Content area
Abstract
[...]radicalism is to be found in the apparent attempt within the blockchain ecosystem to forge a linkage between a metaphysic of "the good" and the instrumental performativity inherent to contractual status. [...]that this connection should be made by machines and software automatically and autonomously rather than as a precondition of human needs, rights and desires, thus skewing and intertwining the logic of "the good" and contract. [...]regulating blockchain as it is defined here asks whether blockchain is a necessary technology in a given context versus alternative technologies or even, perhaps, whether the option of no technology at all is or might be the most appropriate response. "The goal of GPDR is to 'give citizens back the control of their personal data, whilst imposing strict rules on those hosting and 'processing' this data, anywhere in the world," says Van Humbeeck, and "one of the things GDPR states is that data 'should be erasable.' Since throwing away your encryption keys is not the same as 'erasure of data', GDPR prohibits us from storing personal data on a blockchain level. Overcoming the Hype 43-51 (Inte Gloerich et al. eds., Institute of Network Cultures, 2018). [...]as Lana Swartz has argued, the "incorprative blockchain" of back-office functions is no longer pursuing the libertarian dream of holistically remaking society, but is in in fact quite "boring" (Swartz, Lana, Blockchain Dreams: Imagining Techno-economic Alternatives after Bitcoin, in Another Economy Is Possible, 96 (Manuel Castells, ed., Polity Press, 2017), in the sense that it has very quickly fallen into step with the needs and desires of big business. 3.
Details
1 Lecturer in Law at The Open University, UK