3 ms·

Decentralization is critical to cryptocurrencies, but that's just one use case on top of an entire blockchain ecosystem. Not all blockchains need to be decentra

Decentralization is critical to cryptocurrencies, but that's just one use case on top of an entire blockchain ecosystem. Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database.

simias 8y ago
>This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database. We've had this discussion a billion times before on HN so I'll avoid a huge wall of text but it always boils down to the same conclusion: blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completely pointless. Detecting tampering can be achieved trivially using public key cryptography and a good hash function. So you're either saying that what IBM is doing is not a true blockchain or you're fine with anybody using PGP and sha256sum labeling their product as a blockchain. In the latter case it means that bittorent, linux package managers and Windows Updates qualify as "blockchains". At any rate this is obviously a huge marketing ploy to get free advertising, like "web 2.0" or "cloud computing" before. The problem here is that pumping the "blockchain technology" also means pumping the entire ecosystem of cryptocurrencies which is 90% scams at this point.
- noxToken 8y ago
  > blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completely pointless. You're completely right, but I want to point out something subtle that I almost missed. For something to be considered a blockchain, it does not have to be distributed (as you noted). There can be a centralized entity (Wal-Mart) controlling the blockchain, but like you said, a controlling entity takes away trust. Without trust, Wal-Mart can still verify any tampering, but the public would still have to trust that Wal-Mart is coming forward with any discrepancies.
  - MrEfficiency 8y ago
    >but the public would still have to trust that Wal-Mart is coming forward with any discrepancies. The entire point of blockchain is trustless. Otherwise a walmart database would be fine.
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    Sure, but they could also prevent tampering by just running a database themselves and not providing APIs that allow data to be tampered with. If they want to be able to prove it for external auditors, create a write-only audit trail the same way banks have been doing it for decades.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Is Wal-Mart really the threat in this case? I thought the threat was farmers too cheap to give their workers restroom breaks. This system will catch those farmers, and limit the sale of their produce. Wal-Mart doesn't actually want to sell dangerous lettuce.
    - noxToken 8y ago
      I didn't mean to say that Wal-Mart was a threat. If the data is held internally, then it's up to the public to trust Wal-Mart's data. This is more a comment about a blockchain being moot than calling Wal-Mart a bad actor, but I can see how it goes the other way as well.
  - simias 8y ago
    You're right but again, blockchain is not needed for that part either. Just have wallmart publish their signed database publicly at regular intervals this way if they cheat and try to modify existing records anybody with an old dump could prove that something weird happened (since the database is signed simply showing a conflicting entry with a valid signature would be enough to demonstrate that either Wall-Mart did something fishy or that they got compromised. You wouldn't have to trust the whistle blower).
- prepend 8y ago
  “you're fine with anybody using PGP and sha256sum labeling their product as a blockchain” I like this. I’ve worked in orgs where PKI meant identity and identity proofing and expensive certs. Blockchain changes the pki from “this public key is definitely prepend” to “this public key means the holder of the private key did it.” This is because the “blockchain” either does consensus or has an authority on that key’s action being appropriate. So being able to use pgp and sha256 as appropriate is a good thing in my book. Could this be done without blockchain with smarter it policy? Yes. But it didn’t, and now there’s some way of formally structuring how non-authoritative identities can perform functions. So breaking pki out of the authentication world is pretty useful for me.
olalonde 8y ago
> Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. It feels like we're arguing about semantics here. Non decentralised, cryptocurrency-less blockchains have existed since before Bitcoin and were just called databases, event stores, public logs, etc. The true innovation behind Bitcoin was its consensus mechanism (which requires both decentralisation and currency). I'd argue that technology which was well established prior to Bitcoin (e.g. a centralised tamper resistant database system) does not deserve to be called a "blockchain". Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.
MrEfficiency 8y ago
>Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. Yes they do, or you could use a traditional database. >This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database. Except IBM. Hope no one at IBM is greedy... I wont hold my breath.
gldalmaso 8y ago
There are other possible solutions to auditing a database. I work on a product in this segment (food traceability) and from experience I expect walmart to encounter possible operational issues by adopting the complexity of the blockchain into their solution. The first one is tech-literacy. Like the article says, and is usual in this segment, producers and distributors have to adhere to the program to continue to sell to walmart. Often they just see it as a burden and don't perceive any value add for them, so they resist using it as much as possible. Data input must be incredibly simple and fast (produce can't sit in stock for long). If there is some exotic problem regarding certificates, keys or anything more elaborate than filling simple forms, then the producer will not be able to move his product until it is resolved with risk of having his shipment returned. Unless you do all the work to set up the client side of tech, which means generating all the keys for everyone (making the whole endeavor pointless), the UX will be a major obstacle.

