Eva Pöll

Online identification is a common problem but so far resolved unsatisfactorily, as consumers cannot fully control how much data they share and with whom. Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) technology promises to help by making use of decentralized data repositories as well as advanced cryptographic algorithms and protocols. This paper examines the effects of SSIs on responsible, confident, and vulnerable consumers in order to develop the missing understanding of consumer needs in SSI adoption and define preconditions and necessary considerations for the development of SSI-based platforms and applications.

Complex technology has become an essential aspect of everyday life. We rely on technology as part of basic infrastructure and repeatedly for tasks throughout the day. Yet, in many cases the relation surpasses mere reliance and evolves to trust in technology. A new, disruptive technology is blockchain. It claims to introduce trustless relationships among its users, aiming to eliminate the need for trust altogether—even being described as “the trust machine”. This paper presents a proposal to adjust the concept of trust in blockchain applications with the tools provided by conceptual engineering. Its goal is to propose a concept of trust, that offers more than a halo term, devoid of the normative depth that the original, philosophical term actually carries. To evaluate possible concepts of trust in blockchain applications, five criteria are proposed: These criteria ensure that the conceptual relation indeed embodies trust, thereby being richer than mere reliance, and that the chosen concept highlights the active role of the trustor. While the concepts of trust in engineers and trust in algorithms have to be discarded, institutional trust emerges as a viable candidate, given some refinements. Ultimately, the concept of trust by normative expectations and attribution is suggested to capture the essence of trust in blockchain applications.

Gegen die in der Literatur zu Blockchainanwendungen verbreitete These, diese erforderten kein nutzerseitiges Vertrauen oder generierten ein neuartiges „vertrauenloses Vertrauen“, wird in diesem Beitrag zunächst gezeigt, dass auch in der Nutzung von Blockchainanwendungen Vertrauensbeziehungen eine Rolle spielen. Es wird dafür argumentiert, Vertrauen im Rahmen von Blockchainanwendungen als ‚Institutionenvertrauen‘ zu verstehen. Das klassische bilaterale interpersonale Vertrauensverständnis von Vertrauenssubjekt und Vertrauensobjekt bleibt dabei strukturell erhalten, die Zuschreibung von Vertrauenswürdigkeit durch das Vertrauenssubjekt erfolgt in einem default-and-challenge Modell. Dabei zeigt sich bereits aus begrifflichen Gründen: Je ‚sicherer‘ das System, desto weniger bedarf es nutzerseitigen Vertrauens. Vertrauen setzt Vulnerabilität voraus. Diese ist mit Blick auf Blockchainanwendungen bei den meisten Nutzer:innen in hohem Maße vorhanden.