Live data from Hacker News

Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

blogs.wsj.com

131–140 of 196 posts

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. The blockchain does not solve the trust issue in this scenario. Blockchains only work there is a verify unit entirely enclosed in the system - including the origins of any "unit" on the system. * Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc - "coins" are a completely digital concept fully enclosed by the system. "coins" are generated in…

Excellent response. Though here is another perspective I thought of. What the usage of blockchain would allow is a chain of liability to exist among different companies in the supply chain. If you are signing off on a product, you are verifying the authenticity of the item, and if it arrives defective at the next location you assume liability. As a customer, what you would really leverage, is the incentive of every i…

But since it's working with legal liability there's no need for blockchain. That can be done through standard contracts and having companies certify that their items are authentic. You still need such a contract with a blockchain, all the blockchain adds is some complexity.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. The blockchain does not solve the trust issue in this scenario. Blockchains only work there is a verify unit entirely enclosed in the system - including the origins of any "unit" on the system. * Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc - "coins" are a completely digital concept fully enclosed by the system. "coins" are generated in…

Excellent response. Though here is another perspective I thought of. What the usage of blockchain would allow is a chain of liability to exist among different companies in the supply chain. If you are signing off on a product, you are verifying the authenticity of the item, and if it arrives defective at the next location you assume liability. As a customer, what you would really leverage, is the incentive of every i…

> I think large business definitely has incentive to minimize liability through something like this.

I agree. I think that's one of my big problems with this.

It seems like it's going to be a way for [Walmart] to point the blame at some supplier. They can say "look we implemented the blockchain. X supplier said they did THING and they didn't. Not our fault".

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. The blockchain does not solve the trust issue in this scenario. Blockchains only work there is a verify unit entirely enclosed in the system - including the origins of any "unit" on the system. * Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc - "coins" are a completely digital concept fully enclosed by the system. "coins" are generated in…

Excellent response. Though here is another perspective I thought of. What the usage of blockchain would allow is a chain of liability to exist among different companies in the supply chain. If you are signing off on a product, you are verifying the authenticity of the item, and if it arrives defective at the next location you assume liability. As a customer, what you would really leverage, is the incentive of every i…

[deleted]

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's a buzzword, but at least intuitively, a signed blockchain (in the true sense that each block contains a hash of the previous block) does seem to confer some additional security over a plain database. A plain database would give you a log of events and who logged them, but security and trust resides in the database and how it's authenticated. Anyone with sufficient permissions could modify the databa…

Most of the security bonuses feel anemic when it's still humans entering data into a system to track food vs. how cryptocurrencies use blockchains to track transactions. But now you've also raised the technical requirements and are betting the security on non-technical farmers and farm staff. Even if they have technical chops since farm equipment is more complex these days, they likely don't have security chops. Ther…

I think there are two key points to making such a system work:

1. Packaging it in such a way that it's easy to use for non-technical users.

2. There still has to be a mechanism for establishing trust in the public keys registered in such a system.

For one I'd imagine that farmers are doing some amount of work to go from raw "lettuce in the ground" to "one unit of shipment". Once it's a unit of shipment it could have an ID/Bar/QRcode generated that is then scanned with a handheld scanner that has its own keypair. The scanners keypair would be registered with the farm and so the farm would either explicitly sign off on the package or implicitly have signed that scanners pair as trusted by the farm. So a farmer and farmstaff wouldn't need any technical know how beyond operating a scanner. Depending on the farm adding such a granular tracking system may or may not be easy to implement.

For two, I can see two options. Walmart could verify every step of the chain themselves and register/receive the public key for each step in the chain. (So a farm would register with Walmart as a verified producer, a shipping company would register, etc). Or each step of the change could make a binary decision to trust the step before it and apply pressure down chain to resolve issues, since theoretically each step could fabricate the entire chain before passing it off. In this scenario, Walmart would go to the shipping company and say "E. Coli was detected in Shipment X. We no longer want to be sourced produce from Producer Y. The shipping company then takes this into account when sourcing produce, or else Walmart discontinues business with them.

I think the big benefit is by having an associated public key, you can verify the claimed identity of any agent in the chain and build trust in that agent over time. You could keep popping up disposable proxy farms, but Walmart/Shipping provider/X doesn't have any reason to trust your proxy farm's shipments; you have to establish trust either directly with a buyer of your produce, or establish trust over time as a commodity provider. As you build trust you can probably get better prices.

I'm by no means a blockchain advocate or a supply chain manager of any kind, just doing a thought experiment of how blockchains might be effectively applied in such a scenario. There very well might be better solutions, but I think at the very least a blockchain presents an interesting or novel solution.

