7
8

Supply chain management by blockchain. (self.Buttcoin)

endmathabusenow が 投稿

Provenance shows a case study of using the blockchain to insure tuna is produced by socially and environmentally acceptable methods. provenance tuna tacking case study

Don't these sound contradictory?

A centralized system, with a governing third party was, until recently, the only conceivable way to achieve data and transaction transparency. The truth is that no single organization can be responsible for making data throughout a whole supply chain transparent. Third parties like NGOs or industry associations, rarely manage even one of these two aspects of transparency, and even if they could, they would become a single point of weakness.

But later. Who decides which producers can register as certified??...

The social and environmental conditions for the fishermen at the point of capture are verified through trusted local NGOs, whose audit systems validate their compliance to an external standard, resulting in their eligibility to participate in the Provenance-validated chain of custody.

Does this emperor have clothes???

全 54 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]jstolfi 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does this emperor have clothes???

It would be against his enlightened self-interest.

[–]SnapshillBot 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We verified that against the blockchain.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

  2. provenance tuna tacking case study - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]SomeThinkingGuy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What a joke. They've forgot to mention that the blockchain is a centralized system. And on top of that, it is a very costly system. If you really care about tunas instead of ponzi schemes, it's much better to have many NGOs keep the records, and update them independently (that is, updates should be peer reviewed).

[–]dgerard 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, yes. As Ms Kaminska pointed out, the main product is a monopoly for the provenance provider. This is the desired end product of most blockchain initiatives claiming they'll straighten out an entire industry's data: becoming the new central controlling octopus.

[–]devliegende 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tuna on the blockchain. I like the idea, but need some key questions answered.

Do they plan to use pow or pos to catch the tuna? Can they ensure that there will only ever be 21m tuna caught? Will they pre-catch any tuna or will there be an initial tuna offering? Will they scale with segtuna or catch size increases?

Where do I send my ETH?

[–]devliegende 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the conclusion section they say:

The atrocities in the fishing supply chain mainly occur at catch,

Yet their system also relies on this weakest of link:

The social and environmental conditions for the fishermen at the point of capture are verified through trusted local NGOs, whose audit systems validate their compliance to an external standard, resulting in their eligibility to participate in the Provenance-validated chain of custody.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (47子コメント)

I don't see why the audit/certification process couldn't be automated. Presumably commercial fishing licenses are required, boat registrations must be kept current, you could even require KYC type information about boat captains and crew members. Then just put that information up for confirmation amongst peers on the network, just like bitcoin nodes can signal, and be accepted or rejected by the majority.

I figure there are plenty of NGOs already in the industry who are trustworthy enough to control the keys into such a system though - finding a trusted overseer isn't the problem - the efficacy and robustness of the overseer's process is.

I don't think your excerpts are contradictory because the first paragraph talks about how no single organization has been able to develop an effective or reliable process, and even if they could, that single entity/process would also be a single source of truth and a single point of failure.

Blockchain, theoretically, solves both of those problems.

The second paragraph talks about using a trusted NGO to control certification/participation on the network. That doesn't change the fact that blockchains (again, theoretically) solve the two biggest problems, neither of which is the trustworthiness of already trusted NGOs. The fact that high availability and disaster recovery come basically built-in to the protocol are just a bonus.

So does the empreror have clothes? I don't know, but if you're intellectually honest about it you can see at least some potential in the idea. For me, a case study seems like a perfectly reasonable way to find out if he's naked or not. Much more reasonable than a summary dismissal after 2 minutes thinking about it, like many subscribers here will default to.

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

High availability? If you don't have live access to the registry then you are susceptible to a "double spend" by the fisherman selling two loads of fish as if they were the same certified load.

You have to have 100% availability or you're not sure of anything. And once you have that you have no need for a blockchain. You just sign things in and out of a database as normal.

[–]SooperModelsDotCom 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You just sign things in and out of a database as normal.

No, you plebe.... you must sign things in and out of a database while downloading every other database in existence. Geez.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I don't agree with any of that. Nothing says it has be to real-time (but even if that was a requirement, it's very achievable). If the validity of a load comes into question at any point throughout the supply chain, provenance is ruined and the transaction is forbidden. The fish go bad, end of story. It's not worth it for anybody. Could that be used maliciously? Who knows. Maybe. But I don't see real-time access with 100% uptime as a requirement at all. To say that a database will solve the problem completely ignores the actual problem statement. It's kind of an ignorant thing to say, to be honest. I mean, the actual stated problem is that traditional, centrally owned databases (which today can guarantee five 9's uptime and DR across the globe with distributed, redundant points of failure) aren't sufficient. I think people who fall back on the "MySQL can do it better" argument are either lying to themselves or they don't actually know anything about databases.

