The actions that an employee could perform would be limited by their private key’s abilities. Blockchain can be preventative. It’s not only for retrospective analysis.
The actions that an employee could perform in any database would be limited by their account permissions. Blockchain doesn’t change this. I pointed out a retrospective mechanism because a completely internal blockchain wouldn’t prevent tampering either.
It’s not complicated at all. It’s basic database access management and it’s been a thing for decades without issue. If external access is required then those parties are given restricted access appropriate for their job and their actions are logged in the audit log in case any inappropriate actions were taken by them and need to be reviewed/reversed. These are solved problems and blockchain adds nothing there. The only case that blockchain helps is in a system where you have a large number of random participants and you want transactions to be enforced by work done/computing power or stake. This is why cryptocurrency has been the only practical use case for blockchain, with the word “practical” doing a lot of work, hence the diagram in the post we’re all discussing.
A human only needs to get involved for manual database changes. The vast majority of database transactions are carried out by code. The same would be true for blockchain. Again, it’s not magical. I will ask you once again: how do you think a blockchain would be used to improve this? The blockchain as used by bitcoin allows everyone the same access, but uses compute power as a consensus mechanism in the hopes that statistically most participants would be running the same code to keep things legitimate.
How do you propose a bank does this internally? You’ve yet to answer this question I asked a few posts before and instead opted to list proposed use cases like a brochure advertising blockchain. This is what I usually see with blockchain evangelists, repeating talking points that they themselves don’t understand. Like seriously, what is “renewable energy tracking” supposed to mean?
“Security is self-administered” through magic, huh? No central authority chooses who can join, which is an aspect that I’m sure a bank would love for their private internal database (this is sarcasm by the way)… “the power of public-private key cryptography” is something you clearly don’t understand. Are you aware that you used “the power of public-private key cryptography” to visit this site over HTTPS and that it had nothing to do with blockchain? Public/private key cryptography is a tool used for many different purposes and by itself has nothing to do with access.
Compute power is what bitcoin still uses and how it regulates transactions. I didn’t say it’s required by blockchain, I gave it as an example of how consensus is reached. The other common method is proof of stake, but that still doesn’t make sense in the context of a completely internal database. Who is staking, what are they staking, and how does that prevent fraudulent transactions in a bank’s internal database?
I looked at the energyweb site and it’s marketing fluff. When it comes to tracking things on blockchain, once you cross the physical-digital barrier, you end up having to use trust. So you want to verify that the electricity you got is renewable? Well you have to trust the entity that gave you that electricity because the blockchain will only verify that you made a transaction with them and that they made transactions with others (e.g. suppliers), but it will not verify the good/service itself (in this case, electricity). I can send electricity your way which was generated by a gas generator, but how could you tell this from the blockchain? The answer is that you can’t, you can only tell that I have made a transaction with you. The smart contract will include a trusted entity which tracked the electricity being sent which the smart contract can look up that the value matches the agreed-upon value. Again, none of this verifies that the electricity is renewable, you are relying on plain old trust.
No central authority chooses who can join, which is an aspect that I’m sure a bank would love for their private internal database (this is sarcasm by the way)…
Anyone can join the blockchain, not anyone can join the Bank. I’m assume you are being deliberately obtuse rather than the alternative.
Public/private key cryptography is a tool used for many different purposes and by itself has nothing to do with access.
Yes, but combined with blockchain it is used for access.
proof of stake, doesn’t make sense in the context of a completely internal database.
Yes it does. You can use a public blockchain protocol for completely internal data, then interface at a later time with that public protocol.
Who is staking,
The validators
what are they staking,
Usually the network token
and how does that prevent fraudulent transactions in a bank’s internal database?
Because internal transactions are validated and can be confirmed by external stakeholders (investors, depositors, regulators etc.) on a real time basis. No more Lehman Brothers.
I looked at the energyweb site and it’s marketing fluff.
When it comes to tracking things on blockchain, once you cross the physical-digital barrier, you end up having to use trust.
Energy Certificates are about transparency more than trust.
So you want to verify that the electricity you got is renewable?
More that you want to prove to everyone that you are buying renewable.
blockchain will only verify that you made a transaction
IoT devices provide trust in the data. TSOs confirm the official values at a later date.
I can send electricity your way which was generated by a gas generator, but how could you tell this from the blockchain?
Because the IoT device reporting to the blockchain is built into a solar panel, not a gad generator.
Also neighboring sources of energy will display similar data. Anyone running a gas generator to replicate a solar profile will be losing money hand over fist.
