Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 56 references

Blockchain-based Ecommerce It's an Evolution NOT a Revolution-Experimental Evidence from Users' Perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A third of users cheated in a blockchain marketplace test.

desk verdict A real experiment buried under a headline number that doesn't follow from the data; the 33% fraud claim is an unsupported sum of two overlapping self-reports. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09095 v1 pith:UIKXX4M2 submitted 2025-02-13 econ.GN q-fin.EC

David Lee Kuo Chuen , Yang Li , Weibiao Xu , Willy Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords blockchaine-commercefraudtrustreputationsystemdecentralizedmarketplaceprivacypermissioned
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tests the claim that blockchains will revolutionize e-commerce by having 133 students buy and sell on a decentralized marketplace built on Origin Protocol, then surveying their behavior and attitudes. The authors report that about a third of participants tried to deceive others—shipping items that did not match the listing, attempting to cheat, or leaving dishonest ratings—and that between 18% and 29% would risk fraud for money. Their central conclusion is that a blockchain can make payments and records immutable but cannot verify off-chain delivery or truthful reviews, so blockchain technology alone does not solve e-commerce trust problems. The paper then proposes a hybrid safeguard: normal transactions remain anonymous, but in a dispute a trusted authority can downgrade the fraudulent party's real-life credit record stored on a permissioned blockchain.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is a physical trading game played on a real decentralized marketplace: students draw five random letter cards with pre-determined but hidden values, trade them on an Origin Protocol-based platform with Ethereum test funds, receive hints that change the cards' perceived value, and then answer a fraud questionnaire. The game makes the boundary visible: the escrow smart contract ensures payment, while delivery, item quality, and ratings are off-chain and unverifiable by the ledger. The paper's proposed remedy is a conceptual arbitration layer in which a trusted authority holds users' true identities and a permissioned blockchain stores credit records, so that fraudulent users lose real-world credit even though ordinary transactions stay anonymous.

What would settle it

Run the same trading game again, but verify each claimed delivery against a neutral observer and compare the verified fraud rate with the questionnaire's 33%: if verified misconduct is far lower, self-report inflated the result; if similar, the 33% is a real behavioral benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 33% of the participants played tricks on others during the experiment, so the immutability of blockchains does not translate into honest e-commerce. Specifically, 16% of respondents said they attempted to cheat, more than 17% said they were cheated, and 2% admitted leaving dishonest ratings even without extra temptation; 18–29% said they would commit fraud for more money. Because the marketplace's smart-contract escrow guarantees payment but not the nature of delivered goods or the truthfulness of ratings, fraud moves to exactly the parts of the transaction that the blockchain cannot see. On this basis the authors argue that a decentralized marketplace needs an off-chain enforcement layer rather than purely cryptographic trust. They propose a permissioned-blockchain credit system in which a trusted authority, invoked only in disputes, can punish fraudulent users by downgrading their real-life credit records, and they report that 89% of participants would feel safer with a reputation system linked to true identity.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 33% figure rests on the assumption that a card-trading game played by students with pre-determined letter values makes people behave the way real buyers and sellers would on an actual blockchain marketplace, and that their self-reported answers describe what they actually did.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 33% finding holds, blockchain-based marketplaces that rely only on escrow and immutable feedback will still face counterfeit goods, fake reviews, and cheating; adoption will be slowed until fraud is addressed.
  • Reputation systems linked to true identity appear acceptable to most users: 89% of participants said they would feel safer, so "partial anonymity" may be a viable design compromise.
  • A trusted authority with the power to downgrade credit records stored on a permissioned blockchain could deter fraud by making misconduct costlier than any gain, effectively importing legal enforcement into decentralization.
  • The observed cross-cultural differences suggest that the identity that vouches for trust—government in China, companies in Norway—should be tailored to local institutions.
  • Blockchain's role in e-commerce would be evolutionary (payment, escrow, record-keeping) rather than revolutionary (full replacement of intermediaries).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 33% figure is derived by combining the 16% who admitted attempting to cheat with the 17% who said they were cheated; without participant-level linkage, the true share of deceivers could be lower.
  • Because the experiment relies on students playing a card game with paper cards, real e-commerce fraud could be higher or lower; a field study that independently verifies physical delivery and rating accuracy on a live decentralized marketplace would test the external validity.
  • The proposal's key trade-off—true identity only in disputes—depends on users actually filing cases; if the cost of arbitration is high, fraud outside the disputed transaction may go unpunished, and a low-cost automated arbitration rule may be needed.
  • Cross-country differences in willingness to share data suggest that a single global permissioned-credit mechanism is unlikely; region-specific trust anchors would be required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper reports a field experiment in which 133 students in Tianjin and Trondheim traded paper letter cards on a decentralized marketplace built on Origin Protocol, followed by a questionnaire on fraud, trust, and privacy. The authors claim from the survey that 33% of respondents 'play tricks on others,' and they use this result to argue that blockchain technology alone cannot prevent fraud in e-commerce. They then propose a conceptual mechanism in which a trusted authority maintains credit records on a permissioned blockchain to deter misconduct, concluding that blockchain is an evolution, not a revolution, for e-commerce.

Significance. If the empirical claims were reliable, the paper would provide rare user-side evidence on fraudulent behavior in a working blockchain-based marketplace, along with cross-country comparisons of trust and privacy preferences. Strengths include the actual deployment of an Origin Protocol marketplace, the multi-trial data collection, and the authors' explicit acknowledgment that the sample is not adequate for generalization. However, the headline 33% figure is not supported by the reported data, the experimental design lacks a baseline or control condition, and the proposed punishment mechanism is asserted rather than tested. These issues undermine the paper's central empirical and policy claims, leaving it as a descriptive pilot study with limited inferential value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Table 2] The abstract's claim that '33% of respondents play tricks on others' is not supported by Table 2. The table reports two separate binary items: 'Get tricked' (mean 0.17) and 'Attempt to trick' (mean 0.16). Section 4.1 adds these percentages, but the categories are not mutually exclusive and measure different things: being cheated does not imply playing a trick, and a respondent can appear in both categories. The phrase 'play tricks on others' corresponds only to the 16% attempt item. Without reporting the joint distribution or the union of the two items, the 33% figure is at best an upper bound under the assumption of zero overlap, not an estimated proportion of trick-players. This is a load-bearing error for the paper's main empirical conclusion.
  2. [§3.2, §4.1] The experimental design lacks a baseline or control condition. The card-trading game with pre-determined values, hints, and prizes (steps 4-7) generates incentives to misrepresent information, but there is no comparison to a centralized platform or to a condition without blockchain. Consequently, the observed fraud cannot be attributed to the blockchain-based marketplace per se; it may reflect the game's incentive structure or general behavior in anonymous settings. The 'Fraud in nature' items in Table 2 are hypothetical temptation questions, not actual misconduct, and cannot substitute for a behavioral baseline. This limits the validity of the conclusion that blockchain technology 'hinder[s] the widespread adoption' of e-commerce.
  3. [§4.2, Figure 2] The proposed punishment mechanism is asserted, not tested. The abstract states that 'such a punishment can effectively decrease agents' incentives to sell counterfeits and leave fake ratings,' but no experimental, simulation, or analytical evidence is provided. The mechanism is described as 'conceptual' in Section 5, and its effectiveness remains speculative. The paper should either provide evidence for the mechanism's deterrent effect or soften the causal claim in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Table 2] The 'T-value' column is not defined; presumably it is a one-sample t-test of the mean against zero, but no p-values or confidence intervals are reported. The 'Dishonest when giving a rating' item has t=1.75, which is not significant at the 5% level for N=133, yet the text treats this as a finding.
  2. [§2.1] The literature review contains a long series of citations to reliability-engineering papers (Cheng, Elsayed, Wei, et al.) that are not integrated into the analysis and appear unrelated to blockchain e-commerce. Several cited items are listed as 'under revision' and should be identified as working papers.
  3. [§3.2, step (8)] The statement that 'participants are advised to comment and discuss any matter regarding the concept' could introduce experimenter demand; please clarify whether the discussion was structured or recorded and how it was used.
  4. [§4.4] The claim that 'more than 42% of the Chinese students are buying items online more than one time during a week' is not traceable to any reported table or appendix; provide the survey question and summary statistics.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'play tricks on others' is imprecise; the abstract should report the separate figures for 'reported being cheated' (17%) and 'reported attempting to cheat' (16%) rather than a summed 33%.
  6. [§5] There is a typo: 'we verity' should be 'we verify.'
  7. [References] Reference [27] is listed as Lim et al. (2011) but cited in the text as Lim et al. (2019); please verify the correct year.
  8. [Figures 3-5] The figures need axis labels, sample sizes per country, and clearer definitions of the response categories; the text cites percentages that cannot be independently verified without this information.
  9. [Table 4] With 75 observations and six regressors plus province fixed effects, the R-squared values (0.32-0.39) may reflect overfitting; report adjusted R-squared or F-tests of joint significance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's empirical claims are direct survey observations, not predictions derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim ('33% of respondents play tricks on others') is a descriptive summary of questionnaire data collected after a trading experiment. There is no derivation chain in which an input is defined in terms of an output, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force a conclusion. The conceptual mechanism proposed in Section 4.2 is explicitly labeled as a proposal, not as a result derived from the data. The literature review in Section 2 contains citations that may overlap with the authors' networks, but none of these citations is load-bearing for the empirical inference: the survey statistics stand on the reported questionnaire responses, and the paper does not rely on any cited theorem to justify its main empirical claim. The abstract's '33%' figure may be internally unsupported because it appears to add two non-exclusive survey items ('Get tricked' and 'Attempt to trick'), but that is a question of statistical validity and correct interpretation of Table 2, not of circularity. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the assumption that a classroom card game elicits real fraud behavior and that self-reports measure it accurately. The proposed mechanism relies on an unvalidated assumption that credit punishment deters fraud. No free parameters are fitted because the paper contains no quantitative model.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Student participants' behavior in the card-trading game proxies real e-commerce fraud behavior.
    Section 3.2 argues students are ideal targets, but the game with random letter cards and prizes is far from real purchasing, and no validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Self-reported questionnaire answers accurately reflect actual cheating behavior.
    Table 2 relies entirely on self-reports; there is no verification against actual transaction records or independent observation of cheating.
  • ad hoc to paper The announced hints and prize incentives create fraud incentives comparable to real monetary e-commerce.
    Section 3.2 steps 4 to 7 define arbitrary values and hints; the mapping to real marketplace incentives is not established.
  • domain assumption A punitive credit record held by a trusted authority will deter fraud because agents value credit.
    Section 4.2 asserts that punishment 'can effectively decrease agents' incentives' without a formal model, simulation, or empirical test.
invented entities (1)
  • Central trusted authority managing a permissioned blockchain credit record
    purpose: Arbitrate disputes, break anonymity in fraud cases, and punish fraud by downgrading credit
    Proposed in Section 4.2 and Figure 2; no implementation, no falsifiable prediction, and it reintroduces the centralization that blockchain e-commerce seeks to remove.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blockchain-based Ecommerce It's an Evolution NOT a Revolution-Experimental Evidence from Users' Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UIKXX4M2

