It only took Oz govt transformation bods 6 months and $700k to report that blockchain ain't worth the effort

An Australian government agency given AU$700,000 (just shy of US$500,000 or £380,000) to research applications of the blockchain has delivered its answer: don't bother. Anything you want to do with blockchain, you can already do better with existing technology. For every use of blockchain that you would consider today, there …

[Korev]

An Australian government agency given AU$700,000 (just shy of US$500,000 or £380,000) to research applications of the blockchain has delivered its answer: don't bother. Anything you want to do with blockchain, you can already do better with existing technology.

On the face of it, it sounds expensive... However, that 700kAUD is money well spent if it means that their techies can swiftly eliminate blockchain from various proposals by pointing at the report instead of letting the PHBs get fooled and waste a load of money in the process.

[TimR]

Agreed

I wonder if Peter Alexander could be seconded to GDS for a while?

[Blank Reg]

You could probably add several 0's to the cost had the PHB decided to just go ahead and use blockchain everywhere because they had heard it was the latest thing so we must use it.

[Brian Miller]

Done it for cheap

It's a one liner to auto reply for any "does blockchain fix this" email.

"No."

Done.

[GnuTzu]

Re: Done it for cheap

Chuckle, chuckle. A hammer in search of a nail. I.E. Development done backwards.

[Anonymous Coward]

But...

Wasn't blockchain supposed to be the answer to life, the universe and everything?

I guess not then.

As most of the world have not yet even heard about this particular ponzi scheme, then we might have escaped lightly but there are some people promting it like mad.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/23/power-ledgers-solar-solution-demystifies-blockchain-cryptocurrency-cleantechnica-interview-part-1/

{there are more people in the so called 'green' world pushing blockchain in multi billion $ proposals}

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@AC ... Re: But...

Its not a ponzi scheme, its someone trying to re-invent the wheel while not really understanding the technology. There are two components, the actual blockchain, and then the distributed ledger.

There is a niche where blockchain can make sense. but most of the examples touting blockchain are outside of the niche. Maybe this is one reason why IBM's stock is way down?

[herman]

Re: But...

"Wasn't blockchain supposed to be the answer to life, the universe and everything?" - No, you are thinking of 3-D Printing.

[paulf]

Lets get this right. A Government IT project was completed within 6 months, for less than seven figures and came up with a tangible result. I'll put that down as an unqualified success, especially when compared to the myriad multi-million multi-year failures.

Bonus points that it actually debunked the latest buzz-word fad, and consigned it to the circular file.

[IceC0ld]

Lets get this right. A Government IT project was completed within 6 months, for less than seven figures and came up with a tangible result. I'll put that down as an unqualified success, especially when compared to the myriad multi-million multi-year failures.

===

here's hoping they used a blockchain app in their process too

[Bronek Kozicki]

Actually there is a use of blockchain. It is a distributed consensus algorithm (or, in other words, totally ordered broadcast protocol) which happens to be also resilient against Byzantine failures, unlike other consensus algorithms like Paxos, Raft etc. Of course, being a distributed consensus algorithm does not make it intrinsically valuable (as some "investors" would like you to believe), but it could be potentially useful to store and update a distributed database across a large number of untrusted devices (say, privately owned computers or mobile phones). Or it could be used to track a path of a physical thing in the supply chain (where individual suppliers cannot be trusted). It would be also rather inefficient and very laggy. Oh, and the whole "proof-of-work" is a total non-starter, unless you are into speculation with "instruments" which they are not.

[J. Cook]

Actually there is a use of blockchain. It is a distributed consensus algorithm (or, in other words, totally ordered broadcast protocol) which happens to be also resilient against Byzantine failures, unlike other consensus algorithms like Paxos, Raft etc.

Yes and agreed; however the report was largely shooting down "we put blockchain in [totally not appropriate usage]!" claims.

It's a little expensive, but I still think it's a valid use of the funds.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Or it could be used to track a path of a physical thing in the supply chain (where individual suppliers cannot be trusted). It would be also rather inefficient and very laggy. Oh, and the whole "proof-of-work" is a total non-starter, unless you are into speculation with "instruments" which they are not.

Uhm no... not really.

Take farm goods. Are you going to place a sticker on every watermelon and then try to track it?