[–]happyscrappyIT Specialist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Of course it has to be real time. Something has to be removed from the "for sale" list when it is sold. Otherwise you'll just have people creating "clone" loads and selling them with the same provenance. A "double spend".

I mean, the actual stated problem is that traditional, centrally owned databases (which today can guarantee five 9's uptime across the globe with distributed, redundant points of failure) aren't sufficient.

If that's the problem statement then the problem statement is a lie. Because databases and digital signatures can do this as well as a blockchain and with less overhead and more speed.

If you can trade stocks on the NASDAQ you can trade fish on a central database too.

I think people who fall back on the "MySQL can do it better" argument are either lying to themselves or they don't actually know anything about databases.

No one here said anything about mySQL.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Meh. I don't really feel like arguing about it. I think the problem is interesting and that blockchain technology is worth investigating as a solution. If you disagree, whatever. Enjoy.

[–]dgerard 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

It totally isn't. Izabella Kaminska explains in small words why not. It does nothing to solve the problems they actually have (humans putting data into the chain), and the main product is a monopoly for Provenance Inc.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Izabella Kaminska means well but she's about as dumb as they come. You really shouldn't be reading her garbage.

At the risk of opining on a market which we fully acknowledge we know next to nothing about, we’re not convinced that makes sense.

That sentence sums up her article nicely.

[–]endmathabusenow[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Not as dumb or dishonest as those who keep saying block chain is going disrupt and keep reciting the vacuous claims about trustlessness

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't know, it's close. She's pretty dumb.

I hate to tell you this, but blockchain is already disrupting things. There's nothing dishonest about simply observing the world around you. Those who keep saying that it has exactly zero use cases outisde of cryptocurrency are dishonest - All you have to do is open your eyes and look around to see that that's not true.

I agree that the vast majority of blockchain implementations will fail, that it's not a very good technology for most things - but I do believe that there ARE applications for it in this world that don't involve money. Voting, Supply Chain management and music are just a few areas where blockchain could provide a new, different way of doing things. Will it be absolutely better than the old way, in every way possible? Of course not. But it's absolutely worth investigating for useful features or effects. Forget vacuous claims - those who constantly stand on "nope, no way, never" have vacuous heads.

[–]endmathabusenow[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Show us one case study where it has disrupted something.

[–]dgerard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

yeah, that's great thanks

[–]put_on_the_mask 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (22子コメント)

"Single source of truth" is not a problem to be solved, and if the concern is that this source becomes a single point of failure from a technical standpoint then there are already myriad ways to deal with this that are simpler and more effective than blockchain.

In any case, neither of these is the reason that no single organisation has developed a robust traceability process for food provenance. The reason is that nobody needs or wants one. Many retailers and manufacturers have perfectly robust supply chain traceability and product lifecycle management systems in place which tell them what they need to know about the provenance of their products. The key problem with running these systems is ensuring accuracy of data at point of entry and key handovers, whether it's an issue of laziness, lack of technology or disreputable actors. Blockchain does not fix this. Centralising everyone's data into a system controlled by one third party does not fix this. Audits, default untrusted receiving and robust internal processes for selecting and working with suppliers do fix this - all of which are already possible and already done by competent businesses, without the need for this blockchain-based tool.

TL;DR - Provenance is the answer to a question nobody is asking, fixing a problem nobody has, and couldn't fix the real issue with traceability even if they did sell it to someone.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (21子コメント)

In any case, neither of these is the reason that no single organisation has developed a robust traceability process for food provenance. The reason is that nobody needs or wants one. Many retailers and manufacturers have perfectly robust supply chain traceability and product lifecycle management systems

No offense but... you're not going to convince me of anything here. I've heard this basic counter-argument used against pretty much every blockchain project that gets mentioned here. I've heard it before, and I don't really buy it. To say that nobody needs or wants a trustworthy system of provenance for anything is absurd given the fact that the OP is a link to an organization that actually wants and needs a system of provenance.

