4 ms·

>the original data is in such sorry state How does Blockchain solve that problem? It's the same issue with using it for supply chain verification, it's depend

>the original data is in such sorry state How does Blockchain solve that problem? It's the same issue with using it for supply chain verification, it's dependent upon the point of initial data entry. The Central American farmer enters the tomatoes that he just received via container ship from China into the Blockchain application as "organically grown domestic produce" and from that point forward consumers can rest assured about the tomatoes' authenticity and provenance. Or not.

simias 6y ago
Right, authority-less blockchain is only intrinsically trustworthy for purely digital goods. If you want to track software licenses it might work (although 99% of the time a centralized solution will be simpler and vastly more efficient). And this immutability can arguably be a detriment. Laws and rules are messy and can be exploited, not having any recourse if you get scammed is not necessarily a huge pro. The whole idea that you could import all the rules, laws and regulations of the real world into a computer program without any bug or unforeseen issue is probably one of the most ridiculous aspect of that whole blockchain industry. Especially since we already have a fairly consequential list of "smart contracts" that have been exploited in the wild despite being fairly basic compared to IRL regulations. "Oh you lost your house because somebody found a weird edge case between two smart contracts that let them buy it for $1? Ah man, that sucks, but then THE CODE IS LAW so... Tough luck. Maybe try buying DOGE coins? I hear it's gonna moon soon. They used rocket emojis, so you know it's serious."
- mason55 6y ago
  > Laws and rules are messy and can be exploited, not having any recourse if you get scammed is not necessarily a huge pro. Yes, many times things like T+2 settlements on trades or taking three days for a transfer to fully clear are a feature, not a bug. You start with Bitcoin being like cash, where once it's gone it's gone, unless a court can find the person and get it back. Then you don't want grandma to get scammed, so you build bank-like entities on top of the blockchain who re-create the three day window for transfers. In theory you could have different entities that have different settlement times as a tradeoff, but the modern system could do that now. The reason they don't is you need both parties to have the same rules or else your bank will get bogged down trying to figure out the rules of every other bank. Maybe you add an instant, non-revocable transfer like a SWIFT equivalent to go along with your 3-day ACH equivalent and, congrats, you've recreated the modern banking system.
- spiderxxxx 6y ago
  Immutability of past transactions is just an artifact of an append-only database. Blockchain gives you nothing that an append-only database couldn't provide for that guarantee. Combine that with some server sharding, and there's not really a point to having blockchain do anything at all. The wholly designed inefficiency of "mining coins" is not necessary to having a distributed ledger.
  - crmd 6y ago
    You should have heard IBM's blockchain executive (I forget his name) giving his pitch at an investor conference in Palo Alto back in 2017. Standing ovation after an amazing presentation about disrupting banking, healthcare, and global logistics. I swear this industry runs on bullshit.
totalZero 6y ago
I don't think it would work for physically settled commodity futures because contract specifications require a particular quality of product, and that's part of the motivation to trade via an exchange. But it would work for securities that have no distinguishable attributes from one another, especially if the extant problem with trading those securities is market access.
- SkyPuncher 6y ago
  It doesn't work. But, I clearly remember this being something IBM advertised extensively.
HelloNurse 6y ago
In other situations, the initial data entry depends on a trusted authority rather than a trusted other party. For example, real estate ownership deeds depend on qualified legals who write them correctly: you need to trust them to do their job, without mistakes, collusions, etc. at which point there's little practical difference between buyers and sellers trusting them to keep a public, official record with paper and electronic documents in their archives and trusting them to enter your transfer into a public blockchain system.
Xelbair 6y ago
It actually solves it quite well. It enforces you to input it properly, and not do half assed job due to immutability, because whatever you input in there will stay there, attached with credentials/metadata of whoever entered it. Currently the main problem is that docs are in sorry state, it was a rush job - and that state is very profitable for some people making dubious claims to old property. It would be easy to notice fraud, and all real estate deals need to go through proper notary anyways - would they risk their license if their failures would be visible - for ever? Mind you I'm not trying to propose a global solution, I'm proposing blockchain use for government entities and entities that work closely with them. It is just that governments aren't centralized on modern world, and you can leverage decentralized nature of blockchain to have a common dataset and standard available to all of those entities.
- stonogo 6y ago
  It doesn't enforce anything. People can just transcribe wrong things into blockchains, then have to append patches to the information. Unless you can prove malfeasance nobody is going to lose a license over a mistake. I think you're vastly overestimating how much anyone would care just because blockchains are involved. Notary records are already "forever," no computers required, and there's nothing inherent to blockchains that causes people to type more carefully. Plus there are lots of situations in real estate law (like ground rent where the freeholder is not identifiable) which don't fit into cute little data structures. This isn't a problem with documentation being a rush job, it's a problem with some of the records of ownership being hundreds of years old. Seeing as how I would have to hire a special archivist just to access data on an 8" floppy disk, I'm not confident that the blockchain is a long-term (i.e. centuries) solution to any of these problems.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > It enforces you to input it properly, and not do half assed job due to immutability, because whatever you input in there will stay there, attached with credentials/metadata of whoever entered it. This is an unrealistic level of infallibility to ask of people. Like taking the backspace key off a keyboard to enforce people not making typos.
- 6y ago

