News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by donmatito on Thursday March 29, 2018 @01:04PM (#16708715)
Coming from a logistics background, coordinating tracability data is painful within a company, even with help of ERP like SAP. But when you need tracability across an industry, it becomes almost impossible.

I had professional experience in an industry where we had to go to the plants to ensure rolls of paper certified from suppliers using responsibly-managed forests were physically separated from the non-certified ones. We needed the paperwork coming from China, then another one from the transformation plant in Morocco, then in customer warehouses across Europe.

An external protocol that would provide universal tracability, usable by any actor of the chain, seem like a great solution to a real problem. Blockchain provides some "neutrality", ie no need for each actor to find its own certificate provider (I imagine that service shops would help larger companies set up their systems, but the back-end would be common across all actors).

I'm not very convinced by pseudo-decentralized apps in most domains, but in logistics... very bullish !

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by m00n on Thursday March 29, 2018 @04:27PM (#16710745)
I never quite got my head around the value proposition for distributed ledgers in logistics ('smart warehouses / supply chains') and manufacturing ('industry 4.0').

Say you want to trace eco paper rolls around the globe. What could the blockchain do for you? Who are the nodes/miners/coins in this application?

When you suspect some intermediate in the paper chain to exchange eco paper for cheaper ordinary paper, how does distributing the information that he has X rolls on store prevent this scenario.

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by fsloth on Friday March 30, 2018 @01:00AM (#16713797)
I think the OP stated that blockchains would alleviate the bureaucratic pains of international trade considerably. As bureaucracy requires labour, which is costly, I feel the value proposition is plausible.

Another feature is not related to inventory. Ledgers that have acute accountability features attached, where some stakeholders may have incentives to fake the records.

Like, for example transport truck driving schedules. Drivers are allowed only to drive so much, and there are penalties involved if the drivers don't rest enough. The main accountability measure here is the driving ledger. Whose maintainer has incentives to fudge it (the driver or the employer of the driver).

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by donmatito on Friday March 30, 2018 @03:47AM (#16714456)
these are very good additional points, thank you
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by JamesLeonis on Friday March 30, 2018 @12:21PM (#16717428)
Logistics are a great place for this technology, but first you must purge your mind of Cryptotokens and their economics. They aren't applicable for a logistics use case.

To understand this, first you have to understand why we structure mining. In the case of Bitcoin or Ethereum, you need a method that allows any arbitrary computational device to verify and add to a given blockchain. In lieu of trusting that device, the blockchain makes it do a massive amount of busywork, called mining, to prove it isn't bullshitting the network. Different implementations have different busywork, but it's designed to make it hard to change the network by arbitrary devices. This is why we can allow any untrusted device on the network.

In the case of logistics, we are already operating under some amount of trust. This is through a mechanism of certification of goods, suppliers, verifying the goods are what they say they are, and the verification of those approvals and certifications. Even in a trusted environment, managing that coordination of certifying and verifying is slow, bureaucratic, and grows with the size of the logistic network. Additionally, many supply chains generally certify new entrants before allowing them to contribute. This creates a barrier to entry when establishing trust in the same way busywork creates a barrier for devices. Then there are whole units of auditors that go through and recheck all those certifications to make sure the whole chain is authentic with regards to the goods moving through it.

Blockchain technology is a mechanism of creating certifications (signing a transaction) and verifying those certifications (miners/verifiers on a chain) that can operate in a decentralized but coordinated way. It allows for the whole system to better coordinate information and certification that used to be done manually.

Did you notice I never mentioned tokens?

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by rdo2018 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @05:03PM (#16749174)
This is helpful I am total neophyte when it comes to blockchain but its continued to surface in a number of conversation that seem credible- I need to launch a anonymous,but verified, de-centralized but coordinated way where users can contribute and consume with appropriate transaction costs- Blockchain seems to be an approach, as an underlying structure but I am concerned that its too hyped to be taken seriously and also seems to compete directly with other database approaches that today have computational scale issues but wont always due to low cost distributed technology- thoughts?
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by amorphous on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @04:43AM (#16742878)
Thanks a lot for your explanations. I'm very interested in that space. However, I'm a complete outsider. Would you have any pointers how to break into logistics + blockchain space as a developer? Like blogs to follow, companies, suitable jobs etc? Very much appreciated
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by natural219 on Monday April 02, 2018 @01:47PM (#16737026)
I'd love to read more about this if you or someone else has written about it in-depth. I'm still not clear on the connection between "mining" (spending computing power) and the type of work that logistics professionals do when verifying parts of your supply chain.
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by JamesLeonis on Monday April 02, 2018 @11:29PM (#16741680)
Mining, or intentional computational busywork, is one method of allowing anonymous transaction processors, uh, process transactions. A logistics system does not need anonymous transactors; it can rely on it's own network of trust. A logistics solution is much more like Proof of Stake model, where reputation is the collateral instead of a fictional financial token.

In this model, I'll refer to it as Proof of Reputation (PoR), an actor might be a certified as a reputable party in the network. You might be a certified producer of bananas, verified and certified as fair trade and humane organic hand-crafted conditions by other organizations. I'm a buyer of bananas, but I want to make sure I'm buying fair trade bananas. I can look at your certification-of-origin and verify that you are reputable as fair trade. A port authority can confirm that I bought your bananas and put them on the USS Boaty McBoatface destined for Los Angeles to meet the huge banana split market. You as a consumer can check these certifications at the store.

As it stands, all of these processes operate haphazardly and it's insanely difficult for major countries to coordinate and verify what is going on. The coordination technologies, like Ethereum's GHOST implementation, combined with public-key infrastructure helps reduce the "deadlock" time of coordinating these large public and private bureaucracies.

I know I'm not explaining this well. I'm still working on a more concrete model. In my mind the process of creating, signing, and verifying a cryptotoken transaction is eerily similar to what logistics management is all about. You need to prove the origin, verify they made the transaction, and then have a reputable actor process said transaction. There's still a lot of manual work, but the system of sharing and coordinating that work is also painful and manual. The technologies that power cryptotokens can help with the latter problem.

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by shanghaiaway on Friday March 30, 2018 @08:14PM (#16720862)
You also did not answer the question.

How do you verify that the physical objects the digital certificate is attached to, is actually attached to the things it is meant to certify, and not replacement counterfeit?

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by JamesLeonis on Saturday March 31, 2018 @09:31PM (#16726187)
The same way you verify it now. The technology does not change the process of physically inspecting the product. It makes it far easier to coordinate the paperwork of certifying and verifying.

At it's heart logistics is a global concurrency problem. The "locks" we use now are large sprawling bureaucracies that manually coordinate the transfer of information among many independently moving agents. Getting information into and out of this organization is a tedious, labor-intensive, and time consuming process. The technology that empowers cryptotokens is an alternate computerized concurrency management for this kind of information transfer and lookup that doesn't rely on a central organization or system.

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by ric2b on Monday April 02, 2018 @06:18AM (#16733472)
Ok, but if _someone_ is certifying who can and who cannot write to the blockchain, why wasn't this solved 2 decades ago with that someone running a database with an API front-end that all involved parties can use?
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by donmatito on Monday April 02, 2018 @04:52AM (#16733196)
Thank you for expressing all this much better than I could
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by donmatito on Friday March 30, 2018 @03:46AM (#16714451)
Sorry, I replied somewhere else, I don't feel like copypasting, but roughly the blockchain would not prevent false declaration. It would 1) considerably simplify the non-fraudulent papertrail 2) provide an auditable record for investigation in case of either fraud investigation or certification audit
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by CPLX on Thursday March 29, 2018 @05:03PM (#16710998)
OK great.

Now how do you get "the blockchain" to know which paper rolls went into which shipping container.

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by sp527 on Thursday March 29, 2018 @05:59PM (#16711456)
I've heard the logistics value prop from a number of people, and not a single person has ever been able to fully articulate an answer to "okay walk me through how it works". I once literally went through 5+ iterations of this with a friend that devolved into hand-waving.
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by bjelkeman-again on Friday March 30, 2018 @12:37AM (#16713715)
Provenance seems to be making headway. Not finding a detailed, recent white paper, but here is some reading: https://www.provenance.org/news/technology/blockchain-series...
Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by donmatito on Friday March 30, 2018 @03:44AM (#16714439)
how about scanning a barcode or a RFID reader ? This information is already read and stored in ERP. Is it such a technological step to imagine a RFID reader or an ERP module that would write the information in a blockchain? I don't see the objection here.

The blockchain would be a decentralized papertrail accessible to all actors of the supply chain, down to the end consumer ideally, instead of the current nightmare of shipment papers, siloed ERPs and so on

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by Mithorium on Friday March 30, 2018 @12:00PM (#16717207)
lazy actor: I print out the barcodes, and stick them on the paper rolls at random

bad actor: I manufacture the cheaper rolls, and stick labels for the expensive ones on, and scan them

How will "the blockchain" prevent either scenario

Re:Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meet... by Drdrdrq on Friday March 30, 2018 @03:49PM (#16719249)
Lazy actor: receiver will scan the codes and see that data doesn't match, thus they can't trust the sender.

Bad actor: unless you intend to use rolls by yourself, what do you gain? You can't sell the better rolls as such, because you have broken chain of trust.

But such arguments lead nowhere. Of course you can come up with scenarios which can be misused. The real challenge (and one that is being solved by lots of people in crypto world - well, at least those that aren't consumed by greed) is finding scenarios that work. The ability to store information cheaply and immutably can change many industries, but technology must be deployed in such way that it makes sense.