You'll probably tell me that they don't actually need it or want it, they're just doing it for the ICO gainz or a windfall of VC money. Maybe. I have a hard time believing that EVERYbody who EVER tries a blockchain solution is trying to get rich quick or jump on a bandwagon for cool points. To completely dismiss the technology in the face of... well... the world around us, is obtuse.

TL;DR - Your answer is basically, "It's not a problem and nothing will fix it. The key problem with this non-problem is that there are problems." wtf am I supposed to do with that

[–]dgerard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've heard this basic counter-argument used against pretty much every blockchain project that gets mentioned here.

That's because it's true for pretty much every blockchain project that gets mentioned here. They really are literally all shit. I've been looking hard, and the only thing even slightly like a use case is as an excuse to finally clean up your data and formats. When you've done that, replace the blockchain with a centralised database for immediate efficiency improvements.

Blockchains are a bad technology being marketed on buzzwords. The only use case they have is cryptocurrencies, and they're not so great there either.

[–]put_on_the_mask 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (19子コメント)

It could perhaps have been worded better in that paragraph, but I thought - given the rest of what I wrote - it would be clear that I didn't mean nobody wants traceability systems at all (as I've pointed out many already have them), but that businesses don't want or need one run by a single organisation. That is the reason no single organisation has built one.

The rest of my post clearly explains that they already have systems to do everything Provenance promises to do, and the main area where there are genuine difficulties is simply not addressed by this implementation or by blockchain technology at all. This is not a generic argument against any blockchain technology. I work for one of the companies that Provenance (and another almost identical Irish startup whose name I forget) have tried selling this to. They cannot give us any more insight than we already have, and the system do nothing more than any responsible business already does to validate the trustworthiness of suppliers. In our case it would actually be a backwards step to simply trust third parties to validate suppliers.

TL;DR - Your answer is basically, "It's not a problem and nothing will fix it. The key problem with this non-problem is that there are problems." wtf am I supposed to do with that

It only boils down to that if you're wilfully misintepreting it or you fundamentally don't understand the industry in question. To put it in the most simple terms possible, Provenance claims to fix traceability and visibility problems that were fixed decades ago, and makes no improvements against the remaining real problem of ensuring suppliers aren't being dishonest about what they sell you (because technology can't really replace robust supplier management processes here).

[–]dgerard 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

but that businesses don't want or need one run by a single organisation. That is the reason no single organisation has built one.

This happened before blockchains too: industries that resisted fixing their data compatibility because it would create a new central controlling octopus. (Becoming said octopus is Provenance's business goal.)

I work for one of the companies that Provenance (and another almost identical Irish startup whose name I forget) have tried selling this to. They cannot give us any more insight than we already have, and the system do nothing more than any responsible business already does to validate the trustworthiness of suppliers. In our case it would actually be a backwards step to simply trust third parties to validate suppliers.

Now that's interesting. Can you tell any more? e.g., did they have a clue what your company did for a living?

and makes no improvements against the remaining real problem of ensuring suppliers aren't being dishonest about what they sell you

i.e., the oracle problem, yet again

[–]put_on_the_mask 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I 100% agree that's Provenance's goal, but it's not so much a data compatibility issue as a total lack of incentive for the industry to enable a new octopus. Most of their potential customers will already be using some sort of EDI format throughout their supply chain, and they can plug in any number of traceability systems to those standard transactions. EDI itself is a bit of an octopus as it was built around the idea of central trusted authorities (Value-Added Networks) passing the EDI files around, but it does at least offer benefits in return.

Now that's interesting. Can you tell any more? e.g., did they have a clue what your company did for a living?

They'd have to be living under a rock not to. As far as I'm aware they've tried to speak to most FMCG suppliers and every food retailer, but I think only Co-op have bitten (and even that smells like a PR-driven proof-of-concept).

Provenance's position is that businesses should be open with customers about the origins of the products they are buying, and that they can treat this transparency as a differentiator against the competition. This is absolutely valid, and some retailers already do it. However, Provenance apparently concluded that businesses aren't capable of providing this transparency without something like blockchain technology, which isn't true. I suspect it's not a coincidence that the company was founded shortly after the 2013 horsemeat scandal, but the cause of that scandal wasn't that businesses couldn't trace their products back through the supply chain at ingredient level, it's that they had allowed incredibly convoluted supply chains to develop whereby ingredients passed through 3-4 intermediaries between farm and factory, and they hadn't bothered checking they were really getting what they expected. The businesses caught out in that scandal were those that blindly trusted that shipping documents were accurate, and Provenance's answer is to put those documents on the blockchain and blindly trust that instead. The businesses which came out with a clean bill of health were those that had been proactively auditing suppliers, had kept their supply chains short, and did random lab tests on the products they were provided.

