Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

davidgerard.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#81

Post by AmericanChopper »

mhluongo wrote: post #69
AmericanChopper wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But fault tolerance, consensus or mining are not a necessary part of blockchain either.

Consensus certainly is.

Consensus is certainly not a necessary element of a blockchain. A blockchain can just as easily exist under the control of a central authority, as it could under any other circumstances. Unless you mean that you’re still achieving consensus by simply trusting the central authority, which I guess is technically correct, but that’s not how ‘consensus’ is generally used in relation to blockchains, it’s generally used to refer to trustless distributed consensus.

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#82

Post by smt88 »

bigiain wrote: post #45
smt88 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in-person. Any criminal transactions, really (drugs, weapons, people, etc.)

> Where cash is still a better alternative. I suspect not too many drug dealers or gun runners want to wait around 20 mins staring at their phone (with a traceable internet connection) for 2 confirmations before declaring the deal "done"...

I've read that it's done more like escrow. The buyer creates a new wallet, the seller verifies the amount in the wallet, and then the buyer hands over the keys when the merchandise is transferred.

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#83

Post by smt88 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #63
smt88 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've discovered that some people say "blockchain" when they mean "immutable, distributed, cryptographically-verified database" -- which is actually a useful thing for many people. The Byzantine fault tolerance, public consensus, and mining aspects that we associate with "true" blockchains are the parts that people can't find a way to justify and can typically be ignored.

But fault tolerance, consensus or mining are not a necessary part of blockchain either.

I put "true" in quotes because there are so many competing definitions for blockchain. I agree with other commenters that there is an original definition, but people rarely talk about blockchain these days without having the Bitcoin model in mind.

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#84

Post by killjoywashere »

darawk wrote: post #75
acdha wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let’s see: how does that benefit me in real, tangible terms? What risks does it have - for example, do users take on responsibility for fraud risk?

> Okay, let’s see: how does that benefit me in real, tangible terms? It allows you to store and transfer value in situations where you either cannot obtain, or do not trust your available banking relationships. You also have much, much lower fees for international remittance. > What risks does it have - for example, do users take on responsibility for fraud risk? It has two primary risks: - Transaction finality. This…

So, if, say you own some underutilized hydropower in China it's a good way to exfiltrate value from that economy and turn it into some slightly less volatile asset, like Ferarris or beach real estate in Florida?

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#85

Post by AmericanChopper »

6nf wrote: post #80
mhluongo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consensus certainly is.

Mining too

Mining simply refers to rewarding nodes that work to verify transactions. A blockchain can exist without distributed verification, and without mining.

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#86

Post by smt88 »

twohearted wrote: post #66
smt88 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've discovered that some people say "blockchain" when they mean "immutable, distributed, cryptographically-verified database" -- which is actually a useful thing for many people. The Byzantine fault tolerance, public consensus, and mining aspects that we associate with "true" blockchains are the parts that people can't find a way to justify and can typically be ignored.

Without those other "negligible" aspects there is no incentive for anyone to run nodes to validate the chain. There is no blockchain. It's those very things that allow these systems to function.

I completely agree with you. I'm just saying that there's a loophole when you're dealing with people who are obsessed with doing "blockchain for ____". If they understood blockchain from a technical perspective, they'd understand that it makes no sense for their application.

You can still work with those people if you revise the definition for "blockchain" in your mind into something that isn't really a blockchain.

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#87

Post by darawk »

killjoywashere wrote: post #84
darawk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, let’s see: how does that benefit me in real, tangible terms? It allows you to store and transfer value in situations where you either cannot obtain, or do not trust your available banking relationships. You also have much, much lower fees for international remittance. > What risks does it have - for example, do users take on responsibility for fraud risk? It has two primary risks: - Transaction finality. This…

So, if, say you own some underutilized hydropower in China it's a good way to exfiltrate value from that economy and turn it into some slightly less volatile asset, like Ferarris or beach real estate in Florida?

You could use it for that, sure. Though i'd probably recommend the standard channels of offshore corporations for something like that.

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#88

Post by killjoywashere »

JohnFen wrote: post #26
oooshha wrote: post #12

Hard not to imagine a pompous Brit spraying saliva everywhere while reading this. To the content - there is only one way to place data on the cloud that is impervious to all global state, corporate and nefarious actors. That is with a robust blockchain. Whether or not you think that is useful in medical records is another story. I've been a medical doctor for 10 years and think that it is.

> I've been a medical doctor for 10 years and think that it is. Can you explain how blockchain is useful for this in a more nuts-and-bolts way?

"I'm a medical doctor" is, in most cases outside of hospitals and clinics, entirely superfluous to the issue at hand. And it's frequently less relevant than you might think inside a hospital or clinic. If you hear someone saying this in any situation outside a medical emergency, I hereby give you permission to deduct 1 point from their debate score.

I say this having also been a medical doctor for 10 years.

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#89

Post by shanghaiclique »

WalterSear wrote: post #62
chris_wot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could tell me even one application of this technology outside of cryptocurrency, I'd genuinely be interested.

* Decentralized, anonymized reputation management. Imagine an ebay score that couldn't be owned by ebay, or any another company. * Decentralized digital Asset ownership verification. Again, imagine facebook without a facebook. Or imagine purchase a music or software token that you could use on any provider, and never expired. Sign up for a new streaming service and take all your songs/videos/games with you from the o…

* Decentralized, anonymized reputation management. Imagine an ebay score that couldn't be owned by ebay, or any another company.

There are about 500 articles every week about China's "social credit score" dystopia, and you want to put that on the block chain?

Re: Medical records on the blockchain – the history of a bad idea

#90

Post by acdha »

darawk wrote: post #75
acdha wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let’s see: how does that benefit me in real, tangible terms? What risks does it have - for example, do users take on responsibility for fraud risk?

> Okay, let’s see: how does that benefit me in real, tangible terms? It allows you to store and transfer value in situations where you either cannot obtain, or do not trust your available banking relationships. You also have much, much lower fees for international remittance. > What risks does it have - for example, do users take on responsibility for fraud risk? It has two primary risks: - Transaction finality. This…

> It allows you to store and transfer value in situations where you either cannot obtain, or do not trust your available banking relationships.

This is already a small percentage of people but it’s smaller still when you realize that it requires full access to the blockchain network and a solid local network of people who accept it and/or convert into local currency at low rates, not to mention that since the model is so well-suited to support oppressive regimes you’re really only talking about people who live in countries which have collapsed into disfunction but not authoritarianism.

> You also have much, much lower fees for international remittance.

From whom? What are the actual rates?

> Risk that you improperly handle your private key and have your funds stolen.

This is a big caveat for most people since “handle improperly” actually means “never use buggy or untrustworthy software, get mugged, etc. The benefits listed above don’t apply to most people enough to be worth that big of a risk transfer.

Post reply on HN