3 ms·

While it is true that blockchains themselves cannot guarantee that they're synchronized with the physical world, they provide an irrevocable digital trail that

While it is true that blockchains themselves cannot guarantee that they're synchronized with the physical world, they provide an irrevocable digital trail that can be used to punish bad actors, one that is relatively immune to tampering. A lot of the world operates this way—simply signing something under penalty of perjury does not guarantee that it is true, but it can be taken to court if it is later found that you're lying. A blockchain (not proof-of-work, but permissioned/BFT-based) is pretty clearly the optimal way to have an irrevocable digital trail.

notahacker 6y ago
Sure, I'm not disputing that they can fulfil a role, I'm noting that [i] they're not remotely close to being a solution to the sort of problems parties use escrow for (except where the goods are digital to the extent fulfilment can be encoded into some sort of smart contract) and [ii] a distributed ledger only has value over and above a non-distributed one if other parties worry about the centralised database manager tampering with records [without leaving obvious evidence behind], which has got to be so far down the list of potential issues with most supply chains (even with respect to record keeping) it's barely a consideration. Another vendor's good old fashioned cloud datastore might be equally suitable as far as parties not being able to update records without leaving an audit trail goes, and quite possibly with a shinier front end and easier to use API.
- damnyou 6y ago
  > they're not remotely close to being a solution to the sort of problems parties use escrow for But you can encode fulfilment into a smart contract for physical goods, assuming that those physical goods have some digital representation on-chain. Discrepancies between the chain and the real world continue to be resolved through the court systems in various jurisdictions, but on-chain activity is just strong evidence that any court can rely on. > a distributed ledger only has value over and above a non-distributed one if other parties worry about the centralised database manager tampering with records An alternative viewpoint is that a centralized database manager can be seen as a potential risk. One of the general ways we progress in society is when we reduce sources of risk, and a permissioned blockchain where you need 2/3rds of a cabal to collude is a pretty clear reduction of risk compared to a centralized DB. (I mean, how would you keep track of whether a central DB has been tampered with? You'd probably maintain your own copy, reconcile the two periodically, and flag discrepancies if and when they happen. That's exactly what a blockchain is.) To be clear, I'm pretty skeptical about blockchains in general, but this seems like a very compelling use case.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    > But you can encode fulfilment into a smart contract for physical goods, assuming that those physical goods have some digital representation on-chain. But why would I want to? Unlike a smart contract for some verifiable code-based outcome it doesn't offer any guarantees I get paid, which I still rely on the courts for, it just adds complexity and unfamiliar risk. > An alternative viewpoint is that a centralized database manager can be seen as a potential risk Sure, in theory it can be. But relative to all the other potential supply chain risks, the ERP cloud vendor colluding with a part of the supply chain to remove records from or silently update a datastore is pretty near the bottom of the list in terms of likelihood, expected cost and chances of it not being glaringly obvious to other parties and used as evidence of bad faith on their part in court. To be clear, I'm not saying blockchain can't be used as a datastore, I'm saying that overall its about as useful for mitigating supply chain risk as insurance against your spouse committing identity fraud is for mitigating potential problems with marriage.
    - damnyou 6y ago
      Well, the assumption is that unfamiliarity risk goes down as people get more familiar with the technology. There's certainly some added complexity but a blockchain is not that complex, it's just a git repo with some added functionality to repel hostile actors.
ptx 6y ago
Doesn't a permissioned blockchain require a trusted central authority to manage the permissions? How is it better than having that central authority manage the database?
- damnyou 6y ago
  You have, say, 50 entities that are part of the cabal, not all of whose interests are aligned (this is the important bit, you want a diversity of interests), and you need a 2/3 vote to add a new one.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Could you give some examples of current commercial relationships that let, say, 50 entities have a binding majority vote? I agree it's in theory possible, but I've never heard of such a thing.

notahacker 6y ago

Sure, I'm not disputing that they can fulfil a role, I'm noting that [i] they're not remotely close to being a solution to the sort of problems parties use escrow for (except where the goods are digital to the extent fulfilment can be encoded into some sort of smart contract) and [ii] a distributed ledger only has value over and above a non-distributed one if other parties worry about the centralised database manager tampering with records [without leaving obvious evidence behind], which has got to be so far down the list of potential issues with most supply chains (even with respect to record keeping) it's barely a consideration. Another vendor's good old fashioned cloud datastore might be equally suitable as far as parties not being able to update records without leaving an audit trail goes, and quite possibly with a shinier front end and easier to use API.

damnyou 6y ago
> they're not remotely close to being a solution to the sort of problems parties use escrow for But you can encode fulfilment into a smart contract for physical goods, assuming that those physical goods have some digital representation on-chain. Discrepancies between the chain and the real world continue to be resolved through the court systems in various jurisdictions, but on-chain activity is just strong evidence that any court can rely on. > a distributed ledger only has value over and above a non-distributed one if other parties worry about the centralised database manager tampering with records An alternative viewpoint is that a centralized database manager can be seen as a potential risk. One of the general ways we progress in society is when we reduce sources of risk, and a permissioned blockchain where you need 2/3rds of a cabal to collude is a pretty clear reduction of risk compared to a centralized DB. (I mean, how would you keep track of whether a central DB has been tampered with? You'd probably maintain your own copy, reconcile the two periodically, and flag discrepancies if and when they happen. That's exactly what a blockchain is.) To be clear, I'm pretty skeptical about blockchains in general, but this seems like a very compelling use case.
- notahacker 6y ago
  > But you can encode fulfilment into a smart contract for physical goods, assuming that those physical goods have some digital representation on-chain. But why would I want to? Unlike a smart contract for some verifiable code-based outcome it doesn't offer any guarantees I get paid, which I still rely on the courts for, it just adds complexity and unfamiliar risk. > An alternative viewpoint is that a centralized database manager can be seen as a potential risk Sure, in theory it can be. But relative to all the other potential supply chain risks, the ERP cloud vendor colluding with a part of the supply chain to remove records from or silently update a datastore is pretty near the bottom of the list in terms of likelihood, expected cost and chances of it not being glaringly obvious to other parties and used as evidence of bad faith on their part in court. To be clear, I'm not saying blockchain can't be used as a datastore, I'm saying that overall its about as useful for mitigating supply chain risk as insurance against your spouse committing identity fraud is for mitigating potential problems with marriage.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Well, the assumption is that unfamiliarity risk goes down as people get more familiar with the technology. There's certainly some added complexity but a blockchain is not that complex, it's just a git repo with some added functionality to repel hostile actors.

ptx 6y ago

Doesn't a permissioned blockchain require a trusted central authority to manage the permissions? How is it better than having that central authority manage the database?

damnyou 6y ago
You have, say, 50 entities that are part of the cabal, not all of whose interests are aligned (this is the important bit, you want a diversity of interests), and you need a 2/3 vote to add a new one.
- wpietri 6y ago
  Could you give some examples of current commercial relationships that let, say, 50 entities have a binding majority vote? I agree it's in theory possible, but I've never heard of such a thing.