On reflection I suspect Provenance would make things like the horsemeat fraud harder to pull off, but only marginally. You'd just have to mislabel produce on the way into the system, or adulterate the product during manufacturing, instead of falsifying records at some point in between where the blockchain is trying to provide a level of accounting. I'm yet to see a convincing answer as to how Provenance would deal with either. Even the horsemeat approach would still work unless everything each supplier handled was on the blockchain, which isn't likely when so many of them provide goods to multiple retailers from the same locations.

[–]dgerard 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah. yet again, the actual problem is that the system (blockchain or whatever) has humans doing the input who can lie, and adding a blockchain won't really alleviate that.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (15子コメント)

but that businesses don't want or need one run by a single organisation. That is the reason no single organisation has built one.

First of all, this isn't driven by any single business - it's an entire industry looking for a solution. Second, needs aren't driven by solutions -- at the end of the day nobody cares if it's a single organization or several organizations, businesses certainly don't. The point is NOBODY has been able to develop an effective and reliable process.

[–]put_on_the_mask 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

it's an entire industry looking for a solution

I work in the industry and can assure you the entire industry is not looking for any such thing. If they want full traceability with the ability to publish full provenance to customers, they can already do it.

Second, needs aren't driven by solutions

Correct, which is why Provenance creating a new "solution" hasn't driven a demand for it.

nobody cares if it's a single organization or several organizations, businesses certainly don't

Not true. Most businesses are fairly uncomfortable with being locked into a single provider unless there's major benefit to doing so. Which there isn't here.

The point is NOBODY has been able to develop an effective and reliable process.

I don't know why you're so insistent this is true when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Historic Futures already do it, quite a few apparel brands use Respect Code, Happerly are doing a good job within the UK for small businesses, GS1 have comprehensive standards for capturing all sorts of provenance data and tracing from an individual animal to food on supermarket shelves, companies like Zetes and SAP sell software that'll tie together everything from supplier provenance data through to warehouse stock locations so all the traceability data you could ever want is in one place, and that's before considering all the food product development software providers (TraceOne, Siemens, Softtrace, FoodLogiq to name a few) which have provided means to collect and manage this data for ages.

Things like the horsemeat scandal are not demonstrations that an effective and reliable process doesn't yet exist, they're demonstrations of which companies weren't running those processes properly and had taken their eye off the ball in order to cut costs.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I work in the industry and can assure you the entire industry is not looking for any such thing.

OK then, an entire country that regulates their entire local industry is looking for a solution.

https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/gfl_req_factsheet_traceability_2007_en.pdf

Second, needs aren't driven by solutions

Correct, which is why Provenance creating a new "solution" hasn't driven a demand for it.

Also correct. This solution didn't create demand - the demand was already there - it was created by citizens and met by government-imposed regulation well before this provenance project was ever started. That's why there have been so many attempts before this.

[–]put_on_the_mask 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Not only is the document you found on google ten years old, it describes several examples of EU food traceability frameworks that were in place as early as 2002. That's not a sign that an entire country is looking for a solution, it's a sign that 27 countries have been working to align their legislation for decades so that existing solutions are easier to use for livestock crossing their borders.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yeah, I know how old the document is - it doesn't change the fact that the regulation (and therefore the demand) is there, and was there well before provenance's solution ever came about.

That's not a sign that an entire country is looking for a solution, it's a sign that 27 countries have been working to align their legislation for decades so that existing solutions are easier to use for livestock crossing their borders.

This has nothing to do with aligning legislation -- these laws are created by the European Union, who has authority over all EU nations. It's not about aligning legislation, there's nothing to align. It's about enforcing compliance. There's no indication that any of the few examples of traceability systems listed in that document are the be-all-end-all solution so it's not a sign that an entire country is NOT looking for a solution either. The demand is obviously there, however, and it has been for a long time.

[–]dgerard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're really bad at this.

[–]put_on_the_mask 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Seriously, you didn't know what you were talking about when it came to supply chains, and now you're doubling down and spouting bullshit about EU legislation that shows you have no idea how that works either. You are the Dunning-Kruger effect made flesh.

