Ditto on making the distinction between the smart contract layers and the ledger layers; here’s an updated version of my mental model to reflect same:

-----Original Message-----
From: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Hardjono
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 8:41 AM
To: Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] <tniebuhr@wedacon.net>
Cc: dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI

I agree with Thorsten, and would suggest looking at 2 logical layers (where each layer may have one of more parts).

It also serves a useful mental tool for us to work on our use-cases and identifying those cases that do actually need a blockchain (per Eve's note a couple of weeks ago now).

(a) Smart Contracts layer:

- Prose/code executing on 1 machine or a set of machines, following some order of execution (e.g. sequential, cascading, etc).

- May or may not have its own consensus protocol.

- May or may not need underlying blockchain to record something in the ledger.

(b) Blockchains layer:

- "Dumb nodes" (ala bitcoin-blockchain) vs "programmable nodes" (ala Ethereum).

- Uses its own consensus protocol to detect/prevent inconsistencies and cheating.

- May offer additional functionalities to upper layer Smart Contracts layer.

FYI I believe this is very similar, if not identical, to the Hyperledger architecture.

/thomas/

------------------------------------------

From: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH]

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:27 PM

To: j stollman; M AV

Cc: dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org

Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI

Which (for me) translates into the (open) question (and I really dont wanna be the advocatis diaboli):

Should we split and discuss SmartContracts independently from BlockChain /DLT (here: in respect to identity management) ?

SmartContracts are discussed and worked on already in the consensus field (esp. CommonAccord) with great results/findings.

Thesis: SmartContracts are just a usecase for DLT/Blockchain (and I have used the order on purpose here)

But its late for me, and I might be totally wrong...

reg,

On 30.08.2016 00:02, j stollman wrote:

I agree with Colin and Andrew's sentiments about trying to achieve a consensus on what the DG report should look like and what we could do as a next step in a WG. But I don't believe that there is a natural consensus on this broad topic at this point. Like the blind men describing the elephant, we are looking at blockchain and smart contracts from multiple perspectives -- none of which are wrong.

I personally sense that there is some high-level agreement to focus on a couple broad solution areas as targets for a report (e.g., healthcare research consents). But I also sense that there is a lot of talking past each other when we start drilling down to the direction people want to go. Unlike other DGs, we have taken on two very broad topic areas in this DG (blockchain and smart contracts) just to try to get our heads wrapped around the subject. I don't know that we have accomplished this basic goal. We are still "storming" and nowhere near "norming". This makes it hard to come to any kind of agreement. And, perhaps forcing ourselves into a lukewarm consensus just to meet a self-imposed deadline will keep us from discovering some significant value added topics that would benefit from the combined wisdom of the highly intelligent participants in this group.

Perhaps, rather than a single report, we made need to consider multiple reports and/or multiple targets for a new WG or set of WGs. I don't claim that this is the answer. I just don't sense that we are close enough to any consensus yet to create a report with significant value.

Jeff

---------------------------------

Jeff Stollman

stollman.j@gmail.com

+1 202.683.8699

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.

Science advances one funeral at a time.

Max Planck

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:18 PM, M AV <av_m@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ditto on the keep-it-simple sentiment – except that I wouldn’t characterize it as “not beg[ing] the question of technology” so much as not getting into the weeds with details, the distinction being that I do think we need to keep cycling back to the basic question of what the smart contract/authenticated ledger technology especially enables in the proo0sed use cases, e.g. empowerment of smart contract parties, authenticated chain of asset states, etc.

☺ ann vroom

From: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Eve Maler

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:08 PM

To: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>

Cc: dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org

Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI

Hi folks-- Now that I'm back from my vacation with self-imposed lack of connectivity...

It's fine for us to get more experts at our table, but this should in no way impede our development and completion of use cases. I do think we can easily over-rotate on use case writing, and we probably are doing so. They should be short and crisp, and -- most importantly from my perspective -- should not beg the question of technology by including requirements for technology in them. If there's a requirement for, say, not trusting a central authority, say why plainly and move on. If it turns out that this is in tension with a requirement for limiting access by some parties for some purpose (e.g., the best way today for ensuring "permissioning" of some portion of a solution stack is to use identity/access federation frameworks with a TTP in them), so be it; we're here to describe the use cases and then those tensions in the use-case technology/technique SWOTs, not write specs.

