Balancing User Privacy and Legal Demands while Conducting Businesses on the Blockchain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology offers a promising way to improve business processes by providing a secure and transparent transaction platform. However, using this technology brings its own set of challenges, especially when trying to balance user privacy with legal and regulatory needs. This article explores the challenges of keeping user information private, adhering to regulatory frameworks, and fulfilling legal requirements on the blockchain. A key point in this research is the challenge of keeping or maintaining confidentiality while being transparent. The article also discusses the issues of applying legal rules to a system not controlled by one central authority, the risks of privacy and security breaches, and the need to follow data protection laws. The article highlights how some blockchain-based companies have tackled these challenges, mainly through smart blockchain management and innovative technology, by looking at real-world examples from major companies like IBM, Bitpay, Ripple, and Coinbase. The systematic literature review (SLR) methodology involved reviewing literature from the past 15 years (2008-2023) from trusted sources like Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, Springer, and Science Direct. The findings indicate that cutting-edge technologies prioritizing privacy, such as zero-knowledge proofs, ring signatures, and encryption methods, would enable Bitcoin (BTC) platform operations to maintain or balance privacy and transparency. Furthermore, the study indicates the importance of clear privacy guidelines, adhering to relevant regulations, working closely with regulators and law enforcement, and educating users. In summary, it is crucial to approach blockchain carefully, prioritizing user privacy while meeting all legal and regulatory requirements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".