The most informative parts from interview Joris van Rossum (Director of Special Projects, Digital Science) with Martijn Roelandse (Head of Publishing Innovation, Springer Nature):

“…How would you describe blockchain in one sentence?
Joris: Blockchain is a technology for decentralized, self-regulating data which can be managed and organized in a revolutionary new way: open, permanent, verified and shared, without the need of a central authority.
How does it work (in layman’s language!)?
Joris: In a regular database you need a gatekeeper to ensure that whatever is stored in a database (financial transactions, but this could be anything) is valid. However with blockchain, trust is not created by means of a curator, but through consensus mechanisms and cryptographic techniques. Consensus mechanisms clearly define what new information is allowed to be added to the datastore. With the help of a technology called hashing, it is not possible to change any existing data without this being detected by others. And through cryptography, the database can be shared without real identities being revealed. So the blockchain technology removes the need for a middle-man.

 
How is this relevant to scholarly communication?
Joris: It’s very relevant. We’ve explored the possibilities and initiatives in a report published by Digital Science. The blockchain could be applied on several levels, which is reflected in a number of initiatives announced recently. For example, a cryptocurrency for science could be developed. This ‘bitcoin for science’ could introduce a monetary reward scheme to researchers, such as for peer review. Another relevant area, specifically for publishers, is digital rights management. The potential for this was picked up by this blog at a very early stage. Blockchain also allows publishers to easily integrate micropayments, thereby creating a potentially interesting business model alongside open access and subscriptions.Moreover, blockchain as a datastore with no central owner where information can be stored pseudonymously could support the creation of a shared and authoritative database of scientific events. Here traditional activities such as publications and citations could be stored, along with currently opaque and unrecognized activities, such as peer review. A data store incorporating all scientific events would make science more transparent and reproducible, and allow for more comprehensive and reliable metrics…”
Why is blockchain so divisive — both in scholarly communication and more widely? Why do some people love it and some hate it?
“…Joris: I guess because of blockchain’s place in the hype cycle. Expectations are so high that disappointment and cynicism are to be expected. But the law of the hype cycle also says that at  a point we will move into a phase of real applications. So we believe this is the time to discuss the direction as a community, and start experimenting with blockchain in scholarly communication.Martijn: In addition, bitcoin, built on top of blockchain technique, is commonly associated with black markets and money laundering, and hasn’t built up a good reputation. Blockchain, however, is so much more than bitcoin. Blockchain for business does not require any mining of cryptocurrencies or any energy absorbing hardware. In the words of Sally Davies, FT Technology Reporter, “[Blockchain] is to Bitcoin, what the internet is to email. A big electronic system, on top of which you can build applications. Currency is just one.” Currently, blockchain is already much more diverse and is used in retail, insurance, manufacturing etc…”  

*The source: “Everything* You Always Wanted To Know About Blockchain (But Were Afraid To Ask)” by ALICE MEADOWS (originally published on the Society for Scholarly Publishing).