IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/fininn/v2y2016i1d10.1186_s40854-016-0039-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fraud detections for online businesses: a perspective from blockchain technology

Author

Listed:
  • Yuanfeng Cai

    (City University of New York)

  • Dan Zhu

    (Iowa State University)

Abstract

Background The reputation system has been designed as an effective mechanism to reduce risks associated with online shopping for customers. However, it is vulnerable to rating fraud. Some raters may inject unfairly high or low ratings to the system so as to promote their own products or demote their competitors. Method This study explores the rating fraud by differentiating the subjective fraud from objective fraud. Then it discusses the effectiveness of blockchain technology in objective fraud and its limitation in subjective fraud, especially the rating fraud. Lastly, it systematically analyzes the robustness of blockchain-based reputation systems in each type of rating fraud. Results The detection of fraudulent raters is not easy since they can behave strategically to camouflage themselves. We explore the potential strengths and limitations of blockchain-based reputation systems under two attack goals: ballot-stuffing and bad-mouthing, and various attack models including constant attack, camouflage attack, whitewashing attack and sybil attack. Blockchain-based reputation systems are more robust against bad-mouthing than ballot-stuffing fraud. Conclusions Blockchain technology provides new opportunities for redesigning the reputation system. Blockchain systems are very effective in preventing objective information fraud, such as loan application fraud, where fraudulent information is fact-based. However, their effectiveness is limited in subjective information fraud, such as rating fraud, where the ground-truth is not easily validated. Blockchain systems are effective in preventing bad mouthing and whitewashing attack, but they are limited in detecting ballot-stuffing under sybil attack, constant attacks and camouflage attack.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuanfeng Cai & Dan Zhu, 2016. "Fraud detections for online businesses: a perspective from blockchain technology," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:fininn:v:2:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1186_s40854-016-0039-4
    DOI: 10.1186/s40854-016-0039-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s40854-016-0039-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s40854-016-0039-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jong-Seok Lee & Dan Zhu, 2012. "Shilling Attack Detection---A New Approach for a Trustworthy Recommender System," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 117-131, February.
    2. Dina Mayzlin & Yaniv Dover & Judith Chevalier, 2014. "Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2421-2455, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hui, Xiang & Klein, Tobias & Stahl, Konrad, 2022. "Learning from Online Ratings," CEPR Discussion Papers 17006, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. M. Narciso, 2022. "The Unreliability of Online Review Mechanisms," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 349-368, September.
    3. Inmaculada Rabadán-Martín & Francisco Aguado-Correa & Nuria Padilla-Garrido, 2020. "Online reputation of 4- and 5-star hotels," Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, vol. 26(1), pages 157-172, June.
    4. Pengkun Wu & Eric W. T. Ngai & Yuanyuan Wu, 2023. "Impact of praise cashback strategy: Implications for consumers and e‐businesses," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(9), pages 2825-2845, September.
    5. Sungsik Park & Woochoel Shin & Jinhong Xie, 2021. "The Fateful First Consumer Review," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 481-507, May.
    6. Boris Knapp, 2021. "Fake Reviews and Naive Consumers," Vienna Economics Papers 2102, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    7. Lingfang (Ivy) Li & Steven Tadelis & Xiaolan Zhou, 2020. "Buying reputation as a signal of quality: Evidence from an online marketplace," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(4), pages 965-988, December.
    8. Plé, Loïc & Demangeot, Catherine, 2020. "Social contagion of online and offline deviant behaviors and its value outcomes: The case of tourism ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 886-896.
    9. Gesche, Tobias, 2018. "Reference Price Shifts and Customer Antagonism: Evidence from Reviews for Online Auctions," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.
    11. Makoto Nakayama & Yun Wan, 2019. "Same sushi, different impressions: a cross-cultural analysis of Yelp reviews," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 181-207, June.
    12. Di Lizia, Adam, 2024. "Social Influence in Online Reviews : Evidence from the Steam Store," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1505, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    13. Rüdiger Bachmann & Gabriel Ehrlich & Ying Fan & Dimitrije Ruzic & Benjamin Leard, 2023. "Firms and Collective Reputation: a Study of the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 484-525.
    14. Vollaard, Ben & van Ours, Jan C., 2022. "Bias in expert product reviews," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 105-118.
    15. Thaís L. D. Souza & Marislei Nishijima & Ana C. P. Fava, 2019. "Do consumer and expert reviews affect the length of time a film is kept on screens in the USA?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 43(1), pages 145-171, March.
    16. Hung-Pin Shih & Pei-Chen Sung, 2021. "Addressing the Review-Based Learning and Private Information Approaches to Foster Platform Continuance," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 649-661, June.
    17. Hanna Halaburda & Jeffrey Prince & D. Daniel Sokol & Feng Zhu, 2024. "The business revolution: Economy‐wide impacts of artificial intelligence and digital platforms," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 269-275, March.
    18. Surachartkumtonkun, Jiraporn (Nui) & Grace, Debra & Ross, Mitchell, 2021. "Unfair customer reviews: Third-party perceptions and managerial responses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 631-640.
    19. Christoph Carnehl & Maximilian Schaefer & André Stenzel & Kevin Ducbao Tran, 2022. "Value for Money and Selection: How Pricing Affects Airbnb Ratings," Working Papers 684, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    20. Wen Zhang & Qiang Wang & Jian Li & Zhenzhong Ma & Gokul Bhandari & Rui Peng, 2023. "What makes deceptive online reviews? A linguistic analysis perspective," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:fininn:v:2:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1186_s40854-016-0039-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.