4 ms·

> does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. The blockchain does not solve the trust issue in this

> does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. The blockchain does not solve the trust issue in this scenario. Blockchains only work there is a verify unit entirely enclosed in the system - including the origins of any "unit" on the system. * Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc - "coins" are a completely digital concept fully enclosed by the system. "coins" are generated in a predictable, consensus based manner with consensus based means of exchanging their value. * Distributed Filesharing - "files" are stored in encrypted in a verifiable manner. I have an identity (or multiple identities) on the system which I can use to verify the source. Trust does become a factor in something like Civil where credibility is attached to a trust that an author actually published something. * Food - involves a physical good that cannot be verified by the "blockchain". I can verify that SOME item went through a certain set of checkpoints. I can possibly verify that the SAME item went through a certain set of checkpoints. I cannot however verify the authenticity of any item before entering into the system. I have to rely on a middle-man (e.g. Walmart, Kroger, Whole Foods, etc) to verify authenticity at the origin point. They also have to implement safe guards that ensure goods cannot be tampered with between checkpoints. That relies on trusting the middleman to have appropriate safeguards in place.

darawk 8y ago
No, you can't verify the food itself. But you can verify that a digital signature owned by the company in question signed the chain of custody for that food item, and using the blockchain, you can verify that that signature was made at a certain, retroactively immutable point in time.
bayesian_horse 8y ago
There is no such thing as "an item" moving through the food chain. In the EU we have a somewhat traditional system for cattle, created after the BSE crisis. Each animal has two ear tags which contain a unique ID. This ID will be carried through to the table if necessary. But it has to be "copied" along, for example when the animal is processed. The idea behind block chains in food processing is to record the transactions between individual parties. The blockchain does not verify the food, but rather the belief that they passed on a certain product. A malicious party will now have much more problems creating, vanishing or forging material. It also doesn't matter that much, because after a malicious transaction the following transactions are perfectly traceable again (if at least those are honest...).
- arcticbull 8y ago
  That’s no better than an IBM hosted MySQL store, except harder.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    With an "IBM hosted MySQL store" you would need every party to have write privileges on the database, and make realtime connections to exactly this one database instance. This can be somewhat hidden by remote APIs, multi-datacenter protocols and the like. But probably you are quickly going to some form of custom, signed data packets with an eventually consistent system.
lmpostor 8y ago
Excellent response. Though here is another perspective I thought of. What the usage of blockchain would allow is a chain of liability to exist among different companies in the supply chain. If you are signing off on a product, you are verifying the authenticity of the item, and if it arrives defective at the next location you assume liability. As a customer, what you would really leverage, is the incentive of every individual company to not be liable for any issues to the next company in the supply chain. You would still be required to some degree to verify the direct transaction of the item to yourself, but if ubiquitously applied, it should offer some higher level of trust simply due to the transparency offered. If this is needed in current society or will be implemented is another question, but I think large business definitely has incentive to minimize liability through something like this.
- SAI_Peregrinus 8y ago
  But since it's working with legal liability there's no need for blockchain. That can be done through standard contracts and having companies certify that their items are authentic. You still need such a contract with a blockchain, all the blockchain adds is some complexity.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    It also adds latency.
  - lmpostor 8y ago
    I mean the question is if the complexity is needless. Blockchain generally forces some level of standardization or there will be rejection, as well as being incredibly easy to audit. In a well functioning system, there is little benefit, but I would say that a blockchain based system elevates the floor of a functioning system due to its nature.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      As you stated, blockchains can be quite useful in a low trust environment. Thus currently most of its use cases are by criminals or transactions that can't be easily adjudicated, like international money transfers. I hope that the cryptocurrency craze is more just a standard get-rich-quick ponzi scheme in action than a sign that the West's hard won high trust culture is changing to a low trust one.
drb91 8y ago
Well, this is still an improvement over having no information about your produce, and a blockchain would provide a reliable ledger to sue deceptive food sources.
pbreit 8y ago
Aren’t these all implementation details?
salty_biscuits 8y ago
"Food - involves a physical good that cannot be verified by the "blockchain"." If only we could hash a potato...
- SkyPuncher 8y ago
  ....soooo....it's like Pied Piper, but for potatoes. We call it hashed browns.

darawk 8y ago

No, you can't verify the food itself. But you can verify that a digital signature owned by the company in question signed the chain of custody for that food item, and using the blockchain, you can verify that that signature was made at a certain, retroactively immutable point in time.

bayesian_horse 8y ago

There is no such thing as "an item" moving through the food chain. In the EU we have a somewhat traditional system for cattle, created after the BSE crisis. Each animal has two ear tags which contain a unique ID. This ID will be carried through to the table if necessary. But it has to be "copied" along, for example when the animal is processed. The idea behind block chains in food processing is to record the transactions between individual parties. The blockchain does not verify the food, but rather the belief that they passed on a certain product. A malicious party will now have much more problems creating, vanishing or forging material. It also doesn't matter that much, because after a malicious transaction the following transactions are perfectly traceable again (if at least those are honest...).

arcticbull 8y ago
That’s no better than an IBM hosted MySQL store, except harder.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  With an "IBM hosted MySQL store" you would need every party to have write privileges on the database, and make realtime connections to exactly this one database instance. This can be somewhat hidden by remote APIs, multi-datacenter protocols and the like. But probably you are quickly going to some form of custom, signed data packets with an eventually consistent system.

lmpostor 8y ago

Excellent response. Though here is another perspective I thought of. What the usage of blockchain would allow is a chain of liability to exist among different companies in the supply chain. If you are signing off on a product, you are verifying the authenticity of the item, and if it arrives defective at the next location you assume liability. As a customer, what you would really leverage, is the incentive of every individual company to not be liable for any issues to the next company in the supply chain. You would still be required to some degree to verify the direct transaction of the item to yourself, but if ubiquitously applied, it should offer some higher level of trust simply due to the transparency offered. If this is needed in current society or will be implemented is another question, but I think large business definitely has incentive to minimize liability through something like this.

SAI_Peregrinus 8y ago
But since it's working with legal liability there's no need for blockchain. That can be done through standard contracts and having companies certify that their items are authentic. You still need such a contract with a blockchain, all the blockchain adds is some complexity.
- dnautics 8y ago
  It also adds latency.
- lmpostor 8y ago
  I mean the question is if the complexity is needless. Blockchain generally forces some level of standardization or there will be rejection, as well as being incredibly easy to audit. In a well functioning system, there is little benefit, but I would say that a blockchain based system elevates the floor of a functioning system due to its nature.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    As you stated, blockchains can be quite useful in a low trust environment. Thus currently most of its use cases are by criminals or transactions that can't be easily adjudicated, like international money transfers. I hope that the cryptocurrency craze is more just a standard get-rich-quick ponzi scheme in action than a sign that the West's hard won high trust culture is changing to a low trust one.

drb91 8y ago

Well, this is still an improvement over having no information about your produce, and a blockchain would provide a reliable ledger to sue deceptive food sources.

pbreit 8y ago

Aren’t these all implementation details?

salty_biscuits 8y ago

"Food - involves a physical good that cannot be verified by the "blockchain"." If only we could hash a potato...

SkyPuncher 8y ago
....soooo....it's like Pied Piper, but for potatoes. We call it hashed browns.