If you said yes, then you have no clue about farming or watermelon growers. Then consider the fact that you may track the carton used, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have cross contamination along the way. There's more to this.. but blockchain doesn't help.

[Phil Kingston]

Already happening. Wine being one use-case I've heard of.

[Jassop]

I also use wine by the case.

Pardon? What are we talking about again?

[katrinab]

For a government project, you probably don’t want distributed consensus. You probably want the government making the decision and communicating it to the people concerned.

[Bronek Kozicki]

For a government project, you probably don’t want distributed consensus.

Yes and no. Yes, because centralised solution (i.e. non-distributed) for most problems is what any government would naturally gravitate towards. No, because DARPA was a government project, with the explicit goal of creating distributed, highly available system.

If a government wanted to build a distributed, highly available database for its citizens or for international community, then perhaps blockchain could be a part of the solution. Admittedly, that goes strongly against typical governmental thinking, so there you go.

[onefang]

"For a government project, you probably don’t want distributed consensus."

Voting in a democracy is a distributed consensus.

[katrinab]

You have a Returning Officer who is officially responsible for the result.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a comment and 20 replies with not a single downvote. This can't be right. Not on the register. I must do something to restore normality.

Brexit.

That ought to do it.

[onefang]

"Wow, a comment and 20 replies with not a single downvote. This can't be right. Not on the register. I must do something to restore normality."

Sorry, I don't vote for ACs, since votes for them don't count. You are at 0 0 currently.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@paulf

"Bonus points that it actually debunked the latest buzz-word fad, and consigned it to the circular file."

Sure, but does the solution that you debunked use AI? Maybe that's why it failed. ;-)

[Stork]

Now we just hope

That other governments will use this as starting point before they throw money away (on this at least).

[Anonymous Coward]

In all fairness

The Australian government isn't exactly the brightest example of forward looking, progressive thinking people.

I'm not saying they're wrong here, but I honestly wouldn't take any advice they may have about future technologies at face value either.

[Eddy Ito]

Re: In all fairness

Alexander also didn't slam the door tight and merely implied it was insufficiently mature and at this time there are better tools for the respective jobs. At least that's how I took the comment of "blockchain is an interesting technology that would be well worth being observed, but... for every use... today, there is a better technology".

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: In all fairness

The Australian government isn't exactly the brightest example of forward looking, progressive thinking people.

Is that because the sheep have revolted and are now buggering unsuspecting male farmers rather than the other way around? So the smart Aussie is always looking over his shoulder?

[Reader2435]

Just 'Unnecessary'? What about 'Wouldn't Work'?

Bitcoin works because a) there are many copies of the blockchain around which can be compared to each other and b) it's intentionally very difficult to solve (or corrupt/replace) blocks.

a) only happens because people are incentivised to maintain copies - because there is 'real' (potential) value in their Bitcoin holdings, recorded in that very blockchain.

b) can only be made so difficult and yet folk still crack it because the miners accept that that is exactly where the 'value' (read rarity) of the mined Bitcoin appears from.

In most of these other applications, neither a) nor b) would hold. So the whole darn thing quickly unravels like a chocolate teapot. I would be happy to be proved wrong if anyone can provide a detailed explanation so that I can finally understand how these other applications are supposed to work but as far as I can see, for *most* applications it is not only unnecessary but it wouldn't even provide the features that its proponents claim it can.

[Jim Mitchell]

Re: Just 'Unnecessary'? What about 'Wouldn't Work'?

bitcoin != blockchain. You shouldn't base your opinion of blockchain solely on bitcoin.

[Reader2435]

Re: Just 'Unnecessary'? What about 'Wouldn't Work'?

@Jim Mitchell

Well, I guess that is another way of asking the same question I asked in my post - how *can* blockchain be gainfully used without the blockchain being the ledger for something of value (e.g. Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency) which only has value due to the difficulty in extending the blockchain.

In other words, can either exist without the other?

Can the two be separated and still offer value?

Of course a blockchain can *exist* without Bitcoin... like my wallet exists if I remove all its contents... the difference is that my money doesn't lose all value if removed from my wallet!!!

I'm happy to accept that there may be some other application for blockchain other than currency that derives its value from the extension of the blockchain... I just haven't seen one yet that makes sense. Or would work. By 'work', I mean: deliver the features promised. Again, I would be genuinely happy to have one explained to me! Just one...

