Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Grahame Grieve]

>
>
> 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).
>

Doesn't it? I suspect that might be true in a theoretical technical sense,
but I expect that it will prove not to be correct in the real world

Grahame
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Grahame Grieve]

bitcoin doesn't use a reduced proof of work. That's the costly feature of
it, and why it's genuinely distributed.

Grahame


On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 2:55 AM, Bert Verhees  wrote:

> On 14-11-17 16:39, Grahame Grieve wrote:
>
>> either you end up falling back to a central authority after all -
>>
>
> Can you explain why?
>
> Bitcoin, f.e. is about billions of dollars without central authority, that
> is one of the reasons the Chinese government prohibited the creation
> (although they do not admit this real reason)
>
> Bert
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_
> lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
-
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
/ +61 411 867 065
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Philippe Ameline]

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
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Bert Verhees]

On 14-11-17 16:39, Grahame Grieve wrote:
either you end up falling back to a central authority after all - 


Can you explain why?

Bitcoin, f.e. is about billions of dollars without central authority, 
that is one of the reasons the Chinese government prohibited the 
creation (although they do not admit this real reason)


Bert


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Grahame Grieve]

>
> 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.

Grahame
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Pieter Bos]

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.

Also any public healthcare related blockchain has interesting privacy issues 
that will need to be solved.

Regards,

Pieter Bos

Op 14 nov. 2017 om 16:21 heeft Bert Verhees 
mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> het volgende geschreven:

On 14-11-17 16:02, Philippe Ameline wrote:
It can currently been argued that this competition led to concentrating
miners in China... but what could possibly go wrong?

Bitcoin is since a few weeks prohibited in China but it seems hard to kill.

But still, I don't think the use of blockchain in healthcare can be compared to 
the use of blockchain in currency, because, bitcoins is about getting rich by 
creating as many as possible, while in healthcare they exist to facilitate 
processes, and the number of processes create the demand, not the wish to get 
rich.

Another thing which came to mind, electricity is expensive because it needs to 
be created near the place where it is going to be used, or it needs to be 
transported. But blockchains for any purpose can be created on any place on 
earth, also on places where energy is almost for free. For example, windmills 
on top of the Himalaya, or solar cells in the middle of the Sahara. Just 
transport the bitcoins, no need to pollute the world very much.


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Bert Verhees]

On 14-11-17 16:24, Seref Arikan wrote:
You may want to check internet access packages in the Himalayas or 
Sahara before you setup shop there Bert ;)
I am not really into that technical knowledge like radio-modulation or 
laser-light modulation. But when they communicate with the Hubble 
telescope, transmitting simple numbers over a few hundred kilometers 
will not be a big problem.


Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Seref Arikan]

You may want to check internet access packages in the Himalayas or Sahara
before you setup shop there Bert ;)

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Bert Verhees  wrote:

> On 14-11-17 16:02, Philippe Ameline wrote:
>
>> It can currently been argued that this competition led to concentrating
>> miners in China... but what could possibly go wrong?
>>
>
> Bitcoin is since a few weeks prohibited in China but it seems hard to kill.
>
> But still, I don't think the use of blockchain in healthcare can be
> compared to the use of blockchain in currency, because, bitcoins is about
> getting rich by creating as many as possible, while in healthcare they
> exist to facilitate processes, and the number of processes create the
> demand, not the wish to get rich.
>
> Another thing which came to mind, electricity is expensive because it
> needs to be created near the place where it is going to be used, or it
> needs to be transported. But blockchains for any purpose can be created on
> any place on earth, also on places where energy is almost for free. For
> example, windmills on top of the Himalaya, or solar cells in the middle of
> the Sahara. Just transport the bitcoins, no need to pollute the world very
> much.
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_
> lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Bert Verhees]

On 14-11-17 16:02, Philippe Ameline wrote:

It can currently been argued that this competition led to concentrating
miners in China... but what could possibly go wrong?


Bitcoin is since a few weeks prohibited in China but it seems hard to kill.

But still, I don't think the use of blockchain in healthcare can be 
compared to the use of blockchain in currency, because, bitcoins is 
about getting rich by creating as many as possible, while in healthcare 
they exist to facilitate processes, and the number of processes create 
the demand, not the wish to get rich.


Another thing which came to mind, electricity is expensive because it 
needs to be created near the place where it is going to be used, or it 
needs to be transported. But blockchains for any purpose can be created 
on any place on earth, also on places where energy is almost for free. 
For example, windmills on top of the Himalaya, or solar cells in the 
middle of the Sahara. Just transport the bitcoins, no need to pollute 
the world very much.



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Philippe Ameline]

Le 14/11/2017 à 12:31, Karsten Hilbert a écrit :

>> A Blockchain is a public (or at least shared) digital notary.
> ...
>> transactions are more expensive without a third party, because you need
>> to make the process of adding a new block "expensive enough" in order to
>> make sure that the one doing it can not deploy enough computing power to
>> hack the existing blocks during the process.
> And, one needs to remind oneself, "expensive enough" can only ever mean 
> "today".

Hi Karsten,

This is the reason why, at least in the Bitcoin universe, adding a block
is organized as a competition between miners.
Hence a bad guy who intends to use the addition of a new block as an
opportunity to modify some already existing blocks would need to process
this much more complex task quicker than the other miners who simply
concentrate on adding a block.

It can currently been argued that this competition led to concentrating
miners in China... but what could possibly go wrong? ;-)

Philippe


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Aw: Re: Blockchain

[Karsten Hilbert]

> A Blockchain is a public (or at least shared) digital notary.
...
> transactions are more expensive without a third party, because you need
> to make the process of adding a new block "expensive enough" in order to
> make sure that the one doing it can not deploy enough computing power to
> hack the existing blocks during the process.

And, one needs to remind oneself, "expensive enough" can only ever mean "today".

Karsten Hilbert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org