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

71–80 of 196 posts

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#71

Post by noxToken »

simias wrote: post #51
maccio92 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralization is critical to cryptocurrencies, but that's just one use case on top of an entire blockchain ecosystem. Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database.

>This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database. We've had this discussion a billion times before on HN so I'll avoid a huge wall of text but it always boils down to the same conclusion: blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completel…

> blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completely pointless.

You're completely right, but I want to point out something subtle that I almost missed. For something to be considered a blockchain, it does not have to be distributed (as you noted). There can be a centralized entity (Wal-Mart) controlling the blockchain, but like you said, a controlling entity takes away trust. Without trust, Wal-Mart can still verify any tampering, but the public would still have to trust that Wal-Mart is coming forward with any discrepancies.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#72

Post by booleandilemma »

qubax wrote: post #40
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…

Yeah blockchain seems like overkill here. But the world of corporatism is just as susceptible to fads like every other subculture. It's like execs are desperate to force blockchain on every problem because it's the hip new thing. Even though most problems don't need blockchains and there are far better and simpler solutions. Similar to the nosql fad. Who needs ACID compliance? If things fail silently and we lose a fe…

It’s all about NewSql now. The cool kids recently figured out ACID is important after all.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#73

Post by stinky613 »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #65
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…

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…

But everyone involved is entering the information into the same IBM software front-end ("Food Trust")... So all players involved are using the same front-end and the same back-end, and only Walmart & IBM have the ability to change anything. How does a blockchain benefit anyone (other than IBM) in this situation?

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#74

Post by MrEfficiency »

maccio92 wrote: post #50
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…

Decentralization is critical to cryptocurrencies, but that's just one use case on top of an entire blockchain ecosystem. Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database.

>Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies.

Yes they do, or you could use a traditional database.

>This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database.

Except IBM. Hope no one at IBM is greedy... I wont hold my breath.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#75

Post by gldalmaso »

maccio92 wrote: post #50
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…

Decentralization is critical to cryptocurrencies, but that's just one use case on top of an entire blockchain ecosystem. Not all blockchains need to be decentralized, and not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies. This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database.

There are other possible solutions to auditing a database.

I work on a product in this segment (food traceability) and from experience I expect walmart to encounter possible operational issues by adopting the complexity of the blockchain into their solution.

The first one is tech-literacy. Like the article says, and is usual in this segment, producers and distributors have to adhere to the program to continue to sell to walmart. Often they just see it as a burden and don't perceive any value add for them, so they resist using it as much as possible. Data input must be incredibly simple and fast (produce can't sit in stock for long). If there is some exotic problem regarding certificates, keys or anything more elaborate than filling simple forms, then the producer will not be able to move his product until it is resolved with risk of having his shipment returned.

Unless you do all the work to set up the client side of tech, which means generating all the keys for everyone (making the whole endeavor pointless), the UX will be a major obstacle.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#76

Post by bayesian_horse »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #27
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…

Watching there "Blockchain" commercial was infuriating to me. I saw absolutely no way that the "Blockchain" was solving any meaningful problem. Unless each plant can be uniquely and irrevocably tagged from the time it's planted to the time it's in my bowl, this whole thing is useless.

The very point is that you can't tag the plant from the original producer to the individual consumer all the time. For one thing, you'd need to collect a whole lot of tags and carry them on. That would be the traditional solution.

The blockchains record transactions. Where for example a batch of soy beans and a batch of wheat go into a batch of animal feed. Then a few batches of animal feed go into a pig (or rather multiple pigs). Then the individual piggy goes to the market. To trace back your food you need to know how the sausage is made, and trace back the transactions to find out where any particular problem is coming from.

Point is: There is useful information even if certain steps can't be perfectly traced. There is value in not having to connect to a central database all the time.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#77

Post by MrEfficiency »

noxToken wrote: post #71
simias wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database. We've had this discussion a billion times before on HN so I'll avoid a huge wall of text but it always boils down to the same conclusion: blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completel…

> blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completely pointless. You're completely right, but I want to point out something subtle that I almost missed. For something to be considered a blockchain, it does not have to be distributed (as you noted). There can be a centralized entity (Wal-Mart) controlli…

>but the public would still have to trust that Wal-Mart is coming forward with any discrepancies.

The entire point of blockchain is trustless. Otherwise a walmart database would be fine.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#78

Post by vertex-four »

noxToken wrote: post #71
simias wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This specific instance grants assurance that neither Walmart or anyone in-between is tampering with the database. We've had this discussion a billion times before on HN so I'll avoid a huge wall of text but it always boils down to the same conclusion: blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completel…

> blockchains (as in bitcoin) are about being completely decentralized and trustless. It's an "and" not an "or", if you remove one of these imperatives they're completely pointless. You're completely right, but I want to point out something subtle that I almost missed. For something to be considered a blockchain, it does not have to be distributed (as you noted). There can be a centralized entity (Wal-Mart) controlli…

Sure, but they could also prevent tampering by just running a database themselves and not providing APIs that allow data to be tampered with. If they want to be able to prove it for external auditors, create a write-only audit trail the same way banks have been doing it for decades.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#79

Post by apo »

Notice how this article never clearly states specifically how a block chain solves the supply chain problem, nor does it even clearly state the problem in the first place.

A very common response to these block chain/supply chain stories is that "a block chain is just a database."

But even that statement is overly optimistic.

A block chain is a log file. It keeps a record of a sequence of state changes. All of the tamper-resistant properties we associate with Bitcoin come, not from the log file it uses, but from the economic incentives around changing the file.

So the choice isn't between a block chain and a database for these non-economically incentivized use cases such as IBM's supply chain projects. Rather, the choice is between a block chain and a dumb log file.

Re: Walmart Requires Lettuce, Spinach Suppliers to Join Blockchain

#80

Post by MrEfficiency »

absurdum wrote: post #14

Unnecessary rubbish. The article even mentions that larger growers already have a similar(one can assume non-blockchain) system in place. This is the product of excited executives listening to buzzwords and the always shameless IBM ready to play along.

Glad I asked these questions in Feburary.

Sold my alts, kept my Bitcoin.

Im seriously starting to believe in the phrase Bitcoin not Blockchain.

Post reply on HN