Le 14/11/2017 à 16:39, Grahame Grieve a écrit : > In the healthcare related blockchain ideas or prototype > implementations I have heard about so far something different than > proof of work is used, for example proof of authority. That has > other drawbacks and challenges, but it does not suffer from the > same power consumption problems. > > > that's true. But I don't see s sweet spot there; either you end up > falling back to a central authority after all - in which case you > might as well just trust the central authority and design a more > efficient solution, or you have something that's less secure - but > doesn't - as far as I can figure out - have less of a reason to need > security. The one possible exception I've seen, which I've seen in > production, is closed trading schemes around tracking payments between > a group of entities.
Agreed, but a third party that would just be in charge of making certain that the blockchain is unaltered has nothing to do with the business involved. It is a technical trusted party, and there is no true reason it should be expensive (for example, it could publish the hash of the blockchain at every growing stages, so that anybody can check if currently published blockchain is trustable). It has nothing in common with a Ministry of Health or any other "bag of technocrats" (just kidding, of course). Philippe
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
