3 ms·

Well, yes any system is going to have multiple actors, and you can, if you want, say where the "real" work is being done. It is still the case that the record o

Well, yes any system is going to have multiple actors, and you can, if you want, say where the "real" work is being done. It is still the case that the record of NFC codes will be in an immutable database (the chain), which is much more than the current supply chain does.

acdha 5y ago
The point is that blockchains are very expensive. When, as in this case, there are no benefits to using it over basic PKI or even tradition audit structures, it’s unlikely to succeed long term against more efficient competitors.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  Well, in the case of today's byzantine supply chain solutions, we've had a lot of failures, and I do not mean the current events. I mean that there is a lot of fraudulent products with no way for end users, or even final step-manufacturers to even know what is in their product. With Vechain, and consumer can look up the complete immutable record of every piece of his product, chip, board, screen, etc, signed by each supplier. Also, blockchains are not that expensive once you move past proof--of-work.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > I mean that there is a lot of fraudulent products with no way for end users, or even final step-manufacturers to even know what is in their product. With Vechain, and consumer can look up the complete immutable record of every piece of his product, chip, board, screen, etc, signed by each supplier. This is missing the point: the hard part is being able to trust the values put in those records. What you described works just as well with regular PKI at much lower cost — the problem is putting in place the audit framework which ensures that the values being signed are correct and that the physical item you're holding is in fact the same one which was inspected. Most of the scams we see reflect breakdowns in that trust relationship: an unscrupulous supplier selling defective parts, someone swapping tags from higher-priced items onto similar but lower-quality ones and pocketing the difference, etc. The security of the system you described comes down to how well they can provide physical auditing to ensure that the database view of the world matches the real one, at which point you don't need a blockchain. A distributed ledger might have some useful qualities but it's not revolutionary and there are other ways to achieve the same benefits without the same reliability and cost considerations.
    - SubiculumCode 5y ago
      A lot to think about. Thanks for the conversation.

acdha 5y ago

The point is that blockchains are very expensive. When, as in this case, there are no benefits to using it over basic PKI or even tradition audit structures, it’s unlikely to succeed long term against more efficient competitors.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
Well, in the case of today's byzantine supply chain solutions, we've had a lot of failures, and I do not mean the current events. I mean that there is a lot of fraudulent products with no way for end users, or even final step-manufacturers to even know what is in their product. With Vechain, and consumer can look up the complete immutable record of every piece of his product, chip, board, screen, etc, signed by each supplier. Also, blockchains are not that expensive once you move past proof--of-work.
- acdha 5y ago
  > I mean that there is a lot of fraudulent products with no way for end users, or even final step-manufacturers to even know what is in their product. With Vechain, and consumer can look up the complete immutable record of every piece of his product, chip, board, screen, etc, signed by each supplier. This is missing the point: the hard part is being able to trust the values put in those records. What you described works just as well with regular PKI at much lower cost — the problem is putting in place the audit framework which ensures that the values being signed are correct and that the physical item you're holding is in fact the same one which was inspected. Most of the scams we see reflect breakdowns in that trust relationship: an unscrupulous supplier selling defective parts, someone swapping tags from higher-priced items onto similar but lower-quality ones and pocketing the difference, etc. The security of the system you described comes down to how well they can provide physical auditing to ensure that the database view of the world matches the real one, at which point you don't need a blockchain. A distributed ledger might have some useful qualities but it's not revolutionary and there are other ways to achieve the same benefits without the same reliability and cost considerations.
  - SubiculumCode 5y ago
    A lot to think about. Thanks for the conversation.