That said, we can be very dynamic in writing our materials given online docs and hyperlinking and such, and thus we can get internal and external review as we go along. So if we're disciplined, we don't have to write-write-write now and then only get review in month 6.

My preference would be for use cases to be relatively text-sparse and to include use case diagrams as appropriate. Not sure how realistic this is, though.

Eve Maler

ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits are coming to London and Paris!

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> wrote:

John W. - that is one very good candidate - it would, of course, need more detail at this stage to spur the need for a WG.

One way to view a WG is through questions like:

- Which technical or policy audience needs a consensus standard, guidance or tool?

- Is there a state of practice or new regulation/legislation that is ready for compliance and conformance development and even certification?

- Is there a consensus position or opinion that needs to be articulated in order to rally the industry and inform a specific audience?

- Is there a group of related activities or initiatives that would benefit from an umbrella document to knit the parts together and bring cohesion to the disparate work?

The mission of a WG is to create useful artifacts for a well-scoped, well-defined audience through consensus-based collaboration. This mission is easy to execute when participants with a strong interest in the outcome/output are engaged (otherwise WGs drift).

andrew.

Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP

Independent Consultant

In Turn Information Management Consulting o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474

1249 Palmer Road,

Victoria, BC V8P 2H8

AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com

ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/

Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM, John Wunderlich <john@wunderlich.ca> wrote:

Colin;

Given the constraints/opportunities it occurs to me that the DG report should seek to articulate the Terms of Reference for a Kantara WG whose goal would be to define and work to create a Proof Of Concent instantiation of a Blockchain and/or SmartContract ecosystem that will move the user centred identity concept closer to fruition, if that makes sense?

Sincerely,

John Wunderlich

@PrivacyCDN

Call: +1 (647) 669-4749

eMail: john@wunderlich.ca

On 29 August 2016 at 10:34, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks John M, John W, James, Patrick et al

I think we are all in agreement we could do with more input from the broader BC and SC communities.

And of course that is most welcomed, moreso if they bring their own communities with them and join Kantara which helps pay for the platform on which the DG rests:-).

I'm also sensitive to the LC Chair Andrew's motivation to bring DG discussions to a conclusion at frequent intervals (typically 6 months) in order to get onto the work of addressing the issues that the DG use cases and deliberations raise.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can have a WG working on solutions arising from a DG output, while at the same time having a DG continue to draw in more use cases and discussion. The Charters need to be directed and focussed accordingly and the timelines clear.

John W's estimates are about right. We started this DG in May, so we need to have it concluded November latest. Take off a month of writing and there is 2 months left.

It is really tempting to slip the timeline to allow more discussion in a DG, as a preface to WG work.

But past experience has shown us that that often comes at the expense of focussing the resulting WG on nailing the solutions to the problems raised, to a logical formal end deliverable in a community-valuable timeframe.

There is so much to do in this space.

Biting it off in a continual process of digestible chunks is absolutely OK.

Cheers

Colin

________________________________________

From: John Moehrke <johnmoehrke@gmail.com>

Sent: 29 August 2016 13:42

To: James Hazard

Cc: Colin Wallis; dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org

Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI

I have a potential new use of Blockchain and Smart-Contracts. I have written it up using the template, but don't yet have rights on the Kantara system. I have published what I have developed with a friend of mine (Health Informaticist and Researcher) onto my Blog. I am happy to submit it fully to the Kantara DG-BSC efforts if the community is interested.

The use-case is Evidence Notebooks (aka Lab Notebooks, or Patent Notebooks).

https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain-and-smart-contracts-applied.html

Healthcare CyberPrivacy: Blockchain and Smart-Contracts applied to Evidence Notebook healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com

John

John Moehrke

Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, and Security CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy M +1 920-564-2067 JohnMoehrke@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke

https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:26 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Colin,

I think it might be helpful to have wider representation of the blockchain community on the thread. I mention the DG-BSC when I am in conversation with them.

On deliverables, I think we have spent good time well on discussing what blockchains and smart contracts are and aren't, and could do more on how they fit into a broader picture of automation, institutions, privacy and security. (Elements of the blockchain community, IMHO, sometimes think they don't need to think about institutions, since ridding the world of institutions is the goal of decentralization.)

