4 ms·
But everyone involved is entering the information into the same IBM software front-end ("Food Trust")... So all players involved are using the same front-end an
by stinky613 8y ago
But everyone involved is entering the information into the same IBM software front-end ("Food Trust")... So all players involved are using the same front-end and the same back-end, and only Walmart & IBM have the ability to change anything. How does a blockchain benefit anyone (other than IBM) in this situation?
- bayesian_horse 8y agoI don't know the details of that particular system, but what you say doesn't necessarily preclude a block chain system.
- chao- 8y agoIt doesn't preclude it, sure, but what stinky613 said does mean that a blockchain does not offer particular advantages over a more traditional datastore (regardless of how that datastore is accessed). I believe that was their point: that in this situation, a blockchain requires more effort for no additional benefit.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rocqua 8y agoJust guessing, but if appending to the chain requires signatures from IBM / Walmart, then all you need is to get the blockchain from somewhere, and you can verify it. With in-build non-repudiation. This is of course also possible with signed responses to queries. I think the advantage here is that the signatures are build into the data-store. This just simplifies verification and replication.