3 ms·

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

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.
SkyPuncher 8y ago
> I think large business definitely has incentive to minimize liability through something like this. I agree. I think that's one of my big problems with this. It seems like it's going to be a way for [Walmart] to point the blame at some supplier. They can say "look we implemented the blockchain. X supplier said they did THING and they didn't. Not our fault".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sixdimensional 8y ago
Can a block chain be poisoned by malicious actors easily? I hope not. I guess if there is a gate that prevents malicious actors from entering/participating in a block chain network... but how does identity verification on block chain work? Digital signatures of block chain content?
- lmpostor 8y ago
  I'm not sure how to answer this as it would require more context in regarding to what you consider a malicious actor and I would need more details regarding the blockchain in question. But in regards to identity verification, you are correct that it would be through digital signatures controlled by private keys. In order for malicious actors to masquerade as legitimate ones, they would have to steal these private keys. That can both be easy and hard, but that is probably going to have a relatively strict correlation to how much is at stake.

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.

SkyPuncher 8y ago

> I think large business definitely has incentive to minimize liability through something like this. I agree. I think that's one of my big problems with this. It seems like it's going to be a way for [Walmart] to point the blame at some supplier. They can say "look we implemented the blockchain. X supplier said they did THING and they didn't. Not our fault".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sixdimensional 8y ago

Can a block chain be poisoned by malicious actors easily? I hope not. I guess if there is a gate that prevents malicious actors from entering/participating in a block chain network... but how does identity verification on block chain work? Digital signatures of block chain content?

lmpostor 8y ago
I'm not sure how to answer this as it would require more context in regarding to what you consider a malicious actor and I would need more details regarding the blockchain in question. But in regards to identity verification, you are correct that it would be through digital signatures controlled by private keys. In order for malicious actors to masquerade as legitimate ones, they would have to steal these private keys. That can both be easy and hard, but that is probably going to have a relatively strict correlation to how much is at stake.