I suggest that we could:

Describe a general "smart contract" paradigm on the lines of:

i) events - (Barclay's and R3's "parameters")

ii) text objects ("prose," actors, things, places, etc.)

iii) Smart Contract Description Language

iv) code

We could describe the relationship between this "smart contract" record of relationships and transactions, on the one hand, and various databases on the other.

We could describe some uses cases where blockchain databases were useful.

This would not exclude developing use-case verticals. The consent to use of genetic information use case seems potent.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks All

Interesting thoughts and discussion.

Indeed we could invite some other folks not engaged here to add their use cases.

But it would need to be pretty soon.

We are more than half way through the 6 month period for collecting use cases, allowing some time for the report to be written up with recommendations on what work we might take forward to a WG to deliver a specific useful tangible output.

There is plenty of talk in this domain. But Kantara value proposition that it is about 'doing', and the community will be the better for a useful deliverable as a result. Let's not divert from that goal.

That said, there is nothing to stop another DG, or a re-charter of this DG, working on a another suite of use cases perhaps for a particular context.

Cheers

Colin

________________________________________

From: dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org <dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Patrick Curry <patrick.curry@bbfa.info>

Sent: 28 August 2016 22:15

To: James Hazard

Cc: dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org

Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI

The devil is in the detail and also in the minds of innovators and start ups.

Back end transactions of smart contracts differ from the smart contracts in BCs with their transparency property. My colleagues see a difference and it is giving rise to new user cases. One involves the ability of all parties in a police incident to be able to validate that the legally permitted individual policeman is assigned to a specific task for that incident in real time based on his skills, training, authority etc. The rules are being executed in a distributed fashion with distributed inputs, all assured. This particular example is in the concept stage. However, there is another international logistic example. leveraging an existing pilot, that is expected to move into implementation soon.

I’ll speak to Colin. We could be inviting some of the more forward BC companies to engage in the KI discussion.

regards,

Patrick

Patrick Curry

Director

British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd

M: +44 786 024 9074

T: +44 1980 620606

patrick.curry@bbfa.info

www.bbfa.info – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body

On 28 Aug 2016, at 20:07, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, IPFS is a very useful resource.

The chain of consent to use of information seems to unify many use cases. A few links in the chain from prior threads in the discussion:

Patient consent from our discussion earlier this week:

http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=/GH/KantaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/05-AliceGrants.md

Data transfer agreements on the EU "Model Clauses":

http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/Privacy/ModelClauses/EN/Demo/0.md

(Available in 20+ languages, about six of which are in the demo).

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu> wrote:

Jim,

With regards to legal contracts for data-sharing, this could be (should be) a good use-case for BSC.

/thomas/

________________________________________

From: Jim Willeke [jim@willeke.com]

Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:56 AM

To: John Wunderlich

Cc: Thomas Hardjono; dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org

Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI

I agree with /thomas/. There is no reason smart contracts could not be done via a protocol with the back-end system be unknown.

IPFS could be used as an example.

JLINC<http://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/> is one such idea.

-jim

Jim Willeke

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:24 AM, John Wunderlich <john@wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>> wrote:

Blockchains of adherence?

If smart contracts are published on well known URI’s, then agreeing to them by signing the contract and putting the MAC on the blockchain provides some level of assurance. This becomes even more powerful when the smart contract can accept or negotiate terms and what gets recorded on the blockchain memorialized the terms freely negotiated by both parties bots.

???

Sincerely,

John Wunderlich

@PrivacyCDN

Call: +1 (647) 669-4749<tel:%2B1%20%28647%29%20669-4749>

eMail: john@wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>

On 28 August 2016 at 08:20, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu<mailto:hardjono@mit.edu>> wrote:

Thanks John,

Good piece.

I think there is still a lot of confusion about the promise of smart-contracts executing collectively on a syntax-rich set of nodes, vs the very limited Bitcoin-blockchain of today.

Maybe BSC-DG could come up with our own new terms or language to describe the possible features of smart contracts.

/thomas/

___________________________________

On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:48 PM, John Wunderlich <john@wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>> wrote:

https://theconversation.com/blockchain-really-only-does-one-thing-well-62668

Thanks, John

4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

_______________________________________________

DG-BSC mailing list

DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org>

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

_______________________________________________

DG-BSC mailing list

DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org>

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

_______________________________________________

DG-BSC mailing list

DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc