Jeff, Thanks and agreed. I am not the most technical of the people on this list (and seek to be corrected), so here is how it looks: 1. Blockchain is an inappropriate platform for many uses. Blockchains are, as you say, slow, redundant, and not privacy-preserving. Other databases are more appropriate for most transacting. If there is a non-technical basis for trust, which is the case in most interpersonal transacting, then you don't need a blockchain. 2. Git, IPFS, Interledger, Corda (not intended as a complete list, but what has caught my eye) seem well-positioned to provide crypto-based notarization and synchronization of records. 3. Within an organization, records will be stored in conventional databases or modern equivalents such as graph databases. Those records will originate from multiple sources. There needs to be proof that the internal record is the same as the original. Some see a future of IPFS as the canonical format for storage, with operational or analytic work being done in graph databases. 4. Blockchains appear to be a good solution, perhaps the only solution, to the worst case - where there isn't a basis for trust. In the IoT, this worst case will become very widespread - when your thermostat (door clicker or pacemaker) tells the furnace to turn on, the furnace needs to authenticate the thermostat and receive tokens that will allow the furnace to order more fuel. The internet connection might be down and the house working on battery backup, so they need to sort this out themselves. Once telecoms are reestablished, the record of their interaction will want to be integrated into and validated by the homeowner's off-site canonical image of themselves, and then destroyed. 5. This worst-case, blockchain-based scenario must inform the design of the platform, but most social interactions will be done without blockchains. Eager for correction. Jim On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:27 AM, j stollman <stollman.j@gmail.com> wrote:
I am concerned that there may be an important misunderstanding about the power of blockchain in a large scale deployment with regards to query capability.
It is easy to add transactions of all kinds to the blockchain. It is harder to query the blockchain efficiently to get information out. The blockchain does store data, but it is not a database. It does not directly support indexed fields that make queries efficient and scalable. With crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin, all transactions are for anonymous, fungible, virtual assets (e.g., Bitcoins). But once the transactions become explicit, unique, assets (e.g., various identity attributes or consent receipts unique to particular websites or transactions), it becomes necessary to find individual needles in the haystack. And the latency for such searches degrades rapidly as the blockchain grows larger.
Because scalability and performance are merely assumed and not explicitly specified in our discussions, I wanted to point out that just because something can be added to a blockchain does not imply that it will be scalable and provide adequate performance. To assume this could lead to a lot of churn.
Thank you.
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 Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:50 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:
On the theme of Patient Consents, I put one of the documents that John suggested into modular format. The organization of the document follows the original, with meaningful names for the various sections based on my hunches. The names for roles are not yet meaningful, just placeholders.
Click "Document"
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler@forgerock.com> wrote:
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29+...
Attending: Thomas, Eve, Jim, Scott S, Don, Marc, Philippe, Thorsten, Ann, John W
The May 23-24 event at MIT, variously called *Digital Contracts, Identities, and Blockchain* and *Digital Identities, Contracts, and Blockchain*, had some notes as output. Here are relevant links:
- Technical and Future Infrastructure track notes <https://docs.google.com/a/forgerock.com/document/d/14KD-KA-XPKKvuSfNx4E5B2ZfLjF2mMVKrg3zMzYNHrg/edit?usp=sharing> - Business track notes <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fNjd25h_Ne4HUedn-vKkfNP73TKZAG-PM_K7Qf6uLAA/edit?usp=sharing> - Healthcare use cases track notes <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nGTZHq7Q_51tu46jcivLLlS-1vTKXr9z_JcyntBYvOk/edit?usp=sharing> - IBM Open Blockchain white paper <https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-docs/blob/master/whitepaper.md> - Article <https://medium.com/enspiral-tales/bootstrapping-a-bossless-organisation-in-3-easy-steps-afc653e8f5e6#.wt0y8twwf> on bootstrapping a bosses organization - Screenshot <https://slack-files.com/T02DW4GQE-F1BEJRL2G-7421d194f1> from Bart's presentation comparing "smart" and "legal" contracts (did his whole presentation get posted?) - CommonAccord intro presentation <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1LqdDjo41PlXBUj3l84gUVQI4H8GH04mvavHj0OslIVQ/edit?usp=sharing> - CommonAccord site <http://www.commonaccord.org/> - CommonAccord Slack team invitation <https://cmacc-slack-add.herokuapp.com/>
For a candidate use case, Jim proposes: Patient consent, in a context of 3-4 countries – e.g., including France, Germany. Leverage the GA4GH (Global Alliance for Genomics and Health) and genetic research. Jim has been discussing this use case with Bart Suiches of Philips Blockchain Lab. Would this be about storing consents? The GA4GH folks have a committee that created a model data sharing consent form <http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=Wx/org/genomicsandhealth/REWG/Demo/Roberta_Robinson_US> in CommonAccord. There's capacity for it to be signed.
Would the Consent Receipts work be able to handle a machine-readable representation? It might need to be extended. This would be a good use case for extensibility for that spec.
Culture might be the biggest barrier around consent – IRBs and equivalents would have trouble conceiving of consent as anything but a one-way door. John notes that there are six different ways to get approval to process data, and only one of them is consent. John recommends narrowing down this as a use case a bit, since it involves research and IRBs and such and takes it out of the full health regulatory environment (at least in the Canadian system). This is really a "health research" use case more than a "healthcare" use case, as it stands.
*AI:* John to share research consent templates with Jim/the group.
On Thursday, Scott will present a sample use case template into which we can fill use case content. Everybody should take the opportunity to get familiar with the linked material above, and start to think about their own use cases they'd like to collect.
*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 <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Sydney, London, and Paris!*
_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
-- @commonaccord
_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
-- @commonaccord