3 ms·

The very point is that you can't tag the plant from the original producer to the individual consumer all the time. For one thing, you'd need to collect a whole

The very point is that you can't tag the plant from the original producer to the individual consumer all the time. For one thing, you'd need to collect a whole lot of tags and carry them on. That would be the traditional solution. The blockchains record transactions. Where for example a batch of soy beans and a batch of wheat go into a batch of animal feed. Then a few batches of animal feed go into a pig (or rather multiple pigs). Then the individual piggy goes to the market. To trace back your food you need to know how the sausage is made, and trace back the transactions to find out where any particular problem is coming from. Point is: There is useful information even if certain steps can't be perfectly traced. There is value in not having to connect to a central database all the time.

SkyPuncher 8y ago
> Point is: There is useful information even if certain steps can't be perfectly traced. Yes (and no), but that's not what IBM is selling with their blockchain. They're selling trust, but only providing a digital trust solution while completely ignoring the physical and human side of trust. > There is value in not having to connect to a central database all the time. Problem here is IBM's blockchain is still a centrally maintained database. This literally provides any value. You still need to connect to a central database at some point.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  "At some point" is not the same as "eventually". Think of it as "eventually consistent" to the extreme.