And?
Hyperledger Fabric still uses a consensus mechanism, and I promise you Walmart uses one. You can’t trust China with food safety.
Permission is given out to various suppliers with various levels of trust.
“Permissioned” in the context of Hyperledger Fabric just means all participants are known entities with identities managed by a Membership Service Provider (MSP), which is likely Walmart in this case and have access control governed by policies ensuring that only authorized actors can interact with the network and its resources. It doesn’t mean that a consensus mechanism isn’t used or needed.
Shit, without using GPG and SSH to sign commits and outside identity verification mechanisms, you run the risk of git identity fraud.
In what way can blockchain ensure food safety? Just because participants use proof of work or whatever doesn’t mean the input data is more truthful. The oracle problem is a thing.
By providing transparency, auditability, and traceability throughout the food supply chain.
Or in other words it prevents fraud via a tamper-proof system for data collection and monitoring. If the input data is falsified and people to get sick, it’s just a matter of plugging in the QR code for the contaminated product and within seconds you know the identity of the participant who authored the product and where it came from. The identities of all participants are already known before hand by the Membership Service Provider.
Think of it like as if someone signed a malicious commit with their GPG key containing their name and address but with additional tamper-proofing pushed to an immutable repo, it’s not going to be very hard to trace back and slap a fine on whoever is responsible; effectively greatly reducing the Oracle problem.
And?
Hyperledger Fabric still uses a consensus mechanism, and I promise you Walmart uses one. You can’t trust China with food safety.
Permission is given out to various suppliers with various levels of trust.
“Permissioned” in the context of Hyperledger Fabric just means all participants are known entities with identities managed by a Membership Service Provider (MSP), which is likely Walmart in this case and have access control governed by policies ensuring that only authorized actors can interact with the network and its resources. It doesn’t mean that a consensus mechanism isn’t used or needed.
Shit, without using GPG and SSH to sign commits and outside identity verification mechanisms, you run the risk of git identity fraud.
In what way can blockchain ensure food safety? Just because participants use proof of work or whatever doesn’t mean the input data is more truthful. The oracle problem is a thing.
By providing transparency, auditability, and traceability throughout the food supply chain.
Or in other words it prevents fraud via a tamper-proof system for data collection and monitoring. If the input data is falsified and people to get sick, it’s just a matter of plugging in the QR code for the contaminated product and within seconds you know the identity of the participant who authored the product and where it came from. The identities of all participants are already known before hand by the Membership Service Provider.
Think of it like as if someone signed a malicious commit with their GPG key containing their name and address but with additional tamper-proofing pushed to an immutable repo, it’s not going to be very hard to trace back and slap a fine on whoever is responsible; effectively greatly reducing the Oracle problem.