So: A company had a problem with invoices. They made an invoice management system. The problem was solved. Wow. Never saw that coming.
Without the details, it’s hard to see how blockchain specifically was the magic ingredient. Not saying it wasn’t, just saying this was already a problem that was solved long before the blockchain.
The invoice management system is owned by the whole supply chain. It is not a database run by walmart.
The problem wasn’t solved before blockchain because centralized databases do not have the administrative flexibility to respond to a changing supply chain. A central administrator only sees one layer deep.
What if - hear me out - you build a centralised database, and then give appropriate access to all of the actors in in the system? Like most people have been doing forever?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system? Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database? What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system?
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
Oh yes. Centralised systems are faster cheaper and easier to maintain. But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
I had to rewrite this because it got eaten by the browser. Sorry if this appears as a duplicate or something.
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database?
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database. Doing business with companies generally involves clearly defined contracts. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
If you mean that this system is harming the other company’s ability to engage in business with others, that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system, because that’s the big company’s way of doing business. If you mean that selling end product to someone else would violate some kind of contract, that activity is happening outside of the system to begin with. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
This is a design issue, not a technical one. Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it. Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available. Blockchain doesn’t help or hinder this either way.
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders. Again, this is a design and organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t inherently fix this. In traditional business systems, if some of these stakeholders have special requirements, these can be bridged over through interoperability, rather than building an unified distributed system. Invoice numbers go a long way. There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
Disagree about the latter two and I already addressed them. Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability, it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates). And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database.
Traditional invoicing is bilateral. You have no idea about the components that make up the end product being invoiced. Solving this is both organisational and technical.
What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system,
Not if you are looking further up or down the supply chain. Someone providing components will not be able to predict the final destination so will be unable to interact with the correct proprietary system.
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it.
If access to that system can be altered at the whim of the database owner then it is unacceptable
Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available.
If information needs to be published in a public, immutable, traceable manner. Then Blockchain is the only technology that can solve this.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders.
If it can be altered then there is no guarantee if business for stakeholders. They will not engage.
There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
You are now describing Blockchain technology. Primary keys are held by each stakeholder and uniqueness is cryptographicly guaranteed.
Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability,
So blockchain does solve it.
it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates).
Nor was this claimed.
And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
Because you want money. Businesses want a solution where trusting a particular organisation isn’t necessary.
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database.
Traditional invoicing is bilateral. You have no idea about the components that make up the end product being invoiced. Solving this is both organisational and technical.
What you’re talking about is using technical solution to mitigate problems in the organisational level. There’s little you can do on technical level to 100% ensure that invoice information is correct and matches what is actually happening in the real world. Blockchain doesn’t solve the organisational side of this, nor does it bring anything new to the table.
What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system,
Not if you are looking further up or down the supply chain. Someone providing components will not be able to predict the final destination so will be unable to interact with the correct proprietary system.
If you want the entire supply chain to be covered by the system, you have to either build one giant big traditional system to manage everything, or (the blockchain variant) one giant big blockchain system to manage everything. Or - hear me out - a series of interoperable systems, which is how things generally work.
By the way, I didn’t remember this earlier on, but what do you do in cases where the supply chain is deliberately opaque? What if this information is something that companies cannot, for one reason or other, share with one another? Not necessarily a nefarious reason, but sometimes it is. There’s plenty of companies that definitely do not want to discuss where their products originated in, even internally. Walmart included, it seems.
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it.
If access to that system can be altered at the whim of the database owner then it is unacceptable
But nothing stops them from accessing (and copying) the information while they have legitimate access to it! Nothing stops publicly available information from being mirrored either. Archival of such records is usually considered to be a good thing. Also, perhaps at this point unsurprisingly, it can be done without a blockchain.
And what do you propose happens when the blockchain just straight up isn’t accessible anymore for one reason or other? Nothing in blockchain specifically ensures this kind of longevity. All it does is say “hey, here’s some data, it can be easily copied to another node”, which isn’t special in itself. It’s the same problem as mirroring data by other means.
Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available.
If information needs to be published in a public, immutable, traceable manner. Then Blockchain is the only technology that can solve this.
Cryptographic signatures are a thing, you know. Nothing prevents people from adding signatures on publicly released documents. Ensures integrity/source. Publication can still be covered by other means.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders.
If it can be altered then there is no guarantee if business for stakeholders. They will not engage.
Again, hard forks in cryptocurrency world would suggest blockchain isn’t a magical solution to this problem either.
There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
You are now describing Blockchain technology. Primary keys are held by each stakeholder and uniqueness is cryptographicly guaranteed.
So you do see there’s no difference between the two things. For practical purposes it doesn’t matter one bit if you’re tracking an invoice by an invoice number or by some cryptographic hash identifier. Exactly what I was saying: blockchain doesn’t improve things one way or other here.
Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability,
So blockchain does solve it.
