Australia is implementing a govt sponsored digital ID using block chain technology but with all the recent data breaches/leaks happening here, it feels like govt and companies doesn't care much for data privacy and security. Curious how blockchain ledgers can be secured cause otherwise, it just feels like it'll be a big PII goldmine for criminals.
On the topic of food, I recalls blockchain being proposed in chocolate supply chain to authenticate that the cocoa origins were ethical. Wonder if that ever came into fruition and if not, why.
On the cocoa front—yes, blockchain traceability made big promises for ethical sourcing in chocolate! Some groups (like Tony’s Chocolonely and a few industry pilots) did run with it, tracking beans farm-to-bar and even publishing some data. But massive, industry-wide adoption hit snags—cost, lack of farmer tech, and, weirdly, the need for trust in what gets entered in the first place. If the first step in the chain fudges the truth, the blockchain just preserves the fudge🥲. Lots of pilots, but the dream of totally transparent cocoa is still a work in progress.
Good points!! Absolutely feel you about the leaks on Australia’s push for digital ID using blockchain technology. This is an example of a design that is not well thought-through. Even though blockchains are supposed to offer tamper-resistance through their design, but they aren’t immune to trouble if the info put on-chain isn’t protected from the start. Public ledgers are great until someone stores personal info the wrong way—then, as you say, it’s a permanent goldmine for the wrong crowd. The real trick is to keep private info off-chain (using hashes, pointers, or encrypted stashes), but as we’ve seen, both governments and companies sometimes cut corners. Feels like we’re still learning that “immutable” doesn’t always mean “invulnerable.” Take Singapore for example, blockchain technology is also used for its national identity system. However it is used specifically for digital verification and identity management. Private information are not out there for everyone to access and is still stored in an encrypted format off the chain.
I am curious about the Walmart example. Let's take mangoes as an example. If each mango is a node in the blockchain and each node collects information regarding its own mango's activities' and its neighbor mangos' activities'.. do they put a chip on each mango? And I guess each chip has some kind of communication capabilities so it can talk to neighboring chips..? How big are the chips and how much do they cost?
More than a chip, maybe a bar code or a QR code that takes them to the life of the mango digitally? Of course that means it is corruptible (someone can peel off this specific QR code label and replace it with a different one). But then again, the someone will have to peel off a whole batch of barcodes and replace them with different ones to successfully corrupt the batch on the shelves. This is actually already piloted by Walmart, IBM and the likes: https://www.croptracker.com/blog/barcode-to-blockchain-emerging-technology-in-traceabilty.html
I was reading the "glimpse into the mainstream blockchain" and was exactly thinking what you ended up writing below on the "challenges". How on earth would the entities that manage a digital identity blockchain suddenly integrate with a blockchain managed by a supermarket or by an electricity utility..? The nature of blockchain does not seem very flexible in regard to interoperability.
In addition, many of these industries need (or want) to have full control over the digital product they are offering, which goes against the design of blockchain. For the example of the energy transactions between neighbors, who would develop and maintain the blockchain? An electricity utility in charge of maintaining power stability in a distribution grid needs to have the ultimate say on how power is being exchanged over their grid - it would be great to just let all their consumers exchange power freely, but the reality is that the grid has its physical limitations. This probably needs to be centrally managed by the utility - I don't see a utility letting an external "digital being" completely in charge of maintaining power stability (even though it could probably be technically possible). If it has a central point of decision, it no longer is blockchain..
Great points! I think that is one of the reasons why blockchain has yet to fully take front and centre stage on everything. That said, you should read up more on private blockchains! (Maybe an idea for a future issue)
Private blockchains are permissioned networks where access and participation are restricted to specific individuals or groups, unlike public blockchains which are open to anyone. In private blockchains. you can also have a controlling entity who would have the ability to override, edit, or delete entries. There are also permissioned blockchains where you can give different levels of permission to different levels of users. It is still considered a blockchain as it still utilises a distributed ledger technology where information is recorded and shared across multiple participant nodes so everyone can see what information is edited or deleted even by the controlling entity. Powered by blockchain technology, it still employs a consensus mechanism (although it might differ from public blockchains) to validate and verify transactions and maintain the integrity of the ledger! Of course, it is less decentralised and have higher security risks due to the smaller number of points that needs to be corrupted (vs public blockchain where the whole chain needs to be corrupted, a private one might have 5 points in which to corrupt to over write the records).
Many of the areas where blockchain technology has been implemented today are most likely private blockchains (like medical records for example). Private blockchains are typically more scalable and you can impose rules on how the technology shall be applied. See if you come across an area where blockchain technology is applied and look into if it is a public or private blockchain! Hope this helps!