simias 8y ago

>This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database. We've had this discussion a billion times before on HN so I'll avoid a huge wall of text but it always boils down to the same conclusion: blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completely pointless. Detecting tampering can be achieved trivially using public key cryptography and a good hash function. So you're either saying that what IBM is doing is not a true blockchain or you're fine with anybody using PGP and sha256sum labeling their product as a blockchain. In the latter case it means that bittorent, linux package managers and Windows Updates qualify as "blockchains". At any rate this is obviously a huge marketing ploy to get free advertising, like "web 2.0" or "cloud computing" before. The problem here is that pumping the "blockchain technology" also means pumping the entire ecosystem of cryptocurrencies which is 90% scams at this point.

noxToken 8y ago
> blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completely pointless. You're completely right, but I want to point out something subtle that I almost missed. For something to be considered a blockchain, it does not have to be distributed (as you noted). There can be a centralized entity (Wal-Mart) controlling the blockchain, but like you said, a controlling entity takes away trust. Without trust, Wal-Mart can still verify any tampering, but the public would still have to trust that Wal-Mart is coming forward with any discrepancies.
- MrEfficiency 8y ago
  >but the public would still have to trust that Wal-Mart is coming forward with any discrepancies. The entire point of blockchain is trustless. Otherwise a walmart database would be fine.
- vertex-four 8y ago
  Sure, but they could also prevent tampering by just running a database themselves and not providing APIs that allow data to be tampered with. If they want to be able to prove it for external auditors, create a write-only audit trail the same way banks have been doing it for decades.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Is Wal-Mart really the threat in this case? I thought the threat was farmers too cheap to give their workers restroom breaks. This system will catch those farmers, and limit the sale of their produce. Wal-Mart doesn't actually want to sell dangerous lettuce.
  - noxToken 8y ago
    I didn't mean to say that Wal-Mart was a threat. If the data is held internally, then it's up to the public to trust Wal-Mart's data. This is more a comment about a blockchain being moot than calling Wal-Mart a bad actor, but I can see how it goes the other way as well.
- simias 8y ago
  You're right but again, blockchain is not needed for that part either. Just have wallmart publish their signed database publicly at regular intervals this way if they cheat and try to modify existing records anybody with an old dump could prove that something weird happened (since the database is signed simply showing a conflicting entry with a valid signature would be enough to demonstrate that either Wall-Mart did something fishy or that they got compromised. You wouldn't have to trust the whistle blower).
prepend 8y ago
“you're fine with anybody using PGP and sha256sum labeling their product as a blockchain” I like this. I’ve worked in orgs where PKI meant identity and identity proofing and expensive certs. Blockchain changes the pki from “this public key is definitely prepend” to “this public key means the holder of the private key did it.” This is because the “blockchain” either does consensus or has an authority on that key’s action being appropriate. So being able to use pgp and sha256 as appropriate is a good thing in my book. Could this be done without blockchain with smarter it policy? Yes. But it didn’t, and now there’s some way of formally structuring how non-authoritative identities can perform functions. So breaking pki out of the authentication world is pretty useful for me.

olalonde 8y ago

> Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. It feels like we're arguing about semantics here. Non decentralised, cryptocurrency-less blockchains have existed since before Bitcoin and were just called databases, event stores, public logs, etc. The true innovation behind Bitcoin was its consensus mechanism (which requires both decentralisation and currency). I'd argue that technology which was well established prior to Bitcoin (e.g. a centralised tamper resistant database system) does not deserve to be called a "blockchain". Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion.

MrEfficiency 8y ago

>Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. Yes they do, or you could use a traditional database. >This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database. Except IBM. Hope no one at IBM is greedy... I wont hold my breath.

gldalmaso 8y ago

There are other possible solutions to auditing a database. I work on a product in this segment (food traceability) and from experience I expect walmart to encounter possible operational issues by adopting the complexity of the blockchain into their solution. The first one is tech-literacy. Like the article says, and is usual in this segment, producers and distributors have to adhere to the program to continue to sell to walmart. Often they just see it as a burden and don't perceive any value add for them, so they resist using it as much as possible. Data input must be incredibly simple and fast (produce can't sit in stock for long). If there is some exotic problem regarding certificates, keys or anything more elaborate than filling simple forms, then the producer will not be able to move his product until it is resolved with risk of having his shipment returned. Unless you do all the work to set up the client side of tech, which means generating all the keys for everyone (making the whole endeavor pointless), the UX will be a major obstacle.