The actions that an employee could perform would be limited by their private key’s abilities. Blockchain can be preventative. It’s not only for retrospective analysis.
The actions that an employee could perform in any database would be limited by their account permissions. Blockchain doesn’t change this. I pointed out a retrospective mechanism because a completely internal blockchain wouldn’t prevent tampering either.
You end up with a very complex database account management.
I agree in general. Fully internal databases should not be blockchains.
But if external access is required at any point then there may be a blockchain use case.
It’s not complicated at all. It’s basic database access management and it’s been a thing for decades without issue. If external access is required then those parties are given restricted access appropriate for their job and their actions are logged in the audit log in case any inappropriate actions were taken by them and need to be reviewed/reversed. These are solved problems and blockchain adds nothing there. The only case that blockchain helps is in a system where you have a large number of random participants and you want transactions to be enforced by work done/computing power or stake. This is why cryptocurrency has been the only practical use case for blockchain, with the word “practical” doing a lot of work, hence the diagram in the post we’re all discussing.
So a human needs to get involved.
Lack of finality slows processes.
Two improvements/use cases given above.
I.e. Access without human authorisation
Finality.
Supply chain tracking
Royalty payments
Renewable energy tracking
Ticketing
Etc.
A human only needs to get involved for manual database changes. The vast majority of database transactions are carried out by code. The same would be true for blockchain. Again, it’s not magical. I will ask you once again: how do you think a blockchain would be used to improve this? The blockchain as used by bitcoin allows everyone the same access, but uses compute power as a consensus mechanism in the hopes that statistically most participants would be running the same code to keep things legitimate.
How do you propose a bank does this internally? You’ve yet to answer this question I asked a few posts before and instead opted to list proposed use cases like a brochure advertising blockchain. This is what I usually see with blockchain evangelists, repeating talking points that they themselves don’t understand. Like seriously, what is “renewable energy tracking” supposed to mean?
So how would you on-board a new user?
Transactions yes. Access no.
Access is controlled by public key and security is self administered. No central authority chooses who can join.
Exactly. The power of public/private key cryptography.
Compute power is not required for blockchain and has nothing to do with private keys.
Issue private key management software to all employees. Get them to generate public keys. Use a protocol that doesn’t require PoW.
https://www.energyweb.org/
“Security is self-administered” through magic, huh? No central authority chooses who can join, which is an aspect that I’m sure a bank would love for their private internal database (this is sarcasm by the way)… “the power of public-private key cryptography” is something you clearly don’t understand. Are you aware that you used “the power of public-private key cryptography” to visit this site over HTTPS and that it had nothing to do with blockchain? Public/private key cryptography is a tool used for many different purposes and by itself has nothing to do with access.
Compute power is what bitcoin still uses and how it regulates transactions. I didn’t say it’s required by blockchain, I gave it as an example of how consensus is reached. The other common method is proof of stake, but that still doesn’t make sense in the context of a completely internal database. Who is staking, what are they staking, and how does that prevent fraudulent transactions in a bank’s internal database?
I looked at the energyweb site and it’s marketing fluff. When it comes to tracking things on blockchain, once you cross the physical-digital barrier, you end up having to use trust. So you want to verify that the electricity you got is renewable? Well you have to trust the entity that gave you that electricity because the blockchain will only verify that you made a transaction with them and that they made transactions with others (e.g. suppliers), but it will not verify the good/service itself (in this case, electricity). I can send electricity your way which was generated by a gas generator, but how could you tell this from the blockchain? The answer is that you can’t, you can only tell that I have made a transaction with you. The smart contract will include a trusted entity which tracked the electricity being sent which the smart contract can look up that the value matches the agreed-upon value. Again, none of this verifies that the electricity is renewable, you are relying on plain old trust.
Anyone can join the blockchain, not anyone can join the Bank. I’m assume you are being deliberately obtuse rather than the alternative.
Yes, but combined with blockchain it is used for access.
Yes it does. You can use a public blockchain protocol for completely internal data, then interface at a later time with that public protocol.
The validators
Usually the network token
Because internal transactions are validated and can be confirmed by external stakeholders (investors, depositors, regulators etc.) on a real time basis. No more Lehman Brothers.
It’s real https://explorer.energyweb.org/
Energy Certificates are about transparency more than trust.
More that you want to prove to everyone that you are buying renewable.
IoT devices provide trust in the data. TSOs confirm the official values at a later date.
Because the IoT device reporting to the blockchain is built into a solar panel, not a gad generator.
Also neighboring sources of energy will display similar data. Anyone running a gas generator to replicate a solar profile will be losing money hand over fist.
The answer is you can.