Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymisation

Dominic Deuber (), Jan Gruber, Merlin Humml, Viktoria Ronge and Nicole Scheler
Additional contact information
Dominic Deuber: Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Jan Gruber: Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Merlin Humml: Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Viktoria Ronge: Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Nicole Scheler: Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany

FinTech, 2024, vol. 3, issue 2, 1-13

Abstract: Cryptocurrency forensics have become standard tools for law enforcement. Their basic idea is to deanonymise cryptocurrency transactions to identify the people behind them. Cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques are often based on premises that largely remain implicit, especially in legal practice. On the one hand, this implicitness complicates investigations. On the other hand, it can have far-reaching consequences for the rights of those affected. Argumentation schemes could remedy this untenable situation by rendering the underlying premises more transparent. Additionally, they can aid in critically evaluating the probative value of any results obtained by cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques. In the argumentation theory and AI community, argumentation schemes are influential as they state the implicit premises for different types of arguments. Through their critical questions, they aid the argumentation participants in critically evaluating arguments. We specialise the notion of argumentation schemes to legal reasoning about cryptocurrency deanonymisation. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of the resulting schemes through an exemplary real-world case. Ultimately, we envision that using our schemes in legal practice can solidify the evidential value of blockchain investigations, as well as uncover and help to address uncertainty in the underlying premises—thus contributing to protecting the rights of those affected by cryptocurrency forensics.

Keywords: argumentation; legal reasoning; blockchain analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C6 F3 G O3 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2674-1032/3/2/14/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2674-1032/3/2/14/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jfinte:v:3:y:2024:i:2:p:14-248:d:1364707

Access Statistics for this article

FinTech is currently edited by Ms. Lizzy Zhou

More articles in FinTech from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().