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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Lanfei Shi & Siva Viswanathan, 2023. "Optional Verification and Signaling in Online Matching Markets: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1603-1621, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Claudia Keser & Maximilian Späth, 2020. "The Value of Bad Ratings: An Experiment on the Impact of Distortions in Reputation Systems," CIRANO Working Papers 2020s-22, CIRANO.
    6. 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.
    7. Natalia Levina & Manuel Arriaga, 2014. "Distinction and Status Production on User-Generated Content Platforms: Using Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Production to Understand Social Dynamics in Online Fields," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 468-488, September.
    8. Balázs Kovács, 2024. "The Turing test of online reviews: Can we tell the difference between human-written and GPT-4-written online reviews?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 651-666, December.
    9. Michael Luca & Georgios Zervas, 2013. "Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-006, Harvard Business School, revised May 2015.
    10. Broere, Mark & Christmann, Robin, 2024. "Signaling and Fraud when Crowdfunding Campaigns Compete for Pledges," MPRA Paper 121784, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Hülya Karaman, 2021. "Online Review Solicitations Reduce Extremity Bias in Online Review Distributions and Increase Their Representativeness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4420-4445, July.
    12. Sungsik Park & Woochoel Shin & Jinhong Xie, 2021. "The Fateful First Consumer Review," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 481-507, May.
    13. Boris Knapp, 2021. "Fake Reviews and Naive Consumers," Vienna Economics Papers 2102, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Angela Aerry Choi & Daegon Cho & Dobin Yim & Jae Yun Moon & Wonseok Oh, 2019. "When Seeing Helps Believing: The Interactive Effects of Previews and Reviews on E-Book Purchases," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1164-1183, December.
    16. Li, Yimeng & Xiong, Yu & Mariuzzo, Franco & Xia, Senmao, 2021. "The underexplored impacts of online consumer reviews: Pricing and new product design strategies in the O2O supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    17. Darren L. Linvill & Patrick L. Warren, 2023. "Paths to Influence: How Coordinated Influence Operations Affect the Prominence of Ideas," Papers 2308.09818, arXiv.org.
    18. 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.
    19. Sunyoung Hlee & Hanna Lee & Chulmo Koo, 2018. "Hospitality and Tourism Online Review Research: A Systematic Analysis and Heuristic-Systematic Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-27, April.
    20. Cristiano Codagnone & Federico Biagi & Fabienne Abadie, 2016. "The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the ‘Sharing Economy’," JRC Research Reports JRC101279, Joint Research Centre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.