@misc{pith2026250209095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blockchain-based Ecommerce It's an Evolution NOT a Revolution-Experimental Evidence from Users' Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UIKXX4M2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09095}
}
read the original abstract

Proponents of blockchains believe that this technology will revolutionize e-commerce. To evaluate this belief, we invite several groups of students to transact on a decentralized peer-to-peer marketplace built on the platform provided by Origin Protocol Inc., and then we conduct a survey about their experience of usage. Based on our survey results, we find that 33% of respondents play tricks on others, which implies that this undesirable result may hinder the widespread adoption of blockchain technologies. We also attempt to propose a conceptual mechanism to mitigate fraudulent behaviors. In the event of disputation, a trusted authority is entitled to the right to downgrade the fraudulent side's credit record, which is stored by a permissioned blockchain accessed only by the authority. Such a punishment can effectively decrease agents' incentives to sell counterfeits and leave fake ratings. In sum, we must distinguish what we proposed blockchains will do and what blockchains can do before enabling this technology in e-commerce.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    smart contracts,

    Introduction E-commerce selling has been around for decades and is still growing in an undeniable trend. According to statistics, online revenue increased from $2.3 to over $2.8 trillion from 2017 to 2018 and is expected to grow to 4.88 trillion US dollars in 2021 1. Meanwhile, the growing e- commerce market experiences trust issues and privacy leakage. F...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Literature review The blockchain was first introduced as a mechanism to prevent double-spending in the peer-to- peer electronic cash system known as Bitcoin. Based on the underlying idea of Nakamoto (2008), blockchain technology combined with smart contracts has outgrown its origin in cryptocurrencies and is heading to various commercial applications (Nof...

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    We first introduce the decentralized peer-to-peer marketplace used for the trading experiment

    Experiment This section presents a detailed overview of the experiment. We first introduce the decentralized peer-to-peer marketplace used for the trading experiment. Second, we elaborate on how the experiment is implemented. 10 3.1 Experiment platform We create a decentralized e-commerce marketplace via the platform provided by Origin Protocol, Inc.9 For...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Last we conclude in Section 5

    work page

  5. [5]

    moderator

    Results and analysis This section shows discovered results from the questionnaire survey. As a part of the data collection methods, the questionnaire was required at the end of each experiment, and all participants have completed it. There was a total of 133 respondents and the results partition into 14 Norwegian respondents and 119 Chinese respondents. T...

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    We first invite several groups of students to transact on a decentralized peer -to-peer marketplace built on the platform provided by Origin Protocol Inc

    Conclusion In this paper, w e verity whether the blockchain can serve as the technology underlying decentralized marketplaces to promote trust. We first invite several groups of students to transact on a decentralized peer -to-peer marketplace built on the platform provided by Origin Protocol Inc. and then we conduct the survey about their experience of u...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Blockchain-Based E-Commerce: A Review on Applications and Challenges

    Alzahrani, N., & Bulusu, N., 2023. Blockchain-Based E-Commerce: A Review on Applications and Challenges. Electronics, 12(8), 1889

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    and McCabe, K., 1995

    Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. and McCabe, K., 1995. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and economic behavior, 10(1), pp.122-142

    work page 1995

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    and Patsakis, C., 2018

    Casino, F., Dasak lis, T.K. and Patsakis, C., 2018. A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics

    2018

  2. [10]

    and Wang, C.H., 2017, October

    Chen, P.W., Jiang, B.S. and Wang, C.H., 2017, October. Blockchain -based payment collection supervision system using pervasive Bitcoin digital wallet. In 2017 IEEE 13th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob) (pp. 139-146). IEEE

    2017

  3. [11]

    Reliability Modeling and Prediction of Systems with Mixture of Units,

    Cheng, Y., and E. A. Elsayed, 2015. “Reliability Modeling and Prediction of Systems with Mixture of Units,” IEEE Transaction on Reliability, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 914-928

    2015

  4. [12]

    Reliability Modeling of Mixtures of One-shot Units 20 under Thermal Cyclic Stresses,

    Cheng, Y., and E. A. Elsayed, 2017a. “Reliability Modeling of Mixtures of One-shot Units 20 under Thermal Cyclic Stresses,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 167, pp. 58-66

