A point I was making on the call was that Accenture was apparently trying to solve a "adoption of blockchain" problem (quoting from the article) with its solution, which is putting the cart before the horse. Secured audit log technologies have existed for a long time that don't make grand claims to "be blockchain" (even if some of them may use some technology that blockchains also use) and may not have the immutability characteristics that prove to be challenging when there is a RTBF requirement. So is there a need to go from "plain log" to "blockchain" to "new super-duper fixed mutable blockchain" technology just to satisfy some need for blockchain adoption, or could it be sufficient to use the original technology? *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/> *London and Paris!* On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:07 PM, j stollman <stollman.j@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

I apologize that I was unable to attend today's call.

I wholeheartedly support the "tension/theme" analysis that the group is undertaking, I believe that we need to be more clear in separating the various attributes of blockchains and smart contracts from our political biases as to their value. In my personal view the only criteria REQUIRED for a solution to be considered blockchain technology is that it use blockchain encryption. The other attributes are switches that can be tailored to meet specific solution requirements.

The example included in the notes about Accenture's solution provides a useful illustration. The Accenture solution may or may not qualify as blockchain (I need more details to verify this). And while in many (most?) contexts giving up the immutability of the transaction ledger sounds problematic, it could help solve the "right to be forgotten" problem. Whether any solution using this approach is valuable enough to succeed will be determined by the market. But, absent the details on how Accenture achieves "forgetting" and the application to which they are targeting this solution, I would recommend that we not be too hasty in making any "in" or "out" determinations. Instead, we should stay focused on making sure that we put it in the right attribute box, likely including an attribute for mutability.

Jeff

--------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j@gmail.com +1 202.683.8699 <stollman.j@gmail.com>

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Eve Maler <eve.maler@forgerock.com> wrote:

...

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-09+ %28September+2016%29+Meetings#id-2016-09(September2016) Meetings-Thursday,September22

Agenda:

- Report <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockchain+and+Smart+Contracts+Discussion+Group> writing - Search for independent and dependent variables among the "tensions", as inspired by Kathleen and John W for the report - Review use case analysis inputs from John W for the report, if available

Attending: Eve, Matisse, Thomas, Colin, Andrew, Marco

*News: *News has hit of an "editable" blockchain technology <http://www.econotimes.com/Accenture-creates-Editable-blockchain-prototype-308497> that Accenture has prototyped. This seems...kind of scammy. They seem to have created a private blockchain. Does it require proof of work? Is it really a blockchain? Why would you want to "accelerate...adoption" of blockchain by removing a key defining feature of actual blockchains? Maybe this makes enterprises feel cool, but tamper-evident ledgers can be done right now without having to involve the "b-word". We pronounce this another b-word: bogus.

*Tension/theme analysis: *Can a blockchain be considered "a distributed system" in the formal sense? There are a number of resources we could draw on to analyze its characteristics if so: scalability, transparency, etc. See this article <http://www.theserverside.com/feature/Bitcoins-blockchain-architecture-as-a-best-practices-for-distributed-systems>. Matisse supports this analysis, as it's the premise of her PhD. thesis!

A neutral way of stating the columns Kathleen has added on the right that our participants are more invested in, for use-case reasons, would be (all, please offer feedback on this):

- "Balance of control" in transactions (which can include contracts and data sharing) – enabling individuals to rise to the level of a "peer" to traditionally more empowered entities - "Transactions" is the broadest possible term in common usage - This item is the broad descriptor - "Granularity of control" ?? in transactions – enabling not a totality of trust and liability but an apportioning that is appropriate - Supposedly Bitcoin, a special-purpose blockchain, has protected individuals on this dimension, but each smart contract could still leave individuals open to abuse - "Dynamism of control" ?? in transactions – enabling individual choice both over time and just-in-time

When is a public blockchain appropriate, vs. a consortium-model blockchain, vs. a private blockchain?

*AI:* Matisse: Share pointers to papers to let us analyze specific blockchain types for next time.

Next time: Get into both specific blockchain mentions and use case-specific analysis, and try to flesh out the report intro for good and all.

*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/> *London and Paris!*

_______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc