4 ms·

Yes, my company is using Quorum to build a permissioned blockchain amongst industry parties to exchange data for various value-add purposes. We have done a lot

by DIVx0 8y ago

Yes, my company is using Quorum to build a permissioned blockchain amongst industry parties to exchange data for various value-add purposes. We have done a lot of analysis and can see large benefits of using Ethereum based private network in this way. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/04/02/unitedhealths-optum-and-humana-in-blockchain-deal-to-improve-doctor-directories/#1b007eeb3998 https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/04/02/unitedhe...

ceejayoz 8y ago
> The use of blockchain technology will hopefully avoid the all too common problem that occurs when a claim comes through from the provider and it mismatches with the information the insurance company has in its provider directory. How?!
grepthisab 8y ago
Would love to see this analysis, I can’t myself think of how it would help.
simias 8y ago
People keep coming back with this use case but it always baffles me. Certainly you need to have some amount of trust in these parties not to falsify data? If so, why do you need a Blockchain instead of basically anything else that would be cheaper and simpler? I hoped to find answers in this Forbes articles but all I get are vague claims like: >The use of blockchain technology will hopefully avoid the all too common problem that occurs when a claim comes through from the provider and it mismatches with the information the insurance company has in its provider directory. >CMS found 52% of Medicare Advantage plan provider “directory locations had at least one inaccuracy.” How will the blockchain magically make sure that everybody updates all information? And if people suddenly somehow make sure to publish and update the info then why can't they do the same thing with boring old technology? >“With increasing state and federal requirements relating to provider data maintenance and quality, tackling the high cost and redundancy in this space is a logical starting point" Backups and redundancy existed before the Blockchain, also I'm sure nobody wants to publish private user data publicly for all to see so it's not like random users around the world are going to mirror your database. So you end up with a "Blockchain" where only trusted people can access and contribute. What's the advantage over spinning up a PostgreSQL intance? I mean when you read the Quorum wiki[1] it reads more like a database setup guide than spinning a bitcoin node: >The P2P layer has been modified to only allow connections to/from permissioned nodes. And just like that the entire point of the Blockchain vanishes. >‘Proof of work’ consensus algorithm has been replaced with ‘QuorumChain’ consensus, a vote-based consensus mechanism. Surely I hope that medicare providers obey to some top-down rules to operate, not a consensus on a Blockchain. And given that all nodes are whitelisted anyway I'm not sure why such a voting is even required. It's pretty crazy to me that when I read articles like this one on Forbes or the Quorum website I see pages after pages of hype and praise and yet so far nobody is capable of giving me one simple use case demonstrating the practical usefulness of the technology outside of cryptocurrencies. The more I read about it the more I become convinced that the only real feature of the Blockchain is being a magic word that makes suits throw money at you. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it. [1] https://github.com/jpmorganchase/quorum/wiki https://github.com/jpmorganchase/quorum/wiki
- optimuspaul 8y ago
  I had been thinking that I'm just too dumb to understand it was well, which still may be true. The conclusion I have come to is that blockchain is a solution looking for a problem, but every problem that people have come up with there are already solutions for that are far easier to implement and cost less to run.
- ZainRiz 8y ago
  Note that a private blockchain doesn't have to be expensive. The "cost" comes from the proof-of-work problem (the Concensus Algorithm) being made more difficult to solve over time, which occurs because there is an arms race between the miners to solve the block first. If you have a private blockchain with just a handful of miners on it who are not racing to win, they can use much simpler computing power and keep the difficulty of the proof of work problem low. In fact, in a private blockchain you don't even need to use proof of work. You can come up with some other concensus algorithm which is even cheaper when it comes to CPU (proof of stake is one popular algorithm, one can think up of many more)
- hndamien 8y ago
  Perhaps in digital advertising? In some cases you have multiple actors (say 10) with data simultaneously created by 5. Ensuring these agree today is hard and knowing who to trust is hard. Consensus algorithms and Blockchain’s can help the 5 + 5 here.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    Distributed databases with a consensus algorithm in the backend existed for quite a while. What does this provide over (search for: raft log database, and pick one example).
- DIVx0 8y ago
  The press release is vague for the same reason why I can't directly answer some of your questions/challenges. However, the fact that we're using a permissioned network does not automatically say that trust is absolutely granted. In this case it is more of a wall for a rather large and weird garden and at this stage of development it is helpful to know at least who is walking around in the garden. What they are up to is a different matter. Also, the press release mentions the problem of many provider directories existing and not every directory contains the same information. Provider data is a tent pole in the American healthcare industry and it is used in just about every area of it, from claims processing to personal health record management. You ask why not just have a central database for it? Well, the answer is simply "why do you think there are so many directories already?" The field is littered with directories that aimed to be "The single master directory for everyone!" There is a large amount of "not invented here syndrome" and an equal amount of "we have 20 years of data models that wont fit your commercial directory." So every large payer ends up building their own and then spends a lot of time and effort maintaining the data in it. Other consumers/producers of provider data may also maintain their own directories or subscribe to a commercial product. The network we constructed is not simply yet another provider master database but-on-a-blockchain. It goes beyond that and really does use key features of what most consider to be a blockchain's major benefits. I apologize for not being able to share details of what I consider to be really neat stuff but more news is on the horizon.
jonhendry18 8y ago
So basically your "use case" is "make a product that can be done easier with a database, then convince companies to buy it".