Just thinking through, you could also create a sort of "doubly linked list" and include who custody was given to as part of each block, so a farmer is signing a claim of who they gave their produce to. {Farm A produced unit of Lettuce X, Given to Shipper B, }[Farm A signed]

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#135

IBM is quietly brushing its Watson mess under the carpet and now they’re trying to focus on blockchain. However this is just as substanceless and full of marketing fluff as Watson was. There’s nothing being done here that couldn’t or shouldn’t just be handled with a traditional database. Having IBM “run it” also sort of defeats the whole decentralized aspect of blockchain technologies. You don’t need “blockchain” to…

I’m glad to hear more people slicing through the bullshit on this. I’m building a company that aims to build a centralized and impartial means to trace food through the supply chain. Every time I pitch this to people the first thing they’ll do is cock their heads and say... “so is this going to be blockchain?!” and I have to explain in layman’s terms why that’s not necessary nor beneficial.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#136
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's compare the same things, then. 73 million Americans are infected with E.coli every year and 5,000 die. Only 5 died in this outbreak. You think that number was significantly reduced because it was announced that there was a single small outbreak? The outbreak was minor, but the effect on the economy and people's state of mind was overwhelmingly more powerful. It's fine to notify an at risk population if you can,…

What are you talking about? "CDC estimates that each year STEC [Shiga toxin-producing E. coli] causes 265,000 illness, 3,600 hospitalizations and 30 deaths in the United States." https://www.cdc.gov/features/ecoliinfection/index.html

Sorry, I misquoted: it's 75 million cases of food borne illness in general, and 5,000 deaths, using older statistics from smaller population sizes.

Using your stats, this outbreak was responsible for 0.1% of e.coli illnesses and 1/6th the deaths. But it's also 1/300,000 of the overall food poisoning illnesses, and 0.1% of the deaths.

So it hit the lettuce industry significantly harder than normal, even though the actual effect on health was minimal compared to the norm.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#137
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's a buzzword, but at least intuitively, a signed blockchain (in the true sense that each block contains a hash of the previous block) does seem to confer some additional security over a plain database. A plain database would give you a log of events and who logged them, but security and trust resides in the database and how it's authenticated. Anyone with sufficient permissions could modify the databa…

So a git repo with signed commits ?

Basically yeah. You probably aren't gonna be adding rebasing functionality to your supply chain git repo.

But again, that's why I mentioned a blockchain in the true sense, as a chain of blocks containing a hash of previous blocks, because git is a blockchain by that definition.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, a blockchain is a decentralized database which does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. I can see why that would be something worth doing in a food chain. To trace, for example, a particular load of soy beans to a customer eating a steak, there are a couple of completely autonomous companies/sole proprietors involved. From the original…

> As I understand it, a blockchain is a decentralized database which does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. Specifically, perfect trust in the log itself . Blockchain gives you a guard against someone trying to retroactively tamper with the log. It doesn't give you a whole lot of help with the points where data enters the log in the first place. e.g., th…

I agree. The append-only nature of blocks chained together using hashes can build the most tamper-proof transaction log i can imagine. Even without mining/consensus algorithm and with it only being centrally host (but still published), i can upload a file to e.g. some government agency, see the file hash appear in the block and save the block hash. As long as that same block hash is used to continue the chain, upcoming block hashes would have to change to remove my entry from that chain-log.

I would love such cryptographically safe systems actually being used, especially whenever we don't trust the db operator. E.g. for Reddit admins it might lessen the appeal to alter posts again :D

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#139

IBM is quietly brushing its Watson mess under the carpet and now they’re trying to focus on blockchain. However this is just as substanceless and full of marketing fluff as Watson was. There’s nothing being done here that couldn’t or shouldn’t just be handled with a traditional database. Having IBM “run it” also sort of defeats the whole decentralized aspect of blockchain technologies. You don’t need “blockchain” to…

As I understand it, a blockchain is a decentralized database which does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity and perfect trust all the time. I can see why that would be something worth doing in a food chain. To trace, for example, a particular load of soy beans to a customer eating a steak, there are a couple of completely autonomous companies/sole proprietors involved. From the original…

> blockchain is a decentralized database which does not require the individual instances to have perfect connectivity

Only because in the case of a fork it has a defined way to choose whose work to throw away.

You cannot meaningfully operate on a blockchain like bitcoin while disconnected from the majority. Each fork will be internally consistent, and you can continue to work on it if you like - you probably wouldn't even notice anything wrong, but at some point you'll connect to the longer chain and an arbitrary amount of history will be blown away.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#140
post #60

IBM is quietly brushing its Watson mess under the carpet and now they’re trying to focus on blockchain. However this is just as substanceless and full of marketing fluff as Watson was. There’s nothing being done here that couldn’t or shouldn’t just be handled with a traditional database. Having IBM “run it” also sort of defeats the whole decentralized aspect of blockchain technologies. You don’t need “blockchain” to…

IBM really seems stuck in their old systems / and at some level doesn't understand what to do with new systems. I was talking to someone who was using the "IBM cloud". They went to spin up some servers and etc and IBM was all "that will take a few weeks, we have to install them". At least to me "cloud" includes the ability to spin stuff up on demand.... IBM was operating it like you were ordering from a very old co-l…

One of my close family friends (an endocrinologist) participated in a Watson study at Yale New Haven Hospital. Apparently the amount of effort required to input the patient medical history from paper/other EMR into Watson's system was astronomical compared to just doing the analysis themselves. It sounded like it was mainly a UX issue but that's indicative of IBM's understanding of their market.
Post reply on HN