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

111–120 of 154 posts

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

#111

Post by 6nf »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #109
6nf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is actually using 'blockchain' in production except to tick the buzzword box. That IBM page is just a puff piece and they have no clients using anything like that.

Volkswagen quite publicly use that very solution from IBM, and there’s numerous other examples of it being used in supply chain management, which absolutely isn’t the only useful application of blockchains. It’s not even clear if you know what a blockchain is, and your comments on its usefulness are just as extreme and misinformed as the evangelists who say it can be used to solve any problem under the sun.

Link me to the VW thing please? Last I checked there was literally no reason to use blockchain outside of cryptocurrencies since you get the same benefits just using GIT.

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #109
6nf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is actually using 'blockchain' in production except to tick the buzzword box. That IBM page is just a puff piece and they have no clients using anything like that.

Volkswagen quite publicly use that very solution from IBM, and there’s numerous other examples of it being used in supply chain management, which absolutely isn’t the only useful application of blockchains. It’s not even clear if you know what a blockchain is, and your comments on its usefulness are just as extreme and misinformed as the evangelists who say it can be used to solve any problem under the sun.

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

mycall wrote: post #103
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> much, much lower fees for international remittance This is patently false. My bank, Fidelity, lets me send domestic wires (which are virtually instantaneous) for free. (Fedwires actually cost most customers virtually nothing.) International wires aren't that much more expensive, with the majority of the cost for small transactions being antifraud. In that respect, every cryptocurrency is orders of magnitude more ex…

Is "wires" the technical term, as I can't find this at my bank.

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by ramraj07 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #81
mhluongo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is this different from git?

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

#115

Post by tastroder »

6nf wrote: post #111
AmericanChopper wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volkswagen quite publicly use that very solution from IBM, and there’s numerous other examples of it being used in supply chain management, which absolutely isn’t the only useful application of blockchains. It’s not even clear if you know what a blockchain is, and your comments on its usefulness are just as extreme and misinformed as the evangelists who say it can be used to solve any problem under the sun.

Link me to the VW thing please? Last I checked there was literally no reason to use blockchain outside of cryptocurrencies since you get the same benefits just using GIT.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/volkswagen-joins-ibm-backed-b...

Looks like they want to use it to lower traditional auditing costs in developing countries. Not sure how the blockchain tech is supposed to help tracking materials or establish trust in such an environment but that's not really my field - presumably it adds a component of different people creating a digital paper trail that's harder to manipulate. That's an application compliance people in a few sectors seem to like these days, guess we'll see if it actually makes sense over traditional efforts in N years.

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

#116

Post by AmericanChopper »

6nf wrote: post #111
AmericanChopper wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volkswagen quite publicly use that very solution from IBM, and there’s numerous other examples of it being used in supply chain management, which absolutely isn’t the only useful application of blockchains. It’s not even clear if you know what a blockchain is, and your comments on its usefulness are just as extreme and misinformed as the evangelists who say it can be used to solve any problem under the sun.

Link me to the VW thing please? Last I checked there was literally no reason to use blockchain outside of cryptocurrencies since you get the same benefits just using GIT.

Here you go.

https://www.coindesk.com/volkswagen-to-track-minerals-supply...

> Last I checked there was literally no reason to use blockchain outside of cryptocurrencies since you get the same benefits just using GIT.

How does the data structure of a git repo differ from a blockchain? The only difference I can see is in how it’s used. A blockchain wouldn’t have more than one permanent branch.

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

#117

Post by darawk »

acdha wrote: post #90
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…

> 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 i…

> From whom? What are the actual rates?

The rates are the cost of buying/selling bitcoin on both ends, let's call that 20 bps on each side, and then the cost of a single bitcoin network transaction, which is about 66 cents at the moment, if you're willing to wait 6 blocks [1]. So, to send $1000 it'll cost you 40 bps + 66 cents = $4.66. By comparison, international wires at your local bank will run you around $50 all in [2]. That's quite a savings.

1. https://bitcoinfees.info/ 2. https://smartasset.com/checking-account/average-wire-transfe...

> 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.

Sure, and those are real challenges of using cryptocurrencies right now. However, they're also extremely solvable problems and people are working on them.

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

#118

Post by darawk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #100
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…

> much, much lower fees for international remittance This is patently false. My bank, Fidelity, lets me send domestic wires (which are virtually instantaneous) for free. (Fedwires actually cost most customers virtually nothing.) International wires aren't that much more expensive, with the majority of the cost for small transactions being antifraud. In that respect, every cryptocurrency is orders of magnitude more ex…

> This is patently false. My bank, Fidelity, lets me send domestic wires (which are virtually instantaneous) for free. (Fedwires actually cost most customers virtually nothing.) International wires aren't that much more expensive, with the majority of the cost for small transactions being antifraud. In that respect, every cryptocurrency is orders of magnitude more expensive than the status quo.

Perhaps your bank is different, but googling "international wire cost" brings up links like these:

  - https://smartasset.com/checking-account/average-wire-transfer-fee
  - https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/wire-transfers-what-banks-charge/
I do see that you are correct about Fidelity. However, what's clear is that Fidelity is an outlier. I don't know why or how they are able to offer that, but it certainly isn't the norm. And sending a remittance payment in Bitcoin is cheaper than any of the others listed.

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

#119

Post by 6nf »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #116
6nf wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link me to the VW thing please? Last I checked there was literally no reason to use blockchain outside of cryptocurrencies since you get the same benefits just using GIT.

Here you go. https://www.coindesk.com/volkswagen-to-track-minerals-supply... > Last I checked there was literally no reason to use blockchain outside of cryptocurrencies since you get the same benefits just using GIT. How does the data structure of a git repo differ from a blockchain? The only difference I can see is in how it’s used. A blockchain wouldn’t have more than one permanent branch.

The project it links to is not used in production yet, it's just a pilot at this stage.

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

#120

Post by davidgerard »

smt88 wrote: post #43
tracker1 wrote: post #36

I cringe every single time someone suggests blockchain in our space. Either it's easier with other tech (even public/private key tech doesn't require blockchain), or open to potential leaks/abuse in the future (tracking how everyone voted). There are a lot of use cases, most even, where it's not a great fit, and there are other, better, approaches. Disclosure, I work for an election services company...

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.

(author here)

I was talking about this a few months ago with a well-meaning non-techie, who suggested that Uber - the money-burning minicab firm with an app - was an example of a "decentralised system." More than that - it was a model for how blockchain could succeed.

I think they'd never thought about the concept of distributed systems of any sort ever before in their lives.

"It's like blockchain, because anyone can sign up to be an Uber driver!"

"Uh ... anyone can sign up to be a minicab driver."

or the very concept of "open source" only being possible with "blockchain".

Post reply on HN