  5. [13]

    Optimal Sequential ALT Plans for Systems with Mixture of One-Shot Units,

    Cheng, Y., and E. A. Elsayed, 2017b. “Optimal Sequential ALT Plans for Systems with Mixture of One-Shot Units,” IEEE Transaction on Reliability, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 997-1011

  6. [14]

    Reliability Modeling and Optimization of Operational Use of One-shot Units,

    Cheng, Y., and E. A. Elsayed, 2018. “Reliability Modeling and Optimization of Operational Use of One-shot Units,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 176, pp. 27-36

    2018

  7. [15]

    Design of Optimal Hybrid Sequential Testing Plans,

    Cheng, Y., and E. A. Elsayed, 2021a. “Design of Optimal Hybrid Sequential Testing Plans,” IISE Transactions, Quality and Reliability Engineering

  8. [16]

    Random Multi Hazard Resilience Modeling of Engineered Systems and Critical Infrastructures,

    Cheng, Y., and E. A. Elsayed, 2021b. “Random Multi Hazard Resilience Modeling of Engineered Systems and Critical Infrastructures,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 209, p.107453

  9. [17]

    Optimal Degradation-based Hybrid Double-Stage Acceptance Sampling Plan for a Heterogeneous Product

    Cheng, Y., H. Liao, Z. Huang, 2021. “Optimal Degradation-based Hybrid Double-Stage Acceptance Sampling Plan for a Heterogeneous Product”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 210, p.107453

    2021

  10. [18]

    A User-based Bike Rebalancing Strategy for Free- Floating Bike Sharing Systems: A Bidding Model,

    Cheng, Y., J. Wang, Y. Wang, 2021. “A User-based Bike Rebalancing Strategy for Free- Floating Bike Sharing Systems: A Bidding Model,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 154, p. 102438

    2021

  11. [19]

    Optimal Sampling-based Sequential Inspecti on and Maintenance Plans for a Heterogeneous Product with Competing Failure Modes

    Cheng, Y., Y. Wei, H. Liao, 2022. “Optimal Sampling-based Sequential Inspecti on and Maintenance Plans for a Heterogeneous Product with Competing Failure Modes”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 218, p.108181

    2022

  12. [20]

    From Reliability to Resilience: More Than Just Taking One Step Further

    Cheng, Y., H. Liao, E. Elsayed, 2023. “From Reliability to Resilience: More Than Just Taking One Step Further”, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 1

    2023

  13. [21]

    A Quantitative Maintenance Policy Development Framework for a Fleet of Self-Service Systems

    Cheng, Y. , Wei, H. Liao, 2025. “A Quantitative Maintenance Policy Development Framework for a Fleet of Self-Service Systems”, Naval Research Logistics (under revision)

    2025

  14. [22]

    and Owenson, G., 2016

    Dennis, R. and Owenson, G., 2016. Rep on the roll: a peer to peer reputation system based on a rolling blockchain. International Journal for Digital Society, 7(1), pp.1123-1134

    2016

  15. [23]

    and Ivens, B., 2019

    Fleischmann, M. and Ivens, B., 2019. Exploring the role of trust in blockchain adoption: an inductive approach. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

    2019

  16. [24]

    and Nurminen, J.K., 2017

    Gallay, O., Korpela, K., Tapio, N. and Nurminen, J.K., 2017. A peer -to-peer platform for decentralized logistics. In Proceedings of t he Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL) (pp. 19-34)

    2017

  17. [25]

    An Integrated Robust Design and Robust Control Strategy using the Genetic Algorithm

    Gao, Y., J. Wang, S. Gao, Y. Cheng, 2021. “An Integrated Robust Design and Robust Control Strategy using the Genetic Algorithm”, IEEE Transaction on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 8378-8386

    2021

  18. [26]

