4 ms·

> Myth #1 Blockchain changes data ownership, giving power back to the consumer. Anyone who becomes privy to some data has some ownership of it. Blockchain doesn

> Myth #1 Blockchain changes data ownership, giving power back to the consumer. Anyone who becomes privy to some data has some ownership of it. Blockchain doesn't change that. If you want to share something with only a few select people you need inherent trust or an NDA. I disagree with this. It's clear in cases such as Facebook that data privacy is abused. Not only that, but users don't have much of an idea of exactly how their data is being used. In a P2P system powered by blockchain, I can set permissions for certain data my on-chain information to be accessible between different parties, whether that's a doctor or a friend on a social media platform. They can receive a hash an decode it locally to view whatever information I am granting them permission to view. > Myth #2 Blockchain can revolutionize supply chain. Its a datastore with some cryptographic identity checks and tamper proof guarantees. It can't prove that a package made it from A to B or that it stayed at some ambient temperature IRL. It only records that someone attested to that, not whether its true. An ordinary database will do for an audit trail. Again, I disagree. Custom devices are being designed to record information in a tamper-proof way and submit to chain. > Myth #3 It cuts out the Middleman. You dont need blockchain to cut the middleman out of indusrty X. Any service trying to do this wants to be the new middleman with lower service fees cos' blockchain! I disagree with this as well, in certain context. Yes, many of the newer projects are trying to run blockchains they're developing as businesses. In that sense I would agree. Where I disagree is where blockchains aren't services, but protocols. A marketplace protocol can cut out Ebay, a stack of supply chain protocols can cut out SAP, loaning protocols can cut out current loan services, etc. For somebody calling themselves a 'blockchain engineer', it sounds like you don't have a great grasp on what the technology enables. Is this all doable today? No, but some of it is. We're still in the early stages where infrastructure and tools are being built out.

Yizahi 8y ago
> Custom devices are being designed to record information in a tamper-proof way Then the innovation is ONLY in these devices and they just as well can be used with regular encrypted DB.
- hanniabu 8y ago
  A regular DB can't ensure the same things blockchain can
hashtagjohnt 8y ago
> I disagree with this. It's clear in cases such as Facebook that data privacy is abused. Not only that, but users don't have much of an idea of exactly how their data is being used. In a P2P system powered by blockchain, I can set permissions for certain data my on-chain information to be accessible between different parties, whether that's a doctor or a friend on a social media platform. They can receive a hash an decode it locally to view whatever information I am granting them permission to view. I think the OP is saying that if anyone has access to the raw data at any point, then they have some sort of ownership. And this is actually true in your example. A person owns their own data (age, email, etc.), and then gives it to Facebook. Someone might expect privacy from Facebook, but since Facebook now has access to that data, they have some sort of ownership of it. And what do they do with their ownership? They sell it :). If you give your hashed data to Facebook, and allow them to decode it and read it, then they can still sell the decoded data because they now have access to and some ownership of the data.
- pariahHN 8y ago
  I think that would tie in to the enforceable off chain point - if by law Facebook has to respect the permissions you give them, then yes they may have the ability to sell the data you allowed them to read but if you did not give them permission to sell it, then you would be able to pursue legal action. Which of course would require proving that they did in fact sell it, but it shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to setup a mechanism for taking a data point and verifying whether or not the seller has been given permission to sell it - could have it so that who has access to a given data point and what their permissions are is part of the public record.
- hanniabu 8y ago
  In my example Facebook wouldn't be able to decode it, only the user client side.
stackzero 8y ago
When's your ICO?

Yizahi 8y ago

> Custom devices are being designed to record information in a tamper-proof way Then the innovation is ONLY in these devices and they just as well can be used with regular encrypted DB.

hanniabu 8y ago
A regular DB can't ensure the same things blockchain can

hashtagjohnt 8y ago

> I disagree with this. It's clear in cases such as Facebook that data privacy is abused. Not only that, but users don't have much of an idea of exactly how their data is being used. In a P2P system powered by blockchain, I can set permissions for certain data my on-chain information to be accessible between different parties, whether that's a doctor or a friend on a social media platform. They can receive a hash an decode it locally to view whatever information I am granting them permission to view. I think the OP is saying that if anyone has access to the raw data at any point, then they have some sort of ownership. And this is actually true in your example. A person owns their own data (age, email, etc.), and then gives it to Facebook. Someone might expect privacy from Facebook, but since Facebook now has access to that data, they have some sort of ownership of it. And what do they do with their ownership? They sell it :). If you give your hashed data to Facebook, and allow them to decode it and read it, then they can still sell the decoded data because they now have access to and some ownership of the data.

pariahHN 8y ago
I think that would tie in to the enforceable off chain point - if by law Facebook has to respect the permissions you give them, then yes they may have the ability to sell the data you allowed them to read but if you did not give them permission to sell it, then you would be able to pursue legal action. Which of course would require proving that they did in fact sell it, but it shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to setup a mechanism for taking a data point and verifying whether or not the seller has been given permission to sell it - could have it so that who has access to a given data point and what their permissions are is part of the public record.
hanniabu 8y ago
In my example Facebook wouldn't be able to decode it, only the user client side.

stackzero 8y ago

When's your ICO?