According to new research from Deloitte, 74 percent of large companies (with sales over $500 million) see a “compelling business case” for blockchain technology.
Indeed, from supply chain management and regulatory monitoring to recruiting and healthcare, organizations are applying blockchain to their business models to revolutionize how they track and verify transactions.
It’s not a fake or fundamentally useless technology, but everyone who doesn’t understand it is rushing to figure out how they’re gonna claim to use it.
Yeah, when someone just describes blockchain, saying “I guess we could use it for supply chain tracking or healthcare tracking or whatever” is a reasonable first impression.
The problems show up the second you start thinking about how to actually implement the damn thing. You don’t need a blockchain for logistics or healthcare tracking. It has no inherent advantage over regular databases. It doesn’t solve organisational issues. It’s just a slow trustless distributed append-only database. It’s good when you need a trustless distributed append-only database! Most people don’t need one.
Same thing with AI technologies, just a bit different in that it’s somewhat more useful. They’re good and useful technologies and they have plenty of perfectly valid usecases. Then the tech bros started going “Maybe we could use AI for some weird wacky obscure niche and charge a lot of money for it?” or “we’re going this wacky crap whether you want it or not, we don’t care what it’s necessary for us to do to make it happen, and we’ll charge a lot of money for it”.
So: A company had a problem with invoices. They made an invoice management system. The problem was solved. Wow. Never saw that coming.
Without the details, it’s hard to see how blockchain specifically was the magic ingredient. Not saying it wasn’t, just saying this was already a problem that was solved long before the blockchain.
The invoice management system is owned by the whole supply chain. It is not a database run by walmart.
The problem wasn’t solved before blockchain because centralized databases do not have the administrative flexibility to respond to a changing supply chain. A central administrator only sees one layer deep.
What if - hear me out - you build a centralised database, and then give appropriate access to all of the actors in in the system? Like most people have been doing forever?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system? Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database? What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system?
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
Oh yes. Centralised systems are faster cheaper and easier to maintain. But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
I had to rewrite this because it got eaten by the browser. Sorry if this appears as a duplicate or something.
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database?
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database. Doing business with companies generally involves clearly defined contracts. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
If you mean that this system is harming the other company’s ability to engage in business with others, that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system, because that’s the big company’s way of doing business. If you mean that selling end product to someone else would violate some kind of contract, that activity is happening outside of the system to begin with. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
This is a design issue, not a technical one. Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it. Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available. Blockchain doesn’t help or hinder this either way.
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders. Again, this is a design and organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t inherently fix this. In traditional business systems, if some of these stakeholders have special requirements, these can be bridged over through interoperability, rather than building an unified distributed system. Invoice numbers go a long way. There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
Disagree about the latter two and I already addressed them. Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability, it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates). And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database.
Traditional invoicing is bilateral. You have no idea about the components that make up the end product being invoiced. Solving this is both organisational and technical.
What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system,
Not if you are looking further up or down the supply chain. Someone providing components will not be able to predict the final destination so will be unable to interact with the correct proprietary system.
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it.
If access to that system can be altered at the whim of the database owner then it is unacceptable
Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available.
If information needs to be published in a public, immutable, traceable manner. Then Blockchain is the only technology that can solve this.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders.
If it can be altered then there is no guarantee if business for stakeholders. They will not engage.
There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
You are now describing Blockchain technology. Primary keys are held by each stakeholder and uniqueness is cryptographicly guaranteed.
Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability,
So blockchain does solve it.
it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates).
Nor was this claimed.
And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
Because you want money. Businesses want a solution where trusting a particular organisation isn’t necessary.
Reminds me of Blockchain
It’s not a fake or fundamentally useless technology, but everyone who doesn’t understand it is rushing to figure out how they’re gonna claim to use it.
Yeah, when someone just describes blockchain, saying “I guess we could use it for supply chain tracking or healthcare tracking or whatever” is a reasonable first impression.
The problems show up the second you start thinking about how to actually implement the damn thing. You don’t need a blockchain for logistics or healthcare tracking. It has no inherent advantage over regular databases. It doesn’t solve organisational issues. It’s just a slow trustless distributed append-only database. It’s good when you need a trustless distributed append-only database! Most people don’t need one.
Same thing with AI technologies, just a bit different in that it’s somewhat more useful. They’re good and useful technologies and they have plenty of perfectly valid usecases. Then the tech bros started going “Maybe we could use AI for some weird wacky obscure niche and charge a lot of money for it?” or “we’re going this wacky crap whether you want it or not, we don’t care what it’s necessary for us to do to make it happen, and we’ll charge a lot of money for it”.
https://hbr.org/2022/01/how-walmart-canada-uses-blockchain-to-solve-supply-chain-challenges
So: A company had a problem with invoices. They made an invoice management system. The problem was solved. Wow. Never saw that coming.
Without the details, it’s hard to see how blockchain specifically was the magic ingredient. Not saying it wasn’t, just saying this was already a problem that was solved long before the blockchain.
The invoice management system is owned by the whole supply chain. It is not a database run by walmart.
The problem wasn’t solved before blockchain because centralized databases do not have the administrative flexibility to respond to a changing supply chain. A central administrator only sees one layer deep.
What if - hear me out - you build a centralised database, and then give appropriate access to all of the actors in in the system? Like most people have been doing forever?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system? Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database? What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else? What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
Oh yes. Centralised systems are faster cheaper and easier to maintain. But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
I had to rewrite this because it got eaten by the browser. Sorry if this appears as a duplicate or something.
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database. Doing business with companies generally involves clearly defined contracts. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
If you mean that this system is harming the other company’s ability to engage in business with others, that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system, because that’s the big company’s way of doing business. If you mean that selling end product to someone else would violate some kind of contract, that activity is happening outside of the system to begin with. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
This is a design issue, not a technical one. Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it. Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available. Blockchain doesn’t help or hinder this either way.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders. Again, this is a design and organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t inherently fix this. In traditional business systems, if some of these stakeholders have special requirements, these can be bridged over through interoperability, rather than building an unified distributed system. Invoice numbers go a long way. There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
Disagree about the latter two and I already addressed them. Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability, it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates). And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
Traditional invoicing is bilateral. You have no idea about the components that make up the end product being invoiced. Solving this is both organisational and technical.
Not if you are looking further up or down the supply chain. Someone providing components will not be able to predict the final destination so will be unable to interact with the correct proprietary system.
If access to that system can be altered at the whim of the database owner then it is unacceptable
If information needs to be published in a public, immutable, traceable manner. Then Blockchain is the only technology that can solve this.
If it can be altered then there is no guarantee if business for stakeholders. They will not engage.
You are now describing Blockchain technology. Primary keys are held by each stakeholder and uniqueness is cryptographicly guaranteed.
So blockchain does solve it.
Nor was this claimed.
Because you want money. Businesses want a solution where trusting a particular organisation isn’t necessary.