[–]endmathabusenow[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How come this data solution can't satisfy any significant need that a blockchain would satisfy? It is from this website. The presentation describes a system call EPCIS that allows various parties along the supply chain to record receipt of an item and track it using an RFID. Other presentations on the site describe using barcodes and an XML communication protocol.

I don't know if it has all of the security features, but I'm sure they can have or add access restrictions and digital signings if that level of security were desired.

[–]dgerard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

it's an entire industry looking for a solution

This is the guy literally in this industry telling you you're completely wrong. As he puts it:

It only boils down to that if you're wilfully misintepreting it or you fundamentally don't understand the industry in question.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

One guy's thoughts on the industry he works in aren't exactly the bible. It's anecdotal and easy to refute.

[–]dgerard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's consistent with basically everything I could find from using secret arts unknown to Redditors like getting out of the house and talking to people.

And you're not even offering an anecdote.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Getting out the house and talking to people is really kind of a shitty way to research this kind of thing. You should try reading instead, it's a much more productive secret art. Just saying.

My company builds and flies satellites; our supply chain is extremely complex, heavily regulated, and global. I know plenty about supply chain management and traceability and the systems that facilitate it. I'm not offering any personal anecdotes because as we've already established, anecdotes aren't useful in this kind of discussion.

[–]dgerard 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What do you personally actually do? "My company" is pretty darn vague.

[–]urbutt_ 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

no single organization has been able to develop an effective or reliable process, and even if they could, that single entity/process would also be a single source of truth and a single point of failure. Blockchain, theoretically, solves both of those problems

Why would these even be problems, and how exactly would a blockchain make anything better? Why is it better to have several points of failure (plus a shifty group of blockchain devs getting their paycheck from who knows where) instead of a single legally accountable and audited expert organization running the database?

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

FYI the opposite of "Single point of failure" is not "several points of failure". Start there if you want to know how exactly blockchain can make things better.

(plus a shifty group of blockchain devs getting their paycheck from who knows where)

What is this? It adds nothing to the conversation, it's just noise. Intellectual dishonesty. You know nothing about the developers involved or if they're even compensated at all, let alone how.

[–]urbutt_ -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Start there if you want to know how exactly blockchain can make things better.

This is only true is you're a paranoid libertarian. Otherwise you'll find its better to invest your limited $ into a single well secured node run by accountable professionals instead of N hobbyist nodes full of security holes.

Where the devs get their paychecks matters because they wield considerable influence and are expected to produce reliable, secure code. Anonymous devs whose source of livelihood is unknown is a huge red flag.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

You're an idiot.

This is only true is you're a paranoid libertarian.

You've obviously never heard of Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services. Those aren't "paranoid libertarian" things, they're the standard for how global HA/DR is done. "Single well secured node run by acountable professionals" lol wtf are you besides a flaming retard. There's not a critical application on this planet that runs on a single well secured node. That's just flat out stupid. You'll learn this stuff in cs101, the very first computer class you'll ever take in college.

Where the devs get their paychecks matters because they wield considerable influence and are expected to produce reliable, secure code. Anonymous devs whose source of livelihood is unknown is a huge red flag.

Yep, you're an idiot.

[–]urbutt_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You've obviously never heard of Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services. Those aren't "paranoid libertarian" things, they're the standard for how global HA/DR is done

Services run by a single organizations of accountable professionals? Exactly like what I said. There's nothing wrong with redundancy, what's unnecessary and useless is the blockchain-style trustless decentralization.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

LOL. Go away. Go read a book or take a class or something dude. You're out of your league.

"Blockchain-style trustless decentralization" is also known as a peer-to-peer network. Ever heard of those?

[–]urbutt_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Look, I get it that you are fascinated with blockchains and really want them to be good at something useful, but just hoping and believing isn't enough. You should give a realistic example where they could outperform a centralised system. You've had this same argument with almost everyone in this thread, and haven't been able to give a single straight answer to the question yet.

[–]Reddit_Is_Trash_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're stupid.

I don't want anything for or against blockchains. I'm simply observing and thinking. You should do the same.

Speaking of straight answers, why don't you tell us more about these "Blockchain-style trustless decentralization" systems and why they're so bad, professor. I'm all ears. LOL (actually, don't. You've already proven you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, you have no business partaking in this discussion. You really should just go away. In fact, I'm tired of you, /ignored. That ought to do it. bye! ).