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

Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#171

Post by lgeorget »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #154
tveita wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

That would only happen if the two forks contain inconsistent information, right?

The fact that there is a fork is a inconsistency per se. The log must be a linear chain of blocks, that's enforced by the protocol. If there's a fork, eventually all the diverging subchains but one (the longest) will disappear.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#172

Post by lifeisstillgood »

code4tee wrote: post #18

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…

Does it matter ? Walmart is saying "jump" to 1,000 small suppliers, and next year they will say "jump" to 100,000 suppliers

At some point other businesses will say "if a freaking lettuce grower is putting their supply chain on the blockchain, why the hell aren't we?"

Somewhere there is a tipping point - and then logistics is done through dozens of "private" blockchains, which i will better is orders of magnitude simpler and more efficient than now.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#173

Post by 0xfeba »

bunderbunder wrote: post #123
x2398dh1 wrote: post #38

Since so many comments on this thread are so absolutely negative, I will try to play devil's advocate here. Is a given blockchain a more efficient database? Not efficient measured by percent of data stored in any given entry, which of course throughput and any other, "engineering metric," will suffer because of that. As an engineer, the idea of wasted energy, memory, space, etc., makes one cringe. Efficient from the…

I really wish I could remember where I read this so I could give proper credit -- Somewhere I read a helpful way to rephrase "blockchain" that really helps cut to the heart of the issue when you're dealing with technical questions like this: A blockchain is just an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series. So, when you've got someone saying, "What if we use blockchain?"…

I always phrase it as, "how does a distributed ledger solve this?"

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#174

Post by bunderbunder »

sah2ed wrote: post #161
bunderbunder wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish I could remember where I read this so I could give proper credit -- Somewhere I read a helpful way to rephrase "blockchain" that really helps cut to the heart of the issue when you're dealing with technical questions like this: A blockchain is just an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series. So, when you've got someone saying, "What if we use blockchain?"…

> A blockchain is just an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series. Mentioning the hash is an implementation detail -- it is what gives blockchains their immutability property. So I'd say even simpler: a blockchain is merely an append-only register that can be used by multiple parties.

It is absolutely an implementation detail.

But it's also the defining characteristic - it's the essential thing that sets blockchains apart from all the many other ways you could create an append-only register that can be used by multiple parties.

The fact that the hash is both an implementation detail and the defining characteristic is exactly why, IMO, "blockchain" is an inappropriate word to use in most business plans. Implementation details as a headline feature of your elevator pitch is a classic characteristic of a solution in search of a problem.

As far as I'm aware, nobody was talking about peer-to-peer supply chain management before "blockchain" became a buzzword. Probably because you don't need peer-to-peer when you have a natural central authority. The organization whose supply chain it is in the first place, for example.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#175

Post by austinjp »

0xfeba wrote: post #173
bunderbunder wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish I could remember where I read this so I could give proper credit -- Somewhere I read a helpful way to rephrase "blockchain" that really helps cut to the heart of the issue when you're dealing with technical questions like this: A blockchain is just an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series. So, when you've got someone saying, "What if we use blockchain?"…

I always phrase it as, "how does a distributed ledger solve this?"

Bingo. The exact phrase I use. Sometimes I chuck in "permanent" and "public" depending on context.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#176

Post by Spooky23 »

simias wrote: post #147
Spooky23 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PKI model is awesome for less dynamic environments. Factories and suppliers are a great example of that. Produce is more dynamic and 100% cost driven. You have multiple, unsophisticated suppliers that shift based on season, weather, etc. These folks are located in the middle of nowhere in many cases and may or may not have connectivity. Carting the produce from these suppliers to distribution is performed by any…

Surely legally speaking they have to do a minimum amount of vetting for their suppliers. They also probably need to negotiate prices and quantities at the very least. Sending the supplier a certificate in the process doesn't seem particularly complex (especially since it's easily fully automated and no more complicated than setting up a blockchain "account", however that works). I mean what are you proposing exactly,…

The digital good is the chain of custody and timeline associated with the physical good. Money has always been a proxy for physical goods -- if you look at the Best Buy annual report, they don't tell you how many TVs are in stock, they tell you the value of inventory.

I know nothing about what is actually happening here, I'm speaking to a high-level process.

It seems logical that a workflow might look like this:

- All parties must have a supported application.

- Supplier scans carton labels as they are palletized and loaded into the truck. (you have a singed attestation that pallet x was loaded on truck y at location z)

- Truck is scanned on arrival at cross-dock.

- Cartons are scanned as they are loaded into various trucks for delivery. (you know how long the cold-chain was broken for perishables and who supplied what store)

- Cartons are scanned on arrival and scanned when shelved.

- Cartons are scanned when pulled and stocked.

The problem that you are solving is that at every step of the process, the process is at least partially out of Wal-Mart's control and every contractor has an incentive to either not track things or lie. If there is an e. coli outbreak, WalMart may destroy $5M of lettuce from Arizona where in reality they only needed to destroy $500k of lettuce from farmer X.

Is it the best solution? I have no idea.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#177

Post by TheColorYellow »

abakker wrote: post #119
bayesian_horse wrote: post #65

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…

This is an important insight. A key characteristic of a "supply chain" is that no one company really "owns" it, and so integration to centralized systems is frequently unattractive. If a blockchain provides a decentralized repository for data, and the data that is stored can be effectively masked, then it gains real value. If it is just decentralized supply chain dropbox, then it doesn't do much. User account securit…

This is the biggest factor in why a "centralized" database or even a distributed one for that matter doesn't adequately provide the same value that IBM is bringing here.

This also quite obviously a DLT solution and not a blockchain...but it seems like a lot of people are missing that point in this thread.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#178

Post by TheColorYellow »

bunderbunder wrote: post #174
sah2ed wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A blockchain is just an ordered series of files, each of which contains a hash of the previous one in the series. Mentioning the hash is an implementation detail -- it is what gives blockchains their immutability property. So I'd say even simpler: a blockchain is merely an append-only register that can be used by multiple parties.

It is absolutely an implementation detail. But it's also the defining characteristic - it's the essential thing that sets blockchains apart from all the many other ways you could create an append-only register that can be used by multiple parties. The fact that the hash is both an implementation detail and the defining characteristic is exactly why, IMO, "blockchain" is an inappropriate word to use in most business p…

Supply chains aren't really owned by a single entity, right? Walmart may be the biggest actor and driver of requirements but they don't own anything beyond the specific services they are paying for. Its a complicated system of actors - which is where something like a DLT or blockchain can help bring together in a more cohesive way.

Agree with everything else you said.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#179

Post by TheColorYellow »

code4tee wrote: post #18

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…

"There’s nothing being done here that couldn’t or shouldn’t just be handled with a traditional database."

Okay, I'll bite. A few questions that I think lead to the idea of a DLT system being an appropriate fit:

If it's a single

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#180

Post by undersuit »

Slartie wrote: post #34
x2398dh1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does anything in this article or anywhere in the title does it say the word, "Decentralized?" Where are you getting that from?

If it's not intended to be a decentralized system in the first place, the "blockchain" aspect is useless and turns from being a clever hack that allows to generate a certain level of trust from distributed participants, thus enabling the decentralization in the first place, to a marketing ploy that, if not just being lip-service but actually implemented, is a huge resource hog and severely reduces scalability and mai…

What if the biggest feature about using the blockchain isn't that it's an open ledger that resists tampering from untrustworthy agents but that it has lots of hype?
Post reply on HN