5 ms·

IBM has their "TradeLens" [0] (ironically unreachable at the time of posting) product [1], which was developed for Maersk and seems to have been adopted by a fe

by qayxc 5y ago

IBM has their "TradeLens" [0] (ironically unreachable at the time of posting) product [1], which was developed for Maersk and seems to have been adopted by a few global logistics providers. [0] https://www.tradelens.com https://www.tradelens.com [1] https://docs.tradelens.com https://docs.tradelens.com

messutied 5y ago
This looks interesting, logistics and supply chain seems to be one of the few recurring use cases I see that looks somewhat promising.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  Doesn't require blockchain and doesn't solve the actual problem these companies have: that the records are correct as entered.
  - 3np 5y ago
    Have you worked in these industries? Irrevocable timestamps and ordering for cryptographic signatures provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before. History can be rewritten opaquely in non-blockchain ledger systems. If all stakeholders can fully trust everyone involved (and their security), your point may hold, but that is not always the case.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > History can be rewritten opaquely in non-blockchain ledger systems. Ah yes. As if re-writing history was the primary major concern. Let's say I'm a malicious actor. I say I shipped 1 ton of gold bricks, and entered that on the blockchain that "provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before". Only one single brick reaches the final destination. No history was overwritten. So, how does blockchain help?
      - qayxc 5y ago
        > So, how does blockchain help? Easy: the malicious actor has zero chance of arguing that port authority XY messed up the paperwork or that the documentation said it was 1 brick all along. Sure, there is the oracle problem, but that's not what the blockchain (not a public BC by the way, it uses a fixed number of trusted nodes) tries to solve. The issue is often patchy documentation and lack of traceability. BC is only one tool of many here and the major improvement is digitalisation of the entire supply chain. I worked on a project in wholesale logistics several years ago and you wouldn't believe how many parts of the delivery system are still handled using literal paperwork. Coffee stains and manual "corrections" are daily occurrences and because of that, resolving irregularities way too often comes down to his/her words against theirs. A fully digital supply chain with every step and update permanently recorded in a cryptographically secured manner, helps immensely with these kinds of issues. BC is just one part of it and doesn't aim to solve everything, but it's a huge improvement. The distributed nature of the ledger provides an incentive for all participants to take part in it, because it reduces trust issues that might arise if all trust is to be put into a single party. I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell whether a more conventional distributed database system would've sufficed, and what the pros and cons of either approach are in detail, but BC is a viable solution.
        Jasper_ 5y ago
        The malicious actor insists they shipped 1 ton of bricks, and that the port authority is lying or stole the remaining ones. The blockchain says they shipped 1 ton of bricks, after all.
        kazoomonger 5y ago
        I'm actually kind of bullish on blockchain for these sorts of scenarios, because yes, the malicious actor can claim that someone else in the chain screwed up, but all parties involved can verify all claims that were made in the entire chain. In other words, the malicious actor can't destroy or modify the paperwork and then claim something different.

by qayxc 5y ago

messutied 5y ago

This looks interesting, logistics and supply chain seems to be one of the few recurring use cases I see that looks somewhat promising.

dmitriid 5y ago
Doesn't require blockchain and doesn't solve the actual problem these companies have: that the records are correct as entered.
- 3np 5y ago
  Have you worked in these industries? Irrevocable timestamps and ordering for cryptographic signatures provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before. History can be rewritten opaquely in non-blockchain ledger systems. If all stakeholders can fully trust everyone involved (and their security), your point may hold, but that is not always the case.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > History can be rewritten opaquely in non-blockchain ledger systems. Ah yes. As if re-writing history was the primary major concern. Let's say I'm a malicious actor. I say I shipped 1 ton of gold bricks, and entered that on the blockchain that "provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before". Only one single brick reaches the final destination. No history was overwritten. So, how does blockchain help?
    - qayxc 5y ago
      > So, how does blockchain help? Easy: the malicious actor has zero chance of arguing that port authority XY messed up the paperwork or that the documentation said it was 1 brick all along. Sure, there is the oracle problem, but that's not what the blockchain (not a public BC by the way, it uses a fixed number of trusted nodes) tries to solve. The issue is often patchy documentation and lack of traceability. BC is only one tool of many here and the major improvement is digitalisation of the entire supply chain. I worked on a project in wholesale logistics several years ago and you wouldn't believe how many parts of the delivery system are still handled using literal paperwork. Coffee stains and manual "corrections" are daily occurrences and because of that, resolving irregularities way too often comes down to his/her words against theirs. A fully digital supply chain with every step and update permanently recorded in a cryptographically secured manner, helps immensely with these kinds of issues. BC is just one part of it and doesn't aim to solve everything, but it's a huge improvement. The distributed nature of the ledger provides an incentive for all participants to take part in it, because it reduces trust issues that might arise if all trust is to be put into a single party. I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell whether a more conventional distributed database system would've sufficed, and what the pros and cons of either approach are in detail, but BC is a viable solution.
      - Jasper_ 5y ago
        The malicious actor insists they shipped 1 ton of bricks, and that the port authority is lying or stole the remaining ones. The blockchain says they shipped 1 ton of bricks, after all.
        kazoomonger 5y ago
        I'm actually kind of bullish on blockchain for these sorts of scenarios, because yes, the malicious actor can claim that someone else in the chain screwed up, but all parties involved can verify all claims that were made in the entire chain. In other words, the malicious actor can't destroy or modify the paperwork and then claim something different.