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

Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

weforum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#31

Post by apo »

An unfortunately representative sample of the utter nonsense "blockchain consultants" produce.

1. "Blockchain for X" where X is something the client cares about.

2. Blockchain is revolutionary, but blockchain is also complex. See what I did there?

3. I guess not. FOMO! FOMO! FOMO!

4. Gather your stakeholders for a series of working groups where we'll figure out what blockchain can do for you.

5. I refuse to reveal even one problem calling specifically for the magical Blockchain. Nor will I give you one single specific solution made possible by only this new technology in your industry.

These pitches are targeted at people who have long since hung up their spurs for the greener pastures of corner offices.

Funny in a way the first 20 times I saw it, but now this is really getting old.

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#32

Post by blotter_paper »

ska wrote: post #13
Anon84 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the IoT component. The devices themselves do the data "entry" on the blockchain so the whole system is automated, distributed and tamper proof (assuming you don't hack the devices, of course).

That just punts on the problem. It's basically not solvable - at some point you have to trust humans anyway. The only reason this works well for, say, bitcoins, is that they are a digital "asset" created on the chain themselves. Everything else trying to tie a physical asset to a chain has the same problem, you can't do it without relying on trust outside the system.

I think you're fundamentally correct, but with the caveat that trust inside the system can be the basis for trust outside the system via Zahavian signalling and/or escrow. As a simple dumb example, if an institution sends a million dollars to a burn address then I can probably trust that institution to handle half a million dollars in assets at a time without screwing over their customers (if they didn't intend to act fairly and make back that money over time through sustainable business practices they wouldn't have burned it in the first place). It's trickier than that -- you have to consider whether this is a sunk cost in a given context, if all customers are on the same page about what assets the institution is handling, etc. -- but the basic idea is there. Escrow is more clever than a burn pile, but could lead to some weird situations where one side attempts to extort the other for most of the escrow's value, and simply making both sides pony up doesn't obviously solve this (though it goes a long way).

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#33

Post by blotter_paper »

sagitariusrex wrote: post #4

I don't remember who first said it but blockchain has exactly one killer feature, Bitcoin. If you try to adapt it anywhere else you're probably abusing the tech.

Read up on Namecoin and see if you still agree with that statement. Blockchain for DNS is a pretty brilliant solution, IMO.

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#34

Post by abakker »

aey wrote: post #27
abakker wrote: post #23

The supply chain argument for blockchain basically goes like this: 1. supply chains tend to require lots of coordination, but, also tend to be made of entities that are each individually maximizing for value. 2. In the past, this meant that they needed to coordinate commercially, but only just enough that the supply chain met everyone's bare minimum, contractually-defined needs. 3. typically, this mean that systems w…

I don’t see a specific need of a “blockchain” feature for this usecase. Uber didn’t need decentralization to coordinate drivers and clients. Aws/Postgres can handle the fault tolerance. FedEx already does this.

I agree, there is no need for a blockchain. But, that explanation is what has been proposed as the justification for using one.

I would counter also that neither of your examples are actually supply chains. FedEx is part of a supply chain, but only a single member. the chain includes the manufacturer, wholesaler, etc. Uber also doesn't have a supply chain with its drivers. It is not running a supply chain for that purpose, it is a marketplace.

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#35

Post by Canada »

abakker wrote: post #23

The supply chain argument for blockchain basically goes like this: 1. supply chains tend to require lots of coordination, but, also tend to be made of entities that are each individually maximizing for value. 2. In the past, this meant that they needed to coordinate commercially, but only just enough that the supply chain met everyone's bare minimum, contractually-defined needs. 3. typically, this mean that systems w…

Yeah I agree that blockchains look attractive for handling the ownership problem, but I don't believe they are necessary for cases like this. A well designed open protocol would do the job just as well.

Blockchains are for cases where double spending needs to be prevented. It seems to me that logictics merely needs to broadcast assertions by the participants. Kind of like certificate transparency.

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#36

Post by [deleted] »

Anon84 wrote: post #6
sagitariusrex wrote: post #4

I don't remember who first said it but blockchain has exactly one killer feature, Bitcoin. If you try to adapt it anywhere else you're probably abusing the tech.

I would argue that Ethereum smart contracts are much more useful than bitcoin itself. PoW, on the other hand, is a complete waste of resources.

[deleted]

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#37

Post by Deimorz »

This is Case #1 in "You Do Not Need Blockchain: Eight Popular Use Cases And Why They Do Not Work": https://blog.smartdec.net/you-do-not-need-blockchain-eight-p...

The article does a good job of explaining why blockchain doesn't add anything meaningful for this use (and other ones).

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#38

Post by itsmyrun »

cortesoft wrote: post #11

They mention there are 'misaligned interests' in supply chains, but I am not sure what interests are misaligned?

A producer is interested in maximizing profit. A consumer is interested in maximizing value.

Both parties may act to further their own interests at the expense of the other's interests.

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#39

Post by cortesoft »

itsmyrun wrote: post #38
cortesoft wrote: post #11

They mention there are 'misaligned interests' in supply chains, but I am not sure what interests are misaligned?

A producer is interested in maximizing profit. A consumer is interested in maximizing value. Both parties may act to further their own interests at the expense of the other's interests.

This is the same conflict in every marketplace exchange, and something a blockchain doesn't address.

Re: Redesigning Trust: Blockchain for Supply Chains

#40

Post by ioeatcode »

Deimorz wrote: post #37

This is Case #1 in "You Do Not Need Blockchain: Eight Popular Use Cases And Why They Do Not Work": https://blog.smartdec.net/you-do-not-need-blockchain-eight-p... The article does a good job of explaining why blockchain doesn't add anything meaningful for this use (and other ones).

The article talks about how blockchain is good at handling money transactions but in the same breath says that logic doesn't apply to supply chain management? Their analogy was extremely weak. Secondly, smart contracts? Does the author not know smart contracts are applied to supply chain as well?
Post reply on HN