[phuzz]

Re: Just 'Unnecessary'? What about 'Wouldn't Work'?

I think the idea for something like a land registry, is that not only would the government hold a copy, but so would all the large property firms, maybe individual local councils too, etc. Then each can keep the others honest, and have a local copy for quicker lookups.

I'm not saying it's a great solution just looking for a blockchain, just pointing out that in some circumstances your point a) is covered.

As for point b) it's theoretically impossible to replace or corrupt a block (in the same way that cracking a suitably large encryption key is impossible, ie barring taking the length of the universe, or a massive breakthrough in quantum computing or something). I think the idea is that in a non-currency blockchain, that adding a new block will not be as difficult as it is for bitcoin, and will be done each time one of the participants adds a transaction.

At the end of the day, it's still not something that can't be done with just a database and a little trust.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Just 'Unnecessary'? What about 'Wouldn't Work'?

I think the idea for something like a land registry, is that not only would the government hold a copy, but so would all the large property firms, maybe individual local councils too, etc. Then each can keep the others honest, and have a local copy for quicker lookups.

You're missing the point here. In the land registry example, there would be multiple copies of the data, yes, and they would be publicly readable, but only the *owner* of an item in that registry, I.e., the land owner, or more likely - but not necessarily - his solicitor and/or proxy (or basically any named parties who have access to the encryption keys), would be able to reassign ownership to another party.

That transaction could also be cryptographically connected to transfer of funds in the opposite direction, so it wouldn't be possible to perform one without the other. I think I'm right in saying this is what smart contracts are aiming to be in the Ethereum world.

[Persona]

Re: Just 'Unnecessary'? What about 'Wouldn't Work'?

"You're missing the point here"

The Land Registry would need to escrow a copy of the key so the title could be transferred if the holder had died taking the key with them, or to permit compulsory purchase. This makes using a blockchain utterly pointless …….. as is often the case.

[steven_t]

Re: Just 'Unnecessary'? What about 'Wouldn't Work'?

The only thing about this I disagree with is the manner of the unravelling. Chocolate teapots tend to melt or, if dropped before use, shatter. I think it unravels more like a toilet roll in a tumble drier.

[trevorde]

A solution looking for a problem

Blockchain has been around for over 10 years. If it hasn't found wider application by now, it probably never will.

[JohnFen]

Re: A solution looking for a problem

I don't know if I'd go that far. History is chock full of inventions that looked useless at the time, but became very useful much later than 10 years on.

[Pascal Monett]

I believe that that is generally due to technology catching up with the idea. Da Vinci imagined the helicopter and it took centuries before technology could create the engine and the blades and the rest that was needed to actually make a usable version.

As far as blockchain is concerned, it's software, so the tech is here now. So yeah, if no one has found a different use today, there's not much chance of finding a better use in a decade.

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's software, so the tech is here now. So yeah, if no one has found a different use today, there's not much chance of finding a better use in a decade.

So basically what you're saying is because software exists today, we shouldn't expect any more innovation from software in the future?

[Nano nano]

Who, not where ...

I presume you mean Leonardo of that town .....

[katrinab]

Re: A solution looking for a problem

Blockchain (also known as Merkle Trees) has been around since 1979, making it almost as old as me.

[Teiwaz]

£380,000?

Bargain.

I can easily imagine the UK gov would spend waste a lot more to eventually reach the same conclusion (which would be returned late and cost more than initially conceived).

[Chris G]

Re: £380,000?

In the UK that figure would probably only represent the cost of tea, biscuits and a couple of hours of consultation with someone who can explain blockchains in language fit for a primary school classroom.

Several million more would be needed to arrive at an inconclusive result followed by a purchase that would never work properly in spite of a decade or two of money and 'consultants' being thrown at it.

[BoldMan]

This article reminded me that I haven't seen any reposts from The Conversation masquerading as articles on ElReg for a while - thank god!

[Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse]

Oh no....

But what about all of the snake oil salesmen? Won't anyone think of them and their gravy train...

Seriously though, I'd pretty much reached the same conclusion on Blockchain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Currency backed by the people

Human beings aren't that special. There are billions of us, mostly made at home by unskilled labour. Fortunately no one is trying to make procreation reliant on a blockchain.

[Teiwaz]

Re: Currency backed by the people

Human beings aren't that special. There are billions of us, mostly made at home by unskilled labour. Fortunately no one is trying to make procreation reliant on a blockchain.

Some officious numpty will want to tie the entire population into one at birth at some point, and even then ,there'll still be the inevitable same amount of paranoia and confusion over whether they think you should be allowed to live here or not, valid blockchain or no.

[Anonymous Coward]

link please

Is there a recording or a written record of this ? my google-fu has not uncovered anything. It would be of much use.

[Phil Endecott]

‘Cannabis + Crypto.’ The two single HOTTEST Sectors of the Market right now

Found by John Hempton, https://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2018/09/crypto-pot-stock.html :

“On Feb 1, the company announced the Acquisition of a 49% Stake in CannaNUMUS Blockchain Inc. - developers of a cryptocurrency which will represent the performance of a suite of portfolio cannabis companies.

“With a 49% equity stake in this blockchain platform, Abattis could see a significant upside from any CannaNUMUS liquidity event, including a reverse take-over of CannaNUMUS or an ICO,”

“Yes, there are already Marijuana-based CryptoCurrencies. And while none are especially noteworthy, it's worth mentioning that CANN(CannabisCoin) has seen 20,000%+ GAINS and now boasts a $5.5 MIL Market Cap, POT (PotCoin) has seen 3,300%+ GAINS and enjoys a $35 MIL Market Cap, and THC (HempCoin) has seen a monsterous 114,000%+ Gain with a $28 MIL Market Cap!

[katrinab]

Re: ‘Cannabis + Crypto.’ The two single HOTTEST Sectors of the Market right now

So basically bearer shares, which are illegal in every country in the world except Scotland, and the specific implementation here looks like it wouod be illegal in Scotland as well.

[Destroy All Monsters]

Our position today, and this is an early write-up, is that blockchain is an interesting technology that would be well worth being observed

Like a famous cat, it is neither alive or dead until observation happens.

[Anonymous Coward]

Audit trails for copyright claims

One of the most interesting things about blockchain to me is the security aspect, you lock something into the chain and it's there for good. Dealing with copyright issues in photography circles is an interesting use of BC, you take a picture, "lock it into a BC" with relevant documentation and you can then categorically state you created and initiated the copyright work, no argument. Any changes to ownership of a created digital work can be recorded over time, audit trail is created and less arguments when copyright ownership cases go to the courts. It's very simplistic example but something that intrigues me.

[Persona]

Re: Audit trails for copyright claims

That would indeed work. You could probably do it just by storing a hash of the photo to make the data size more manageable, though that does open it up to a slight collision attack.. The real problem you face is working out how to pay the distributed entities to store and add new content to the blockchain. That's easy to do in a centralised system but very hard in a distributed one. You really need a crypto currency to underpin it. In fact what you have done is invented yet another crypto currency.

[onefang]

Re: Audit trails for copyright claims

"The real problem you face is working out how to pay the distributed entities to store and add new content to the blockchain."

Do they need to be paid, wouldn't some copyright holders do it out of self interest?

[Persona]

Re: Audit trails for copyright claims

"Do they need to be paid, wouldn't some copyright holders do it out of self interest?"

They might for a bit, but then drop out as they realize the costs of network bandwidth, maintenance, support and storage space outweigh the somewhat intangible value of having a robust way of claiming copyright. Soon you start to have concerns that over 50% of the service is provided by a single player ...... who rapidly becomes a very big copyright owner.

[Reader2435]

The value of blockchain

There seems to be two values of blockchain:

1) It's made lots of money for those who have been involved in mining. But by that, I do not mean the miners, necessarily, but hardware vendors, exchange operators, etc.

2) It is so complex that it is the perfect snake oil because the complexity makes it impossible for the salesman to be proven wrong... so long as he/she ensures that none of their proffered solutions ever actually gets built!

[Antonius_Prime]

(except, El Reg supposes, the problem of making the vendor presentations stop)

That can also be solved by a block-chain!

You get a concrete block and you tie a chain around it.

Bonus if you can convince the people holding the presentations to tie themselves to the chain.

Then just find a convenient body of water.

OK, maaaybe it's a BOFH-chain solution.

But, it is a solution to a problem of a solution looking for a problem...