    On Time-Dependent Critical Platforms and Tracks in Metro Systems,

    Gao, Y., J. Wang, Y. Cheng, 2022. “On Time-Dependent Critical Platforms and Tracks in Metro Systems,” Transportation Science, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 953-971

    2022

  19. [27]

    Blockchain, herding and trust in peer -to-peer lending

    Gonzalez, L., 2019. Blockchain, herding and trust in peer -to-peer lending. Managerial Finance

    2019

  20. [28]

    and Miers, I., 2017, October

    Green, M. and Miers, I., 2017, October. Bolt: Anonymous payment channels for decentralized currencies. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 473-489). ACM

    2017

  21. [29]

    and Gao, L., 2019, February

    Jiang, Y., Wang, C., Wang, Y. and Gao, L., 2019, February. A Privacy -Preserving E - Commerce System Based on the Blockchain Technology. In 2019 IEEE International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE) (pp. 50-55). IEEE. 21

    2019

  22. [30]

    S., Gunasekaran, A., & Sharma, R

    Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Sharma, R. , 2022. Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain Management: An Organizational Theoretic Overview and Research Agenda. Annals of Operations Research

    2022

  23. [31]

    and Ford, B., 2018, May

    Kokoris-Kogias, E., Jovanovic, P., Gasser, L., Gailly, N., Syta, E. and Ford, B., 2018, May. Omniledger: A secure, scale-out, decentralized ledger via sharding. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. 583-598). IEEE

    2018

  24. [32]

    PeriodNet: Noise-Robust Fault Diagnosis Method under Varying Speed Conditions

    Li, R., J. Wu, Y. Li, Y. Cheng, 2024. “PeriodNet: Noise-Robust Fault Diagnosis Method under Varying Speed Conditions”, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (in press)

    2024

  25. [33]

    and Nguyen, H.D., 2011

    Lim, Y.H., Hashim, H., Poo, N., Poo, D.C.C. and Nguyen, H.D., 2011. Blockchain Technologies in E-commerce: Social Shopping and Loyalty Program Applications

    2011

  26. [34]

    and Cheng, X., 2018

    Liu, C., Xiao, Y., Javangula, V., Hu, Q., Wang, S. and Cheng, X., 2018. NormaChain: A Blockchain-based Normalized Autonomous Transaction Settlement System for IoT -based E- commerce. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    2018

  27. [35]

    Blockchain technology: A trust or control machine? Theory and Experimental Evidence

    Milosav, D., 2019. Blockchain technology: A trust or control machine? Theory and Experimental Evidence. Master thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/60612

    2019

  28. [36]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

    Nakamoto, S., 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

    2008

  29. [37]

    and Schiereck, D., 2017

    Nofer, M., Gomber, P., Hinz, O. and Schiereck, D., 2017. Blockchain. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(3), pp.183-187

    2017

  30. [38]

    and Shi, E., 2018, April

    Pass, R. and Shi, E., 2018, April. Thunderella: Blockchains with optimistic instant confirmation. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques (pp. 3-33). Springer, Cham

    2018

  31. [39]

    and Spohrer, K., 2017

    Risius, M. and Spohrer, K., 2017. A blockchain research framework. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(6), pp.385-409

    2017

  32. [40]

    and Goldberg, I., 2017

    Roos, S., Moreno-Sanchez, P., Kate, A. and Goldberg, I., 2017. Settling payments fast and private: Efficient decentralized routing for path -based transactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05748

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    and Beaulieu, T., 2013

    Sarker, S., Xiao, X. and Beaulieu, T., 2013. Guest editorial: qualitative studies in information systems: a critical review and some guiding principles. MIS quarterly, 37(4), pp.iii- xviii

    2013

  34. [42]

    and Brunie, L., 2016, May

    Schaub, A., Bazin, R., Hasan, O. and Brunie, L., 2016, May. A trustless privacy-preserving reputation system. In IFIP Intern ational Conference on ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (pp. 398-411). Springer, Cham

    2016

  35. [43]