Um, no, it doesn’t. Trustworthiness is a social concept, trustlessness is a technical one. Blockchain can only ensure trustlessness, it can’t ensure trustworthiness. Fraud happens outside of the technical domain. That was my point.
it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates).
Nor was this claimed.
You claimed centralised systems are untrustworthy. You failed to demostrate how blockchain systems by contrast are trustworthy.
I’m just saying blockchain technology, while trustlessness, has so far failed to create a trustworthy economic platform for cryptocurrencies.
How do you propose blockchain technology can create trustworthy system of any other kind through technological means, then?
And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
Because you want money. Businesses want a solution where trusting a particular organisation isn’t necessary.
But as the cryptocurrency market has shown, blockchain by itself cannot prevent fraud. So blockchain so far isn’t a solution for this problem, then?
What you’re talking about is using technical solution to mitigate problems in the organisational level.
No. Blockchain is for solving intraorganisational problems. I.e. How can the invoices of your suppliers be made available.
There’s little you can do on technical level to 100% ensure that invoice information is correct and matches what is actually happening in the real world.
This is known as the Oracle problem.
a series of interoperable systems, which is how things generally work.
But they don’t work, because one cannot confirm who entered or manipulated the data, or whether the data has been altered in a malicious manner.
what do you do in cases where the supply chain is deliberately opaque? What if this information is something that companies cannot, for one reason or other, share with one another?
But nothing stops them from accessing (and copying) the information while they have legitimate access to it!
True with or without blockchain.
it can be done without a blockchain.
Blockchain controls access without needing to set up authentication for all users.
And what do you propose happens when the blockchain just straight up isn’t accessible anymore for one reason or other?
If availability is important then you run your own node. You also choose a flavor of blockchain that has very little downtime.
Nothing in blockchain specifically ensures this kind of longevity.
Agreed, blockchain creates permanent immutability, it does not guarantee permanent availability.
Nothing prevents people from adding signatures on publicly released documents.
Agreed, cryptography defines ownership, hash linked lists defines immutability. The two together (with a validation engine) defines blockchain.
Ensures integrity/source. Publication can still be covered by other means.
Again, hard forks in cryptocurrency world would suggest blockchain isn’t a magical solution to this problem either.
Hard forks are not a big problem. You just choose a fork to support.
For practical purposes it doesn’t matter one bit if you’re tracking an invoice by an invoice number or by some cryptographic hash identifier.
From an internal organisational perspective, yes.
But the invoice number from company A will not match the invoice number from company B. Nor can it be seen by company A that company C provided parts to company B
From a multi organisational perspective exposing a globally unique hash tree is much more controlled and useful.
Fraud happens outside of the technical domain. That was my point.
Agreed. Blockchain immutability documents fraud, but it doesn’t mitigate it.
You claimed centralised systems are untrustworthy. You failed to demostrate how blockchain systems by contrast are trustworthy.
Centralised systems can imperceptibly alter their databases and calculation algorithms. Blockchain systems cannot.
I’m just saying blockchain technology, while trustlessness, has so far failed to create a trustworthy economic platform for cryptocurrencies.
Blockchain systems are mathematically verifiable. As a platform they are entirely trustworthy. The value people put on that trustworthiness is an entirely different subject.
But as the cryptocurrency market has shown, blockchain by itself cannot prevent fraud.
It eliminates accounting fraud. It has never claimed to eliminate all fraud.
So blockchain so far isn’t a solution for this problem, then?
https://hbr.org/2022/01/how-walmart-canada-uses-blockchain-to-solve-supply-chain-challenges
So: A company had a problem with invoices. They made an invoice management system. The problem was solved. Wow. Never saw that coming.
Without the details, it’s hard to see how blockchain specifically was the magic ingredient. Not saying it wasn’t, just saying this was already a problem that was solved long before the blockchain.
The invoice management system is owned by the whole supply chain. It is not a database run by walmart.
The problem wasn’t solved before blockchain because centralized databases do not have the administrative flexibility to respond to a changing supply chain. A central administrator only sees one layer deep.
What if - hear me out - you build a centralised database, and then give appropriate access to all of the actors in in the system? Like most people have been doing forever?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system? Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database? What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else? What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
Oh yes. Centralised systems are faster cheaper and easier to maintain. But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
I had to rewrite this because it got eaten by the browser. Sorry if this appears as a duplicate or something.
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database. Doing business with companies generally involves clearly defined contracts. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
If you mean that this system is harming the other company’s ability to engage in business with others, that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system, because that’s the big company’s way of doing business. If you mean that selling end product to someone else would violate some kind of contract, that activity is happening outside of the system to begin with. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
This is a design issue, not a technical one. Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it. Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available. Blockchain doesn’t help or hinder this either way.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders. Again, this is a design and organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t inherently fix this. In traditional business systems, if some of these stakeholders have special requirements, these can be bridged over through interoperability, rather than building an unified distributed system. Invoice numbers go a long way. There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
Disagree about the latter two and I already addressed them. Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability, it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates). And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
Traditional invoicing is bilateral. You have no idea about the components that make up the end product being invoiced. Solving this is both organisational and technical.
