7 ms·

The most sensible thing to do with blockchain is to track produce from when it's picked to when it's sold for QC. Every other use suggested, like voting, is jus

The most sensible thing to do with blockchain is to track produce from when it's picked to when it's sold for QC. Every other use suggested, like voting, is just stupid trouble.

Lukas_Skywalker 4y ago
I always ask myself how the blockchain would work with physical products. Isn‘t there always a human who needs to either - enter the data somewhere - put a tag on the product - scan a tag and where they could, knowingly or not, produce false data?
- rtkwe 4y ago
  Yeah this is the fundamental problem, the only benefit you get with a blockchain is you know the data hasn't been altered from the original but there's no guarantee the data originally entered was correct. All the pitches about tracking shipments have the same issue, shipping companies already do most of that without blockchain and the main issue of people lying to the computers isn't solved by adding a chain to the mix.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    Why is blockchain needed for that and not any other immutable ledger?
    - acdha 4y ago
      It’s not, but if you say that you’re also saying that the people who’ve already put a lot of money into the system won’t get rich reselling their tokens.
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      It's not needed that's my point, the proposals for blockchain in most instances are best served by a WORM database and even that doesn't solve the actual issue of lying to the machine. The proponents all have a vested interest in something making their tokens worth while or at least bringing in new money so they can actually cash out. That's why NFTs exploded they were a great way to bring in new real money to allow people who were *coin rich to cash out to real usable money.
    - subradios 4y ago
      Because a blockchain can operate in the presence of even large and powerful malicious actors. The issue here is a social/regulatory/legal one. The current international shipping game is a cartel business, and the cartel doesn't want competition - so they can use government, brand recognition, etc to maintain their moat. It's not that the blockchain version isn't clearly better, it's that the getting there part is a very difficult and tricky process.
      - jonhohle 4y ago
        Who is incentivized to mine a produce blockchain? How are tokens immutably assigned to units of commodities in a way that can’t be compromised?
  - junofan 4y ago
    Think the idea is to use economic incentives rather than legal incentives, e.g. lose a bunch of money if caught cheating. This allows new participants to compete better across jurisdictions.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> The most sensible thing to do with blockchain is to track produce from when it's picked to when it's sold for QC. I don't understand why even this is sensible. Why not just use a database? The only miners/validators on a produce blockchain are likely to be agri-companies anyway.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  I also find it to be a confusing use case. The point of blockchain is that it's useful if you assume that some parties are malicious. Who are we protecting against in the produce supply chain?
  - lupire 4y ago
    Fraudulent suppliers, of course. But Blockchain can't prevent against that.
  - junofan 4y ago
    It’s cheaper than lawyers for some things.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > I don't understand why even this is sensible. Why not just use a database? Who's gonna run it? Any individual company in the chain has a vested interest in fudging the data, and the technical means to do so. A private third-party lacks oversight (and thus could also be given a vested interest in fudging data). A government agency could do it (assuming one's government is trustworthy, which is often a poor assumption), but that would likely preclude international cooperation unless it's something like the UN running it (and even then). > The only miners/validators on a produce blockchain are likely to be agri-companies anyway. Preferably you'd use an existing public blockchain rather than spinning up an entirely new one. Even if there was such a blockchain solely for tracking produce, the fact that no individual agri-company has control over its data makes it more trustworthy/impartial than some centralized database.
  - acdha 4y ago

The most sensible thing to do with blockchain is to track produce from when it's picked to when it's sold for QC. Every other use suggested, like voting, is just stupid trouble.

Lukas_Skywalker 4y ago

I always ask myself how the blockchain would work with physical products. Isn‘t there always a human who needs to either - enter the data somewhere - put a tag on the product - scan a tag and where they could, knowingly or not, produce false data?

rtkwe 4y ago
Yeah this is the fundamental problem, the only benefit you get with a blockchain is you know the data hasn't been altered from the original but there's no guarantee the data originally entered was correct. All the pitches about tracking shipments have the same issue, shipping companies already do most of that without blockchain and the main issue of people lying to the computers isn't solved by adding a chain to the mix.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  Why is blockchain needed for that and not any other immutable ledger?
  - acdha 4y ago
    It’s not, but if you say that you’re also saying that the people who’ve already put a lot of money into the system won’t get rich reselling their tokens.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    It's not needed that's my point, the proposals for blockchain in most instances are best served by a WORM database and even that doesn't solve the actual issue of lying to the machine. The proponents all have a vested interest in something making their tokens worth while or at least bringing in new money so they can actually cash out. That's why NFTs exploded they were a great way to bring in new real money to allow people who were *coin rich to cash out to real usable money.
  - subradios 4y ago
    Because a blockchain can operate in the presence of even large and powerful malicious actors. The issue here is a social/regulatory/legal one. The current international shipping game is a cartel business, and the cartel doesn't want competition - so they can use government, brand recognition, etc to maintain their moat. It's not that the blockchain version isn't clearly better, it's that the getting there part is a very difficult and tricky process.
    - jonhohle 4y ago
      Who is incentivized to mine a produce blockchain? How are tokens immutably assigned to units of commodities in a way that can’t be compromised?
- junofan 4y ago
  Think the idea is to use economic incentives rather than legal incentives, e.g. lose a bunch of money if caught cheating. This allows new participants to compete better across jurisdictions.

AlexandrB 4y ago

> The most sensible thing to do with blockchain is to track produce from when it's picked to when it's sold for QC. I don't understand why even this is sensible. Why not just use a database? The only miners/validators on a produce blockchain are likely to be agri-companies anyway.

insanitybit 4y ago
I also find it to be a confusing use case. The point of blockchain is that it's useful if you assume that some parties are malicious. Who are we protecting against in the produce supply chain?
- lupire 4y ago
  Fraudulent suppliers, of course. But Blockchain can't prevent against that.
- junofan 4y ago
  It’s cheaper than lawyers for some things.
yellowapple 4y ago
> I don't understand why even this is sensible. Why not just use a database? Who's gonna run it? Any individual company in the chain has a vested interest in fudging the data, and the technical means to do so. A private third-party lacks oversight (and thus could also be given a vested interest in fudging data). A government agency could do it (assuming one's government is trustworthy, which is often a poor assumption), but that would likely preclude international cooperation unless it's something like the UN running it (and even then). > The only miners/validators on a produce blockchain are likely to be agri-companies anyway. Preferably you'd use an existing public blockchain rather than spinning up an entirely new one. Even if there was such a blockchain solely for tracking produce, the fact that no individual agri-company has control over its data makes it more trustworthy/impartial than some centralized database.
- acdha 4y ago