    Blockchain and privacy protection in the case of the european general data protection regulation (GDPR): a delphi study

    Schwerin, S., 2018. Blockchain and privacy protection in the case of the european general data protection regulation (GDPR): a delphi study. The Journal of the British Blockchain Association, 1(1), p.3554

    2018

  36. [44]

    and HAQUE, F.R.R., 2019

    Sheikh, H.H.S., Azmathullah, R.M.R. and HAQUE, F.R.R., 2019. A Blockchain -Based Platform Transforms E-Commerce Perspective into a Decentralized Marketplace

    2019

  37. [45]

    and Ham id, O., 2019

    Shorman, S.M., Allaymounq, M. and Ham id, O., 2019. Developing the E -Commerce Model a Consumer to Consumer Using Blockchain Network Technique. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT) Vol, 11

    2019

  38. [46]

    K., Mishra, R., Gupta, S., & Mukherjee, A

    Singh, R. K., Mishra, R., Gupta, S., & Mukherjee, A. A., 2023. Blockchain Applications for Secured and Resilient Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 175, 108854. 22

    2023

  39. [47]

    and Christin, N., 2015

    Soska, K. and Christin, N., 2015. Measuring the longitudinal evolution of the online anonymous marketplace ecosystem. In 24th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 15) (pp. 33-48)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Smart contracts

    Szabo, N., 1994. Smart contracts. http://szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html

    1994

  41. [49]

    An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID & blockchain technology

    Tian, F., 2016. An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID & blockchain technology. In 2016 13th international conference on service systems and service management (ICSSSM) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2016

  42. [50]

    Continuance Intention in Blockchain-Enabled Supply Chain Applications: Modelling the Moderating Effect of Supply Chain Stakeholders Trust

    Wamba, S.F., 2018. Continuance Intention in Blockchain-Enabled Supply Chain Applications: Modelling the Moderating Effect of Supply Chain Stakeholders Trust. In European, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems (pp. 38-43). Springer, Cham

    2018

  43. [51]

    Optimal Resilience-Based Restoration of a System subject to Recurrent Dependent Hazards

    Wei, Y., Y. Cheng, H. Liao, 2024. “Optimal Resilience-Based Restoration of a System subject to Recurrent Dependent Hazards”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 247

    2024

  44. [52]

    An Optimal Two -Dimensional Maintenance Policy for Self-Service Systems with Multi -Task Demands and Subject to Competing Sudden and Deterioration-Induced Failures

    Wei, Y., and Y. Cheng, 2025. “An Optimal Two -Dimensional Maintenance Policy for Self-Service Systems with Multi -Task Demands and Subject to Competing Sudden and Deterioration-Induced Failures”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety (under revision)

    2025

  45. [53]

    and Sheng, Q., 2016

    Xu, A., Li, M., Huang, X., Xue, N., Zhang, J. and Sheng, Q., 2016. A blockchain based micro payment system for smart devices. Signature, 256(4936), p.115

    2016

  46. [54]

    Zhao, S., Y. Wei, Y. Cheng, 2025. “A Semi -Markov Decision Process based Reinforcement Learning Framework for a Joint Design, Maintenance, and Inventory Policy for a k -out-of-n Load -Sharing System Subject to Self -Announcing Failures”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety...

    2025

  47. [55]

    Critical Department Analysis for Large-Scale Outpatient Systems

    Zhou, C., Y. Cheng, J. Wang, 2022. “Critical Department Analysis for Large-Scale Outpatient Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 10

    2022

  48. [56]

    The Impact of the Variability of Patient Flow and Service Time on the Efficiency of Large-scale Outpatient Systems, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems

    Zhou, C., Y. Cheng, J. Wang, 2023. “The Impact of the Variability of Patient Flow and Service Time on the Efficiency of Large-scale Outpatient Systems, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems”, vol. 10. 23 Appendix A. Demographic effects We have discussed some concer...

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.