Not if you are looking further up or down the supply chain. Someone providing components will not be able to predict the final destination so will be unable to interact with the correct proprietary system.
If access to that system can be altered at the whim of the database owner then it is unacceptable
If information needs to be published in a public, immutable, traceable manner. Then Blockchain is the only technology that can solve this.
If it can be altered then there is no guarantee if business for stakeholders. They will not engage.
You are now describing Blockchain technology. Primary keys are held by each stakeholder and uniqueness is cryptographicly guaranteed.
So blockchain does solve it.
Nor was this claimed.
Because you want money. Businesses want a solution where trusting a particular organisation isn’t necessary.
What you’re talking about is using technical solution to mitigate problems in the organisational level. There’s little you can do on technical level to 100% ensure that invoice information is correct and matches what is actually happening in the real world. Blockchain doesn’t solve the organisational side of this, nor does it bring anything new to the table.
If you want the entire supply chain to be covered by the system, you have to either build one giant big traditional system to manage everything, or (the blockchain variant) one giant big blockchain system to manage everything. Or - hear me out - a series of interoperable systems, which is how things generally work.
By the way, I didn’t remember this earlier on, but what do you do in cases where the supply chain is deliberately opaque? What if this information is something that companies cannot, for one reason or other, share with one another? Not necessarily a nefarious reason, but sometimes it is. There’s plenty of companies that definitely do not want to discuss where their products originated in, even internally. Walmart included, it seems.
But nothing stops them from accessing (and copying) the information while they have legitimate access to it! Nothing stops publicly available information from being mirrored either. Archival of such records is usually considered to be a good thing. Also, perhaps at this point unsurprisingly, it can be done without a blockchain.
And what do you propose happens when the blockchain just straight up isn’t accessible anymore for one reason or other? Nothing in blockchain specifically ensures this kind of longevity. All it does is say “hey, here’s some data, it can be easily copied to another node”, which isn’t special in itself. It’s the same problem as mirroring data by other means.
Cryptographic signatures are a thing, you know. Nothing prevents people from adding signatures on publicly released documents. Ensures integrity/source. Publication can still be covered by other means.
Again, hard forks in cryptocurrency world would suggest blockchain isn’t a magical solution to this problem either.
So you do see there’s no difference between the two things. For practical purposes it doesn’t matter one bit if you’re tracking an invoice by an invoice number or by some cryptographic hash identifier. Exactly what I was saying: blockchain doesn’t improve things one way or other here.
Um, no, it doesn’t. Trustworthiness is a social concept, trustlessness is a technical one. Blockchain can only ensure trustlessness, it can’t ensure trustworthiness. Fraud happens outside of the technical domain. That was my point.
You claimed centralised systems are untrustworthy. You failed to demostrate how blockchain systems by contrast are trustworthy.
I’m just saying blockchain technology, while trustlessness, has so far failed to create a trustworthy economic platform for cryptocurrencies.
How do you propose blockchain technology can create trustworthy system of any other kind through technological means, then?
But as the cryptocurrency market has shown, blockchain by itself cannot prevent fraud. So blockchain so far isn’t a solution for this problem, then?
No. Blockchain is for solving intraorganisational problems. I.e. How can the invoices of your suppliers be made available.
This is known as the Oracle problem.
But they don’t work, because one cannot confirm who entered or manipulated the data, or whether the data has been altered in a malicious manner.
This is where Zero Knowledge is used. A trusted third party © certifies some data as correct (I.e. a birthday) then the supplier can then create a proof that all their employees are over 18 as certified by © but the actual ages are not disclosed.
True with or without blockchain.
Blockchain controls access without needing to set up authentication for all users.
If availability is important then you run your own node. You also choose a flavor of blockchain that has very little downtime.
Agreed, blockchain creates permanent immutability, it does not guarantee permanent availability.
Agreed, cryptography defines ownership, hash linked lists defines immutability. The two together (with a validation engine) defines blockchain.
Ensures integrity/source. Publication can still be covered by other means.
Hard forks are not a big problem. You just choose a fork to support.
From an internal organisational perspective, yes.
But the invoice number from company A will not match the invoice number from company B. Nor can it be seen by company A that company C provided parts to company B
From a multi organisational perspective exposing a globally unique hash tree is much more controlled and useful.
Agreed. Blockchain immutability documents fraud, but it doesn’t mitigate it.
Centralised systems can imperceptibly alter their databases and calculation algorithms. Blockchain systems cannot.
Blockchain systems are mathematically verifiable. As a platform they are entirely trustworthy. The value people put on that trustworthiness is an entirely different subject.
It eliminates accounting fraud. It has never claimed to eliminate all fraud.
It’s an excellent solution for audits.