The Business and Management Review, Volume 10 Number 2 April 2019 Conference proceedings of the Academy of Business and Retail Management (ABRM) 108 Accounting and blockchain technology: from double-entry to triple-entry Alessio Faccia Narcisa Roxana Mosteanu Colledge of Business Administration American University in the Emirates, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Keywords Double entry bookkeeping; nature of accounts; accounting; triple entry; blockchain Abstract Any private and public institution is required to have a bookkeeping for their activity. Among many other duties, transparency in procurement and selling of goods and services, budgeting and presentation of their accounts are mandatory for any business. Actual legislation requires recordings according to the double-entry bookkeeping system. Current practice shows that the actual accounting system despite all legislative rigors, still leaves room for errors, voiced or forced, which in time leads to the development of the phenomenon of financial fraud. From this perspective, the present paper comes to how, moving to the next level of technology, blockchain, and from double-entry to triple entry accounting system, the risk of error and fraud mechanism can be definitely reduced. Introduction This research aims to analyze the evolution of the accounting practices starting with the double-entry bookkeeping system, invented in the fifteenth century up to the imminent future implementation that will involve the triple entry linked to the blockchain technology. It is also about to compare and verify how the economic, social and technological context has influenced accounting and how this context has in turn been influenced by accounting. Since the double-entry bookkeeping system was introduced by Luca Pacioli (Pacioli, L., 1494; Houghton Budd, C., 2016), anyone approaching accounting always struggle to understand why a value should be entered in debit side or credit side for each T-Account. In the end, most people resign themselves to memorize, mechanically, where to enter values (debit or credit), simply by habit. The use of the words debits and credit to identify, respectively, the left and right section of the double-entry, is linked to the naming of the sections according to origin of the system. However, the use of the words debits and credit, which currently no longer have any intrinsic meaning, is now even misleading. It would probably be more effective to call the two sections of each accounts, left section and right section, so as to avoid any confusion. In fact, for example, the increase of a payable (that is a debt) is recorded in credit (right-hand section) and vice versa the increase of a receivable (that is a credit) is recorded in debit (left-hand section). Although almost all of the international widespread accounting dedicated literature (Sullivan, M.C., Benke Jr., R.L., 1997; Needles, B.E., Powers, M., 2012; Spiceland, D., 2016; Libby, R., 2017; Wild, J., 2017; Weigandt, J.J., Kieso, D.E., Kimmel, P.D., 2017; Warren, C., Reeve, J.M., Duchac, J., 2018; Williams, J., 2018) is based on the explanation and the study of the accounting equation, the analysis of the nature of the accounts represents a prerequisite that cannot be ignored. Undoubtedly, the accounting equation is useful to explain different dynamics of accounting and it especially useful to prepare the financial statement (especially the balance sheet and the income statement) at the end of the period (O’Bryan, D., Berry, K.T., Troutman, C., Quirin, J.J., 2000). The research, however, has revealed that the nature of accounts has many controversial classifications. The one that sometimes is showed in international textbooks is based on the original classification suggested by Luca Pacioli at the end of the sixteenth century. However, advanced and refined studies were carried out by the