Computational information processing has gradually supplanted traditional records and recordkeeping for the physical record, undermining practices centered on the “moral defense” of the record and supplanting them with practices centred on datafication. Prioritizing data malleability rather than the defense of information from manipulation and corruption has, this chapter argues, contributed to the current diminution of the trustworthiness of information and an unravelling of society’s evidentiary foundations. Fields such as archival science and the law have long considered questions of how records may testify to the events and actions of which they form a part – serving as proofs of claims, that is, as evidentials – but research in the field of computing has only relatively recently focused on these issues. Despite its roots in computing culture, blockchain technology offers the promise of an immutable ledger that may halt the processes of datafication contributing to the current widespread potential for manipulation of records. The design and spirit of blockchains – offering the ability to cryptographically “fix” the record, chaining it in place so that any tampering is extremely difficult and immediately evident – harks back to a pre-digital past when the materiality of paper records more readily fixed in place transactional “facts” and protected their integrity from manipulation.

To what extent can human and institutional actors place their trust in a technology like distributed ledger technology, including blockchain? With the key role that technology increasingly plays in human trusting relationships, exploring the nature of trust in technology (and thus of trust in distributed ledgers as technical artefacts) is important. This chapter defines and explores three distinct but interrelated forms of trust applicable to blockchain technology: the notion of ‘trustless trust’; the notion of ‘user trust’; and the notion of ‘ledger trust’. In considering these three notions of trust, the chapter argues that trust relies—at least in part—upon evidence of the trustworthiness of parties to be trusted. But where does that evidence come from? One such source is records, including the ledgers that have long been used as evidence of all sorts of human transactions, especially financial ones. Distributed ledgers—which include blockchains—thus theoretically contribute to the formation of grounds for trust through affording a new form of recordkeeping that is said to assure trustworthy records as sources of evidence relating to transacting parties’ trustworthiness.

The discipline of “diplomatics” – originating in the seventeenth century to systematically test the authenticity of medieval documents – has more recently been adapted to the study of digital records and their systems. In establishing the necessary elements for the long-term preservation of authentic records, archival diplomatics provides one possible (and powerful) analytic framework and methodology for analyzing the trustworthiness of records, including those to be found in blockchain and distributed ledgers. Regardless of the type of blockchain and distributed ledger system under examination, each relies upon trust in the ledger and in the records the ledger contains. Yet each type of blockchain and distributed ledger system still has limitations when judged against archival diplomatic standards of records’ trustworthiness, which demands the accuracy, reliability, and authenticity of records. By gaining an understanding of the elemental requirements for trust in records (and in record systems), there is hope that the designers of blockchain and distributed ledger systems might continue to improve the evidentiary quality of blockchain records and recordkeeping.

Blockchains and distributed ledgers, like records of all kinds, can be viewed as socio-informational-technical ecosystems, not just technical artifacts. As such, they are governed by principles, procedures, and rules created by social actors. These “epistemic rules of the game” – and the version of social “truth” that results from their operation – are deeply interrelated to epistemic and social trust, and with power and authority. When peer disagreements arise within blockchain and distributed ledger ecosystems, much can be learned from how such epistemic disagreements are resolved (or not) about what version of “truth” concerning a state of affairs will be accepted in the face of two alternate justified true beliefs, and about the basic character and cohesiveness of these ecosystems and the socio-epistemic realities they constitute.