Australia is implementing a govt sponsored digital ID using block chain technology but with all the recent data breaches/leaks happening here, it feels like govt and companies doesn't care much for data privacy and security. Curious how blockchain ledgers can be secured cause otherwise, it just feels like it'll be a big PII goldmine for criminals.
On the topic of food, I recalls blockchain being proposed in chocolate supply chain to authenticate that the cocoa origins were ethical. Wonder if that ever came into fruition and if not, why.
On the cocoa front—yes, blockchain traceability made big promises for ethical sourcing in chocolate! Some groups (like Tony’s Chocolonely and a few industry pilots) did run with it, tracking beans farm-to-bar and even publishing some data. But massive, industry-wide adoption hit snags—cost, lack of farmer tech, and, weirdly, the need for trust in what gets entered in the first place. If the first step in the chain fudges the truth, the blockchain just preserves the fudge🥲. Lots of pilots, but the dream of totally transparent cocoa is still a work in progress.
Good points!! Absolutely feel you about the leaks on Australia’s push for digital ID using blockchain technology. This is an example of a design that is not well thought-through. Even though blockchains are supposed to offer tamper-resistance through their design, but they aren’t immune to trouble if the info put on-chain isn’t protected from the start. Public ledgers are great until someone stores personal info the wrong way—then, as you say, it’s a permanent goldmine for the wrong crowd. The real trick is to keep private info off-chain (using hashes, pointers, or encrypted stashes), but as we’ve seen, both governments and companies sometimes cut corners. Feels like we’re still learning that “immutable” doesn’t always mean “invulnerable.” Take Singapore for example, blockchain technology is also used for its national identity system. However it is used specifically for digital verification and identity management. Private information are not out there for everyone to access and is still stored in an encrypted format off the chain.
I am curious about the Walmart example. Let's take mangoes as an example. If each mango is a node in the blockchain and each node collects information regarding its own mango's activities' and its neighbor mangos' activities'.. do they put a chip on each mango? And I guess each chip has some kind of communication capabilities so it can talk to neighboring chips..? How big are the chips and how much do they cost?
I guess I need to do my own research.. oh my..!
More than a chip, maybe a bar code or a QR code that takes them to the life of the mango digitally? Of course that means it is corruptible (someone can peel off this specific QR code label and replace it with a different one). But then again, the someone will have to peel off a whole batch of barcodes and replace them with different ones to successfully corrupt the batch on the shelves. This is actually already piloted by Walmart, IBM and the likes: https://www.croptracker.com/blog/barcode-to-blockchain-emerging-technology-in-traceabilty.html
I was reading the "glimpse into the mainstream blockchain" and was exactly thinking what you ended up writing below on the "challenges". How on earth would the entities that manage a digital identity blockchain suddenly integrate with a blockchain managed by a supermarket or by an electricity utility..? The nature of blockchain does not seem very flexible in regard to interoperability.
In addition, many of these industries need (or want) to have full control over the digital product they are offering, which goes against the design of blockchain. For the example of the energy transactions between neighbors, who would develop and maintain the blockchain? An electricity utility in charge of maintaining power stability in a distribution grid needs to have the ultimate say on how power is being exchanged over their grid - it would be great to just let all their consumers exchange power freely, but the reality is that the grid has its physical limitations. This probably needs to be centrally managed by the utility - I don't see a utility letting an external "digital being" completely in charge of maintaining power stability (even though it could probably be technically possible). If it has a central point of decision, it no longer is blockchain..
Great points! I think that is one of the reasons why blockchain has yet to fully take front and centre stage on everything. That said, you should read up more on private blockchains! (Maybe an idea for a future issue)
Private blockchains are permissioned networks where access and participation are restricted to specific individuals or groups, unlike public blockchains which are open to anyone. In private blockchains. you can also have a controlling entity who would have the ability to override, edit, or delete entries. There are also permissioned blockchains where you can give different levels of permission to different levels of users. It is still considered a blockchain as it still utilises a distributed ledger technology where information is recorded and shared across multiple participant nodes so everyone can see what information is edited or deleted even by the controlling entity. Powered by blockchain technology, it still employs a consensus mechanism (although it might differ from public blockchains) to validate and verify transactions and maintain the integrity of the ledger! Of course, it is less decentralised and have higher security risks due to the smaller number of points that needs to be corrupted (vs public blockchain where the whole chain needs to be corrupted, a private one might have 5 points in which to corrupt to over write the records).
Many of the areas where blockchain technology has been implemented today are most likely private blockchains (like medical records for example). Private blockchains are typically more scalable and you can impose rules on how the technology shall be applied. See if you come across an area where blockchain technology is applied and look into if it is a public or private blockchain! Hope this helps!
Thanks!