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

71–80 of 154 posts

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

#71

Post by fishB »

drcode wrote: post #52
fishB wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What blockchain technology are you going with? I find the private blockchain technologies (Hyperledger Fabric, Hyperledger Sawtooth) superior for these types of applications especially since Fabric implemented private data.

Why not just store the data privately in a traditional database? A blockchain needs to be public to offer significant benefits compared to databases.

Because they offer consensus among multiple organizations.

Also is good for supply chain tracking.

But I understand why people avoid the blockchain space altogether. There was so many bad projects that were not suitable for the tech when all the hype was going on. Not to mention all the cryptocurrency scams. Fortunately a lot of the private blockchain tech has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.

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

#72

Post by mhluongo »

IncRnd wrote: post #57
hschoenburg wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS -> https://handshake.org

Have you considered the downside of an attack against such a DNS system? That is a severe drawback to handshake that limits trust in such a system. This exemplifies the argument you are trying to refute, that using a blockchain as a solution is often poor design.

Care to explain that hand-wavy downside?

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

#73

Post by drcode »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #19
drcode wrote: post #17

As someone who is a CEO of a medical blockchain startup which is trying to find actual meaningful use cases, I agree 100% with the conclusions of this post. (finding actual convincing use cases in the medical space for this tech is hard)

so...why are you still the CEO of a medical blockchain startup? Surely you escorted yourself off the premises by now? ;) But seriously, isn't this putting the cart before the horse? The usual order is "find a problem, build a solution", not "find a technology, build a solution, work out who has a problem it can solve". How's that working out for you?

> How's that working out for you?

It's a slow process, for exactly the reasons you describe- in fact, I've quoted that exact same line of reasoning many times myself.

The reason to work in this area regardless is because there are definitely large opportunities long term.

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

#74

Post by monkeydreams »

I work in this space and I am hard pressed to see where blockchain could improve patient control of data. The real problem that I have is that health data rules and workflows are completely unlike any other type of data I have worked with. Ownership of data, attribution of information, interoperability, all of these elements are context dependent. Centralised, independent storage of information so that all healthcare providers (with the patient's permission) can access critical records is a much simpler solution. It is still complex, but at least you don't have the byzantine bullshit of the blockchain sitting beneath it.

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

#75

Post by darawk »

acdha wrote: post #68
darawk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that dis-intermediating banks for electronic funds transfer is not an application?

Okay, let’s see: how does that benefit me in real, tangible terms? What risks does it have - for example, do users take on responsibility for fraud risk?

> 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 is a positive and a negative, of course.
  - Risk that you improperly handle your private key and have your funds stolen.

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

#76

Post by darawk »

Avshalom wrote: post #70
darawk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that dis-intermediating banks for electronic funds transfer is not an application?

unless you can spend the bitcoin, raw, then you now have two intermediaries: the currency-bitcoin on your end and the bitcoin-currency on the other end.

You can spend bitcoin. With regards to the two-intermediaries point though, that can be preferable to the one in some situations (e.g. international remittance).

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

#77

Post by drcode »

fishB wrote: post #71
drcode wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just store the data privately in a traditional database? A blockchain needs to be public to offer significant benefits compared to databases.

Because they offer consensus among multiple organizations. Also is good for supply chain tracking. But I understand why people avoid the blockchain space altogether. There was so many bad projects that were not suitable for the tech when all the hype was going on. Not to mention all the cryptocurrency scams. Fortunately a lot of the private blockchain tech has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.

Yeah I used to think this too at one point, but it's much easier to just have multiple companies share a database- the idea that a consortium chain is somehow better than this hasn't born out empirically so far, in my opinion. Things are different with true public blockchains, they really do have some novel use cases.

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

#78

Post by Ninjaneered »

WalterSear wrote: post #62
chris_wot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could tell me even one application of this technology outside of cryptocurrency, I'd genuinely be interested.

* Decentralized, anonymized reputation management. Imagine an ebay score that couldn't be owned by ebay, or any another company. * Decentralized digital Asset ownership verification. Again, imagine facebook without a facebook. Or imagine purchase a music or software token that you could use on any provider, and never expired. Sign up for a new streaming service and take all your songs/videos/games with you from the o…

> Decentralized, anonymized reputation management. Imagine an ebay score that couldn't be owned by ebay, or any another company

This reputation system is one application I'd really like to see in the future. It's silly that we have sepearte silos of reputation (eBay, Amazon, credit scores, etc.) that are each controlled by a company. In our increasingly global world, who would we trust to govern this system? Seems like a legitimate application for a blockchain (including consensus).

Post reply on HN