Bert, in particular, might find the collection of technologies around OpenBazaar[1][2] interesting.
It relies on DHT for it's P2P marketplace framework and implementation, Ricardian contracts[3] for agreements, 2-of-3 multi-sig for escrow, BTC for remittance and IPFS for distributed file storage. [1] https://www.openbazaar.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBazaar [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_contract On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Bert Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand, I take that as an authoritative answer to my question why it > hasn't been discussed in OpenEhr context. > The answer is also supported by Grahame. So what can I say ;-) > > Thank you both for that. > > I think that both of you will discuss within two years if and maybe how to > implement blockchain in OpenEhr and in FHIR. > > In FHIR I think that discussion will come very sooner, because, it is > about messaging, and also, it describes technical layers. > In OpenEhr maybe in that discussion it will be rejected as something > because it will be regarded as not belonging to the non-technical character > of the Openehr-specification. > > Best regards and thanks for the considerations > Bert > > > > On 13-11-17 14:35, Thomas Beale wrote: > >> >> There may be applications such as 'digital notary' that blockchain might >> be useful for, which is a trusted third party notary that accumulates >> signed hashes of content transactions to the main EHR; if it is thought >> that the EHR was hacked or integrity was in question, the digital notary >> can be used to check. There was even a gNotary project in gnu health years >> ago. But as Grahame says, protecting against transaction errors / hacking >> isn't a burning problem to date. However, if you want to accumulate the >> whole contents of transactions, blockchain is unlikely to be be scalable. >> >> Maybe this will change and blockchain will find use there. >> >> - thomas >> >> >> On 13/11/2017 13:15, Bert Verhees wrote: >> >>> On 13-11-17 14:02, Thomas Beale wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> What openEHR has as an underlying data management paradigm is >>>> distributed version control - each EHR is like a little git repo. This is >>>> no longer new or interesting (in fact, I was exposed to it from 1988, so >>>> really not new), but it's just as applicable today as it was then. Re-doing >>>> all that in blockchain seems sort of pointless. Yes, health systems can be >>>> hacked, but mainly to break privacy, not to fake transactions. Not what >>>> blockchain was designed for (and it's more or less the opposite regarding >>>> privacy). >>>> >>>> >>> It is not about hacking why blockchain is interesting, although, that >>> can happen too. But it is about having trustworthy computing without a >>> trusted third party. Not only protecting against bad intentions but also >>> against errors, for example, system which not run synchronous or have >>> date/time(zone) not well configured. Not a trusted party ensures delivery >>> and time of delivery and contents of delivery, but blockchain as a >>> mechanism does. >>> I have given already a few examples. >>> >>> Remember, computers make no errors, but people do, and it are people >>> which configure computers and use them, and their responsibility must be >>> able to transparently replayed afterwards. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_ >> lists.openehr.org >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_ > lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
