5 ms·

If anybody can enter and add entries to your blockchain, how do you ensure that they don't insert bogus data? If you're tracing a roll of paper what prevents so

by simias 9y ago

If anybody can enter and add entries to your blockchain, how do you ensure that they don't insert bogus data? If you're tracing a roll of paper what prevents somebody from adding an entry saying "the shipment got stolen" then immediately making a new entry for it with different attributes pretending it's something else? Or simply at the source pretending that something is of a higher quality than it is? The answer is that you need some kind of vetting and certification of the people contributing to your traceability database. So you need a trusted 3rd party to coordinate all that. So you don't need a blockchain. Instead why not just have the trusted 3rd party issue certificates like a CA on the web for instance? People would digitally sign the paperwork and you could collect the documents and their signatures in a central database. If somebody notices something wrong you can show that somebody made a fake or erroneous document and hold them responsible. Then you can publish dump of the database at regular intervals for people to mirror so that they can see if you attempt to rewrite history. There, problem solved using good old 1990's technology. >very bullish ! Interesting that you finish your technical argument with trading lingo. Hodl, am I right?

asynchrony 9y ago
This is generally my main source of skepticism relating to blockchain solutions. The ledger is 100% trustable as long as it describes digital assets that are entirely confined within the distributed ledger, but a digital token doesn't stop men with guns from taking your house. Just like a digital signature provides no guarantees that the associated information is true.
- donmatito 9y ago
  No but it certifies who has entered the info, right? That might be part of the solution here
  - nkrisc 9y ago
    Maybe it just certifies a "company" headquartered in an empty office in some commercial park entered the info.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    And how do you know that's the actual person, or that such a person/entity exists?
    - donmatito 9y ago
      Isn't that EXACTLY the problem solved by cryptography, ie I can reliably know that only supplier X could have signed the message with the public key of supplier X ?
      - asynchrony 9y ago
        It depends on the security of supplier X's private keys. I think there's a general conflation of the security of the cryptography with the security of the system overall.
      - simias 9y ago
        Cryptography lets you make signatures that can't be falsified by anybody not having your key but that's it. It doesn't mean much if you have no way to know who is actually behind the signature. I could generate a PGP key for Bill Gates right now, distribute it to the keyservers and sign a message saying that "I owe simias on hacker news one billion dollars". You could verify that the message was signed by my key beyond a doubt but so what? Bitcoin doesn't have this problem thanks to PoW, when a miner submits a newly mined block the network doesn't need to check the miner's credentials, the block itself proves (statistically) that the miner did a certain amount of work to come up with the block. That's all that matters and the coins/fees are credited to the miner's address. That works because all the data necessary to create the consensus are available "objectively" on the blockchain for all to see. It doesn't matter if the miner pretends to be Abraham Lincoln, that's not what the blockchain works with. Most problems don't have these properties, if I tell the blockchain "I have a brand new PS4 and I'm going to send it to X in exchange for n bitcoins" the blockchain has no objective way to track this transaction.
        donmatito 9y ago
        I know that, but I don't understand why it is seen as such a roadblock. A supplier would add its tag on thousands of parts each day, which would find their way into thousands of products and thousands of end-consumers each day. The suppliers would be well identified by their physical location and the physical products they produce. I think people raising these objections have not worked in a physical supply chain in the floor plant? I don't know, I have a difficulty to wrap my head around the objection. I am receiving a truckload of parts that I ordered - these parts have a barcode or a RFID identifier that tracks their provenance - the only change in the system would be that when I acknowledge the reception of the truckload, another block is appened to the blockchain-based history of the parts : Supplier + me the manufacturer. And so on across the supply chain. I don't understand, are we talking about a scenario where a rogue actor would send me for fere a truckload of parts I have not ordered or something like that ?
  - atomical 9y ago
    Is that part of the problem?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
donmatito 9y ago
Haha no I initially purchased all the tokens in supply-chain related fields, but I sold them a while ago at a loss. It doesn't matter - I still think these projects are very relevant for the future. I do not have the answers to your objections. I was replying to the common theme of "this is a solution is search for a problem". I am stating that there is a problem in search for a solution
DSingularity 9y ago
Hehe. Thats actually a nice artifact, thanks bitcoin. Now individuals can consider the potential of ideas to pan out and participate in funding them. Sure, sounds good -- I'll throw in 1,000$. Suddenly 1,000 like-minded individuals can satisfy the need of projects. Of course thats not always so popular here ;-). I should just mind my own business and focus on the coding right? Anyhow. I do think you are right. The integrity of the data has to be questioned. But I question why we have to assume that its useless just because it cannot be trusted? This paper trail is immutable. That is valuable. Future evidence can expose prior lies. Once you know that you have to maintain a lie for life, suddenly you are questioning if its really worth making.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  " Now individuals can consider the potential of ideas to pan out and participate in funding them. Sure, sounds good -- I'll throw in 1,000$. Suddenly 1,000 like-minded individuals can satisfy the need of projects." You mean Kickstarter, which has nothing to do with blockchain? "Anyhow. I do think you are right. The integrity of the data has to be questioned. But I question why we have to assume that its useless just because it cannot be trusted? This paper trail is immutable. That is valuable. Future evidence can expose prior lies. Once you know that you have to maintain a lie for life, suddenly you are questioning if its really worth making." Says who? Both Bitcoin and Etherium have gone through forks of their chains.
  - as300 9y ago
    >You mean Kickstarter, which has nothing to do with blockchain? Blockchain is having all of the functionality (and more) of Kickstarter with 10-20x more reach. Also, explain how you would use kickstarter to crowd-fund a gold-backed digital currency without Blockchain? >Says who? Both Bitcoin and Etherium have gone through forks of their chains The whole point if a Blockchain is you can tell if it's been forked, and really forks are just the exception proving the rule of immutability. Meaningful forks have happened a handful of times and they've been heavily publicized. How many times has a bank issued a chargeback?
- spookthesunset 9y ago

by simias 9y ago

asynchrony 9y ago

This is generally my main source of skepticism relating to blockchain solutions. The ledger is 100% trustable as long as it describes digital assets that are entirely confined within the distributed ledger, but a digital token doesn't stop men with guns from taking your house. Just like a digital signature provides no guarantees that the associated information is true.

donmatito 9y ago
No but it certifies who has entered the info, right? That might be part of the solution here
- nkrisc 9y ago
  Maybe it just certifies a "company" headquartered in an empty office in some commercial park entered the info.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  And how do you know that's the actual person, or that such a person/entity exists?
  - donmatito 9y ago
    Isn't that EXACTLY the problem solved by cryptography, ie I can reliably know that only supplier X could have signed the message with the public key of supplier X ?
    - asynchrony 9y ago
      It depends on the security of supplier X's private keys. I think there's a general conflation of the security of the cryptography with the security of the system overall.
    - simias 9y ago
      Cryptography lets you make signatures that can't be falsified by anybody not having your key but that's it. It doesn't mean much if you have no way to know who is actually behind the signature. I could generate a PGP key for Bill Gates right now, distribute it to the keyservers and sign a message saying that "I owe simias on hacker news one billion dollars". You could verify that the message was signed by my key beyond a doubt but so what? Bitcoin doesn't have this problem thanks to PoW, when a miner submits a newly mined block the network doesn't need to check the miner's credentials, the block itself proves (statistically) that the miner did a certain amount of work to come up with the block. That's all that matters and the coins/fees are credited to the miner's address. That works because all the data necessary to create the consensus are available "objectively" on the blockchain for all to see. It doesn't matter if the miner pretends to be Abraham Lincoln, that's not what the blockchain works with. Most problems don't have these properties, if I tell the blockchain "I have a brand new PS4 and I'm going to send it to X in exchange for n bitcoins" the blockchain has no objective way to track this transaction.
      - donmatito 9y ago
        I know that, but I don't understand why it is seen as such a roadblock. A supplier would add its tag on thousands of parts each day, which would find their way into thousands of products and thousands of end-consumers each day. The suppliers would be well identified by their physical location and the physical products they produce. I think people raising these objections have not worked in a physical supply chain in the floor plant? I don't know, I have a difficulty to wrap my head around the objection. I am receiving a truckload of parts that I ordered - these parts have a barcode or a RFID identifier that tracks their provenance - the only change in the system would be that when I acknowledge the reception of the truckload, another block is appened to the blockchain-based history of the parts : Supplier + me the manufacturer. And so on across the supply chain. I don't understand, are we talking about a scenario where a rogue actor would send me for fere a truckload of parts I have not ordered or something like that ?
- atomical 9y ago
  Is that part of the problem?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

donmatito 9y ago

Haha no I initially purchased all the tokens in supply-chain related fields, but I sold them a while ago at a loss. It doesn't matter - I still think these projects are very relevant for the future. I do not have the answers to your objections. I was replying to the common theme of "this is a solution is search for a problem". I am stating that there is a problem in search for a solution

DSingularity 9y ago

Hehe. Thats actually a nice artifact, thanks bitcoin. Now individuals can consider the potential of ideas to pan out and participate in funding them. Sure, sounds good -- I'll throw in 1,000$. Suddenly 1,000 like-minded individuals can satisfy the need of projects. Of course thats not always so popular here ;-). I should just mind my own business and focus on the coding right? Anyhow. I do think you are right. The integrity of the data has to be questioned. But I question why we have to assume that its useless just because it cannot be trusted? This paper trail is immutable. That is valuable. Future evidence can expose prior lies. Once you know that you have to maintain a lie for life, suddenly you are questioning if its really worth making.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
" Now individuals can consider the potential of ideas to pan out and participate in funding them. Sure, sounds good -- I'll throw in 1,000$. Suddenly 1,000 like-minded individuals can satisfy the need of projects." You mean Kickstarter, which has nothing to do with blockchain? "Anyhow. I do think you are right. The integrity of the data has to be questioned. But I question why we have to assume that its useless just because it cannot be trusted? This paper trail is immutable. That is valuable. Future evidence can expose prior lies. Once you know that you have to maintain a lie for life, suddenly you are questioning if its really worth making." Says who? Both Bitcoin and Etherium have gone through forks of their chains.
- as300 9y ago
  >You mean Kickstarter, which has nothing to do with blockchain? Blockchain is having all of the functionality (and more) of Kickstarter with 10-20x more reach. Also, explain how you would use kickstarter to crowd-fund a gold-backed digital currency without Blockchain? >Says who? Both Bitcoin and Etherium have gone through forks of their chains The whole point if a Blockchain is you can tell if it's been forked, and really forks are just the exception proving the rule of immutability. Meaningful forks have happened a handful of times and they've been heavily publicized. How many times has a bank issued a chargeback?
spookthesunset 9y ago