simias 6y ago

Right, authority-less blockchain is only intrinsically trustworthy for purely digital goods. If you want to track software licenses it might work (although 99% of the time a centralized solution will be simpler and vastly more efficient). And this immutability can arguably be a detriment. Laws and rules are messy and can be exploited, not having any recourse if you get scammed is not necessarily a huge pro. The whole idea that you could import all the rules, laws and regulations of the real world into a computer program without any bug or unforeseen issue is probably one of the most ridiculous aspect of that whole blockchain industry. Especially since we already have a fairly consequential list of "smart contracts" that have been exploited in the wild despite being fairly basic compared to IRL regulations. "Oh you lost your house because somebody found a weird edge case between two smart contracts that let them buy it for $1? Ah man, that sucks, but then THE CODE IS LAW so... Tough luck. Maybe try buying DOGE coins? I hear it's gonna moon soon. They used rocket emojis, so you know it's serious."

mason55 6y ago
> Laws and rules are messy and can be exploited, not having any recourse if you get scammed is not necessarily a huge pro. Yes, many times things like T+2 settlements on trades or taking three days for a transfer to fully clear are a feature, not a bug. You start with Bitcoin being like cash, where once it's gone it's gone, unless a court can find the person and get it back. Then you don't want grandma to get scammed, so you build bank-like entities on top of the blockchain who re-create the three day window for transfers. In theory you could have different entities that have different settlement times as a tradeoff, but the modern system could do that now. The reason they don't is you need both parties to have the same rules or else your bank will get bogged down trying to figure out the rules of every other bank. Maybe you add an instant, non-revocable transfer like a SWIFT equivalent to go along with your 3-day ACH equivalent and, congrats, you've recreated the modern banking system.
spiderxxxx 6y ago
Immutability of past transactions is just an artifact of an append-only database. Blockchain gives you nothing that an append-only database couldn't provide for that guarantee. Combine that with some server sharding, and there's not really a point to having blockchain do anything at all. The wholly designed inefficiency of "mining coins" is not necessary to having a distributed ledger.
- crmd 6y ago
  You should have heard IBM's blockchain executive (I forget his name) giving his pitch at an investor conference in Palo Alto back in 2017. Standing ovation after an amazing presentation about disrupting banking, healthcare, and global logistics. I swear this industry runs on bullshit.

totalZero 6y ago

I don't think it would work for physically settled commodity futures because contract specifications require a particular quality of product, and that's part of the motivation to trade via an exchange. But it would work for securities that have no distinguishable attributes from one another, especially if the extant problem with trading those securities is market access.

SkyPuncher 6y ago
It doesn't work. But, I clearly remember this being something IBM advertised extensively.

HelloNurse 6y ago

In other situations, the initial data entry depends on a trusted authority rather than a trusted other party. For example, real estate ownership deeds depend on qualified legals who write them correctly: you need to trust them to do their job, without mistakes, collusions, etc. at which point there's little practical difference between buyers and sellers trusting them to keep a public, official record with paper and electronic documents in their archives and trusting them to enter your transfer into a public blockchain system.

Xelbair 6y ago

It actually solves it quite well. It enforces you to input it properly, and not do half assed job due to immutability, because whatever you input in there will stay there, attached with credentials/metadata of whoever entered it. Currently the main problem is that docs are in sorry state, it was a rush job - and that state is very profitable for some people making dubious claims to old property. It would be easy to notice fraud, and all real estate deals need to go through proper notary anyways - would they risk their license if their failures would be visible - for ever? Mind you I'm not trying to propose a global solution, I'm proposing blockchain use for government entities and entities that work closely with them. It is just that governments aren't centralized on modern world, and you can leverage decentralized nature of blockchain to have a common dataset and standard available to all of those entities.

stonogo 6y ago
It doesn't enforce anything. People can just transcribe wrong things into blockchains, then have to append patches to the information. Unless you can prove malfeasance nobody is going to lose a license over a mistake. I think you're vastly overestimating how much anyone would care just because blockchains are involved. Notary records are already "forever," no computers required, and there's nothing inherent to blockchains that causes people to type more carefully. Plus there are lots of situations in real estate law (like ground rent where the freeholder is not identifiable) which don't fit into cute little data structures. This isn't a problem with documentation being a rush job, it's a problem with some of the records of ownership being hundreds of years old. Seeing as how I would have to hire a special archivist just to access data on an 8" floppy disk, I'm not confident that the blockchain is a long-term (i.e. centuries) solution to any of these problems.
majormajor 6y ago
> It enforces you to input it properly, and not do half assed job due to immutability, because whatever you input in there will stay there, attached with credentials/metadata of whoever entered it. This is an unrealistic level of infallibility to ask of people. Like taking the backspace key off a keyboard to enforce people not making typos.
6y ago