4 ms·

As another pointed out: supply chain does make sense. There are plenty of cases where it's better to not have to trust on any particular entity. Examples: - M

As another pointed out: supply chain does make sense. There are plenty of cases where it's better to not have to trust on any particular entity. Examples: - Marketing and advertisement campaigns. How much ad fraud exist and how much money is spent by advertisers without knowing if they are actually reaching their customers. Do you trust Google to actually mitigate these problems? - Health care: remember Google Health and Microsoft Health Vault? Nowadays Apple/Google/Samsung wants to collect that data. Wouldn't you rather have it in a way that only doctors had access to it?

detaro 6y ago
> Wouldn't you rather have it in a way that only doctors had access to it? How is a blockchain the answer here? The "distribute all data" and "keep history forever" attributes seem actively bad for healthcare use cases.
- rglullis 6y ago
  That is a good question. The answer is that you don't put the data in the blockchain, you just keep the log of who is interacting with the patient and who needs access to the records. ;)
  - detaro 6y ago
    Even which doctor someone visited is confidential data one ideally would not preserve when not needed anymore (and "ideally" might very well be law). Health data is messy, and I have trouble imagining a solution that puts it on a blockchain but allows only private access to everything and has a chance of fixing instances of leaked credentials while still getting value from the fact that there is a blockchain. (If there is prior work on this that actually goes into detail I'd be happy about pointers - sadly a lot of this stuff seems to end at the stage of whitepapers when it comes to public information)
    - willcipriano 6y ago
      >Even which doctor someone visited is confidential data one ideally would not preserve when not needed anymore. Indeed, for example "John Smith went to see a HIV specialist on Monday" is protected information and would be a HIPAA violation if leaked. Its much simpler to throw it in a relational database and only let the HIV specialist and staff see the appointment.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      https://brave.com/themis/ https://brave.com/themis/ should be a good pointer about how to get an advertisement network that can avoid fraud and report views accurately while preserving privacy. The same principles could be applied to a permissioned blockchain that could be used by physicians and healthcare providers.
  - hertzrat 6y ago
    A public immutable and distributed log saying somebody sees various psychology specialists, or disease specialists over the course of a few years... this metadata is almost as personal as the raw data in many cases.
    - josefx 6y ago
      I am almost surprised that companies don't get into more trouble over location tracking. Your smartphone knows exactly when and how often you see a doctor.
      - hertzrat 6y ago
        All the doctors websites around here, including for specialists, use google fonts and google maps etc. I assume there is some metadata involved there too
    - rglullis 6y ago
      I guess HN's pedantism will make me write a whole paper about what was supposed to be a simple example... Anyway, both the example of advertisement and health care data need to also provide privacy. In both cases the data should be considered sensitive and not public. In both cases, the data can be protected through blind signatures. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature
Jasper_ 6y ago
I don't understand the supply chain use case. You can't trust the third party to enter "shipping container #123 has 10,000 bananas" into a centralized database, but you can trust them to enter "shipping container #123 has 10,000 bananas" into a blockchain? They can still lie about what they put into the blockchain, it isn't magic.
- bluesign 6y ago
  Imagine like you trust edges but not middleman.
- madmax96 6y ago
  It doesn't eliminate that. But it gathers evidence. Where did they acquire the 10,000 bananas? Multiple parties must collude -- and then that collusion is on record. I'm interested in if that data is useful to anyone? Also, why not trust a central entity with that data?
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    >Also, why not trust a central entity with that data? I.E. blockchain does nothing to solve this potential issue
- rglullis 6y ago
  Of course they can lie, but with blockchain it is much easier to detect the lie. If the banana producer has a receipt from the shipping company that says "10,000 bananas in the container for Jasper" and the shipping company only has 8,000 to put at your door, you can be sure it who was malicious. Without a blockchain, if the shipping company and banana producers were colluding to skim you of 2,000 bananas, it's much easier for them to do.
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    If the shipping company and producer are colluding, blockchain does nothing to stop that.

detaro 6y ago

> Wouldn't you rather have it in a way that only doctors had access to it? How is a blockchain the answer here? The "distribute all data" and "keep history forever" attributes seem actively bad for healthcare use cases.

rglullis 6y ago
That is a good question. The answer is that you don't put the data in the blockchain, you just keep the log of who is interacting with the patient and who needs access to the records. ;)
- detaro 6y ago
  Even which doctor someone visited is confidential data one ideally would not preserve when not needed anymore (and "ideally" might very well be law). Health data is messy, and I have trouble imagining a solution that puts it on a blockchain but allows only private access to everything and has a chance of fixing instances of leaked credentials while still getting value from the fact that there is a blockchain. (If there is prior work on this that actually goes into detail I'd be happy about pointers - sadly a lot of this stuff seems to end at the stage of whitepapers when it comes to public information)
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    >Even which doctor someone visited is confidential data one ideally would not preserve when not needed anymore. Indeed, for example "John Smith went to see a HIV specialist on Monday" is protected information and would be a HIPAA violation if leaked. Its much simpler to throw it in a relational database and only let the HIV specialist and staff see the appointment.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    https://brave.com/themis/ https://brave.com/themis/ should be a good pointer about how to get an advertisement network that can avoid fraud and report views accurately while preserving privacy. The same principles could be applied to a permissioned blockchain that could be used by physicians and healthcare providers.
- hertzrat 6y ago
  A public immutable and distributed log saying somebody sees various psychology specialists, or disease specialists over the course of a few years... this metadata is almost as personal as the raw data in many cases.
  - josefx 6y ago
    I am almost surprised that companies don't get into more trouble over location tracking. Your smartphone knows exactly when and how often you see a doctor.
    - hertzrat 6y ago
      All the doctors websites around here, including for specialists, use google fonts and google maps etc. I assume there is some metadata involved there too
  - rglullis 6y ago
    I guess HN's pedantism will make me write a whole paper about what was supposed to be a simple example... Anyway, both the example of advertisement and health care data need to also provide privacy. In both cases the data should be considered sensitive and not public. In both cases, the data can be protected through blind signatures. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature

Jasper_ 6y ago

I don't understand the supply chain use case. You can't trust the third party to enter "shipping container #123 has 10,000 bananas" into a centralized database, but you can trust them to enter "shipping container #123 has 10,000 bananas" into a blockchain? They can still lie about what they put into the blockchain, it isn't magic.

bluesign 6y ago
Imagine like you trust edges but not middleman.
madmax96 6y ago
It doesn't eliminate that. But it gathers evidence. Where did they acquire the 10,000 bananas? Multiple parties must collude -- and then that collusion is on record. I'm interested in if that data is useful to anyone? Also, why not trust a central entity with that data?
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  >Also, why not trust a central entity with that data? I.E. blockchain does nothing to solve this potential issue
rglullis 6y ago
Of course they can lie, but with blockchain it is much easier to detect the lie. If the banana producer has a receipt from the shipping company that says "10,000 bananas in the container for Jasper" and the shipping company only has 8,000 to put at your door, you can be sure it who was malicious. Without a blockchain, if the shipping company and banana producers were colluding to skim you of 2,000 bananas, it's much easier for them to do.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  If the shipping company and producer are colluding, blockchain does nothing to stop that.