by DIVx0 8y ago

ceejayoz 8y ago

> The use of blockchain technology will hopefully avoid the all too common problem that occurs when a claim comes through from the provider and it mismatches with the information the insurance company has in its provider directory. How?!

grepthisab 8y ago

Would love to see this analysis, I can’t myself think of how it would help.

simias 8y ago

People keep coming back with this use case but it always baffles me. Certainly you need to have some amount of trust in these parties not to falsify data? If so, why do you need a Blockchain instead of basically anything else that would be cheaper and simpler? I hoped to find answers in this Forbes articles but all I get are vague claims like: >The use of blockchain technology will hopefully avoid the all too common problem that occurs when a claim comes through from the provider and it mismatches with the information the insurance company has in its provider directory. >CMS found 52% of Medicare Advantage plan provider “directory locations had at least one inaccuracy.” How will the blockchain magically make sure that everybody updates all information? And if people suddenly somehow make sure to publish and update the info then why can't they do the same thing with boring old technology? >“With increasing state and federal requirements relating to provider data maintenance and quality, tackling the high cost and redundancy in this space is a logical starting point" Backups and redundancy existed before the Blockchain, also I'm sure nobody wants to publish private user data publicly for all to see so it's not like random users around the world are going to mirror your database. So you end up with a "Blockchain" where only trusted people can access and contribute. What's the advantage over spinning up a PostgreSQL intance? I mean when you read the Quorum wiki[1] it reads more like a database setup guide than spinning a bitcoin node: >The P2P layer has been modified to only allow connections to/from permissioned nodes. And just like that the entire point of the Blockchain vanishes. >‘Proof of work’ consensus algorithm has been replaced with ‘QuorumChain’ consensus, a vote-based consensus mechanism. Surely I hope that medicare providers obey to some top-down rules to operate, not a consensus on a Blockchain. And given that all nodes are whitelisted anyway I'm not sure why such a voting is even required. It's pretty crazy to me that when I read articles like this one on Forbes or the Quorum website I see pages after pages of hype and praise and yet so far nobody is capable of giving me one simple use case demonstrating the practical usefulness of the technology outside of cryptocurrencies. The more I read about it the more I become convinced that the only real feature of the Blockchain is being a magic word that makes suits throw money at you. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it. [1] https://github.com/jpmorganchase/quorum/wiki https://github.com/jpmorganchase/quorum/wiki

optimuspaul 8y ago
I had been thinking that I'm just too dumb to understand it was well, which still may be true. The conclusion I have come to is that blockchain is a solution looking for a problem, but every problem that people have come up with there are already solutions for that are far easier to implement and cost less to run.
ZainRiz 8y ago
Note that a private blockchain doesn't have to be expensive. The "cost" comes from the proof-of-work problem (the Concensus Algorithm) being made more difficult to solve over time, which occurs because there is an arms race between the miners to solve the block first. If you have a private blockchain with just a handful of miners on it who are not racing to win, they can use much simpler computing power and keep the difficulty of the proof of work problem low. In fact, in a private blockchain you don't even need to use proof of work. You can come up with some other concensus algorithm which is even cheaper when it comes to CPU (proof of stake is one popular algorithm, one can think up of many more)
hndamien 8y ago
Perhaps in digital advertising? In some cases you have multiple actors (say 10) with data simultaneously created by 5. Ensuring these agree today is hard and knowing who to trust is hard. Consensus algorithms and Blockchain’s can help the 5 + 5 here.
- viraptor 8y ago
  Distributed databases with a consensus algorithm in the backend existed for quite a while. What does this provide over (search for: raft log database, and pick one example).
DIVx0 8y ago
The press release is vague for the same reason why I can't directly answer some of your questions/challenges. However, the fact that we're using a permissioned network does not automatically say that trust is absolutely granted. In this case it is more of a wall for a rather large and weird garden and at this stage of development it is helpful to know at least who is walking around in the garden. What they are up to is a different matter. Also, the press release mentions the problem of many provider directories existing and not every directory contains the same information. Provider data is a tent pole in the American healthcare industry and it is used in just about every area of it, from claims processing to personal health record management. You ask why not just have a central database for it? Well, the answer is simply "why do you think there are so many directories already?" The field is littered with directories that aimed to be "The single master directory for everyone!" There is a large amount of "not invented here syndrome" and an equal amount of "we have 20 years of data models that wont fit your commercial directory." So every large payer ends up building their own and then spends a lot of time and effort maintaining the data in it. Other consumers/producers of provider data may also maintain their own directories or subscribe to a commercial product. The network we constructed is not simply yet another provider master database but-on-a-blockchain. It goes beyond that and really does use key features of what most consider to be a blockchain's major benefits. I apologize for not being able to share details of what I consider to be really neat stuff but more news is on the horizon.

jonhendry18 8y ago

So basically your "use case" is "make a product that can be done easier with a database, then convince companies to buy it".