4 ms·

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, b

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.

dmitriid 5y ago
Malicious actors don't have to "destroy or modify paperwork". Paperwork is very rarely "destroyed or modified". It is usually already kept/entered as modified (and there's potentially an entirely separate and isolated paperwork trail for the actor's own accounting purposes, but that one by definition won't be on a blockchain).
- kazoomonger 5y ago
  > Malicious actors don't have to "destroy or modify paperwork" Sure, they don't have to, but it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior. I'm not saying that using a blockchain will eliminate all malicious behavior, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > but it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior. Why is it that every single discussion about blockchain starts with "it opens up unprecedented opportunities never seen before and will disrupt eveyrthing" and ends with "well, it will maybe perhaps help in some minor way"? In this discussion: How it started: "irrevocable timestamps and ordering for cryptographic signatures provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before." How it's going: "it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior" Color me not impressed.
    - kazoomonger 5y ago
      I didn't say anything about disrupting everything shrug. I just said I'm kind of bullish on it for this use case. That being said, "it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior" is exactly derived from "irrevocable timestamps and ordering for cryptographic signatures provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before." so I'm not sure what your complaint is there. The auditability and traceability are exactly what eliminates that avenue of malicious behavior. Again, it's not going to revolutionize everything, but it seems useful here.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > I didn't say anything about disrupting everything I didn't mean you specifically. It's the flow of every single discussion about blockchain. > it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior > Again, it's not going to revolutionize everything, but it seems useful here. So, in order to eliminate one source of malicious behaviour (that is even unlikely to be a major source of problems) we can of course use a very inefficient append-only distributed log that solves (maybe) only this one problem, and does nothing for everything else :) Yeah, still not impressed :)

dmitriid 5y ago

Malicious actors don't have to "destroy or modify paperwork". Paperwork is very rarely "destroyed or modified". It is usually already kept/entered as modified (and there's potentially an entirely separate and isolated paperwork trail for the actor's own accounting purposes, but that one by definition won't be on a blockchain).

kazoomonger 5y ago
> Malicious actors don't have to "destroy or modify paperwork" Sure, they don't have to, but it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior. I'm not saying that using a blockchain will eliminate all malicious behavior, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > but it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior. Why is it that every single discussion about blockchain starts with "it opens up unprecedented opportunities never seen before and will disrupt eveyrthing" and ends with "well, it will maybe perhaps help in some minor way"? In this discussion: How it started: "irrevocable timestamps and ordering for cryptographic signatures provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before." How it's going: "it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior" Color me not impressed.
  - kazoomonger 5y ago
    I didn't say anything about disrupting everything shrug. I just said I'm kind of bullish on it for this use case. That being said, "it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior" is exactly derived from "irrevocable timestamps and ordering for cryptographic signatures provide a level of audibility and traceability that wasn't there before." so I'm not sure what your complaint is there. The auditability and traceability are exactly what eliminates that avenue of malicious behavior. Again, it's not going to revolutionize everything, but it seems useful here.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > I didn't say anything about disrupting everything I didn't mean you specifically. It's the flow of every single discussion about blockchain. > it eliminates one possible source of malicious behavior > Again, it's not going to revolutionize everything, but it seems useful here. So, in order to eliminate one source of malicious behaviour (that is even unlikely to be a major source of problems) we can of course use a very inefficient append-only distributed log that solves (maybe) only this one problem, and does nothing for everything else :) Yeah, still not impressed :)