2010). Who Owns the Mods? First Monday, vol. 15, no. 5. Accessed 13 October 2017.
  23. Lindtner, Silvia; Garnet D. Hertz; and Paul Dourish (2014). Emerging Sites of HCI Innovation. In CHI '14. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April - 1 May 2014. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 439–448.Google Scholar
  24. Lustig, Caitlin; and Bonnie Nardi (2015). Algorithmic Authority: The Case of Bitcoin. In HICSS '15. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 5-8 January 2015. Washington, D.C., USA: IEEE, pp. 743–752.Google Scholar
  25. Martinez-Moyano, Ignacio J.; David P. McCaffrey; and Rogelio Oliva (2014). Drift and Adjustment in Organizational Rule Compliance: Explaining the “Regulatory Pendulum” in Financial Markets. Organization Science, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maurer, Bill; Taylor C. Nelms; and Lana Swartz (2013). “When Perhaps the Real Problem Is Money Itself!”: The Practical Materiality of Bitcoin. Social Semiotics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maxwell, Deborah; Chris Speed; and Dug Campbell (2015). ‘Effing’ the Ineffable: Opening up Understandings of the Blockchain. In Proceedings of the 2015 48th British HCI Conference, Lincoln, UK, 13–15 July 2015. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 208–209.Google Scholar
  28. May, Timothy C (2001). Crypto Anarchy and Virtual Communities. In Peter Ludlow (ed.), Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, pp. 65–79.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, Keith M (2004). Imagination as Joint Activity: The Case of Architectural Interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakamoto, Satoshi (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  31. Neumann, Laura J.; and Susan Leigh Star (1996). Making Infrastructure: The Dream of a Common Language. In Jeanette Blomberg, Finn Kensing, and Elizabeth Dykstra-Erickson (eds.): PDC '96. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA, 13–16 November 1996. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, pp. 231–240.Google Scholar
  32. Pipek, Volkmar; and Volker Wulf (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poon, Joseph; and Thaddeus Dryja (2016). The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments. Draft Version Accessed 13 October 2017.
  34. Reijers, Wessel; and Mark Coeckelbergh (2016). The Blockchain as a Narrative Technology: Investigating the Social Ontology and Normative Configurations of Cryptocurrencies. Philosophy & Technology, October 2016. Accessed 13 October 2017.
  35. Resnick, Paul; Joseph Konstan; Yan Chen; and Robert E. Kraut (2011). Starting New Online Communities. In Robert E. Kraut and Paul Resnick (eds.): Evidence based Social Design: Mining the Social Sciences to Build Online Communities. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, pp. 231–281.Google Scholar
  36. Ribes, David; and Thomas A. Finholt (2007). Tensions Across the Scales: Planning Infrastructure for the Long-Term. In GROUP '07. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, 4–7 November 2007. New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp. 229–238.Google Scholar
  37. Sas, Corina; and Irni Eliana Khairuddin (2015). Exploring Trust in Bitcoin Technology: A Framework for HCI Research. In Bernd Ploderer, Marcus Carter, Martin Gibbs, Wally Smith, and Frank Vetere (eds): OzCHI '15. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 7–10 December 2015. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. pp. 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shackel, Paul A. (1996). Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simonite, Tom (2015). The Looming Problem that Could Kill Bitcoin. MIT Technology Review, 28 August 2015. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  40. Star, Susan Leigh; and James R. Griesemer (1989). Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Star, Susan Leigh; and Karen Ruhleder (1996). Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces. Information Systems Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verran, Helen (1998). Re-Imagining Land Ownership in Australia. Postcolonial Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wikipedia (2017). Chatham House Rule. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  45. Winner, Langdon (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 121–136.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, Joon Ian (2015). Lloyd’s Sees Blockchain’s Potential For Insurance Markets. CoinDesk, 27 November 2015. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  47. Zhang, Shaozeng (2017). From Externality in Economics to Leakage in Carbon Markets: An Anthropological Approach to Market Making. Economic Anthropology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hong Kong SARCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongChina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations