
Verifying the safety of infant formula using the blockchain - teknologist
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42152892
======
sho
I keep on hearing about how blockchain is the future of everything but am yet
to hear even a single use case which could not have been implemented in a
traditional DB. I suppose blockchain has some advantages in its zero-trust
distributed nature but that's just implementation.

In this case, the previous problem wasn't technological, it was a bad actor
subverting the system - and they would be able to subvert this system in the
exact same way. What, is the blockchain going to reach up out of the ether and
hold the guy back from pouring melamine into the mixing vat, then saying he
didn't?

I don't know how journalists fall for this nonsense. You don't even need to be
technically literate to see the problem. I didn't even have to read the
article to know what the fatal flaw was going to be. And this is the BBC! It's
infuriating.

~~~
diggan
Now I'm not arguing against you that this seems a bit weird and not gonna
solve the problem in itself, but humor me here.

As I understand it from the article, the blockchain is suppose to prevent
people from wanting to tamper with the product, since every logistical-step
from production to delivery is stamped and you can easily trace where the
product is coming from.

So once you discover that a product has been tampered with, you'll follow the
log and investigate everyone along the way, in the end you'll find who is
messing with it.

Not exactly sure why they would need a blockchain for this, but I guess it's
because no one in the chain trust each other.

But, all of what I wrote might be wrong, I might misunderstand how it works or
why it would work.

~~~
Isomatik
The audit log already exists, or else how would China have found and
prosecuted those executives?

The problem at hand is ensuring that the information that makes it on the
chain is correct, or at least that other members of the chain have a way of
noticing and repudiating that contribution. Cryptocurrency blockchains
accomplish this via proof of work and forking, which is why everyone is so
interested in the technology. But the only reason they work is that the proof
of work mechanism is literally what keeps the network running, and if the
network isn't running, all of the sunk costs miners have made are effectively
worthless, so even though the miners don't have a reason to trust each other,
all of their economic incentives are aligned. The only reason to fork is if
you think some people have defeated the proof of work mechanism, or if they
are pushing a different version of the blockchain software, which wouldn't be
allowed in any real-world application anyway.

Proof of work uses inherently useless calculations to determine that one isn't
flooding the network with transactions, because every transaction with a
correct key is just assumed to be correct. What real-world application does
that map to? Certainly none of the ones in the article, which is why these
companies don't use proof of work, they use permissioned blockchains. But a
permissioned blockchain is effectively like a standard write-only database
with an audit log that each individual in the production line has a password
to, which is trivial to accomplish with existing tech. The only way other
actors can verify if their peers' inputs to the system are correct is if they
verify the physical results, and now we're right back where we started, where
you can't trust the system more than you trust any one individual, but now
with a db that's at least an order of magnitude slower than any competitive
option.

~~~
teknologist
You make a good point, but smart contracts are not just "write-only databases"
as they have built-in logic that can bypass some of the need for "verifying
peers' inputs" style consensus. For example, attaching a photo of authentic
product and being able to check that it on the receiving end could serve as
proof that the consumer gets the real deal.

~~~
Isomatik
Representing a physical product as a unique cryptographic hash that the
consumer can independently verify is generally a lot harder than attaching a
photo. From a comment below: > Leanne Kemp, an Australian who in 2015 founded
a company called Everledger, has now encrypted the distinguishing features of
1.8 million diamonds and their provenance on a blockchain. > More than 40
features are logged to create a fingerprint for each diamond, logging it from
mine to ring.

For this to provide proof of authenticity, I need to be able to visit a
jeweler not employed by Everledger, and have them be able to use a rubric to
classify my diamond along these 40 features in a way that uniquely describes
it in a way no other diamond could be described. I then need to be able to
visit a second and a third jeweler and obtain the exact same classification
along these 40 features.

When visiting Everledger's site, I can't get any information on the
classification process beyond that sentence. The supposed core of the product
doesn't even have a white paper.

Diamonds are comparatively easy to classify, as they are supposedly unique in
many ways, and don't physically degrade over time. When it comes to tins of
milk, I can't think of a secure proof of authenticity process that doesn't
involve the consumer verifying the composition of the product with a gas
chromatography machine.

~~~
teknologist
Yes, I should have attached a disclaimer that I do not claim that a photograph
would be enough to verify the safety of infant formula. Fair points.

------
Dowwie
In 2009, China had a very serious problem dealing with tainted milk, leading
to infants dying and getting sick. People had sold more than 900 tonnes of
tainted milk. It eventually executed two involved with the production process:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-
executes...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-
milk-scandal-pair)

The blockchain solution presented here wouldn't have verified safety in that
case, although the author did mention the case which makes the article
misleading. Melamine was added to the formula to fool a protein test. The
chemical was added by trusted members of the supply chain. Since the members
were trusted, they would pass the authenticity test of the blockchain.

~~~
deevolution
Yeah, unfortunately you cant do a checksum on physical ingredients.

~~~
diggan
Actually, from the article, it mentions this:

> Leanne Kemp, an Australian who in 2015 founded a company called Everledger,
> has now encrypted the distinguishing features of 1.8 million diamonds and
> their provenance on a blockchain.

> More than 40 features are logged to create a fingerprint for each diamond,
> logging it from mine to ring.

So it seems, in the case of diamonds, they are unique enough to create a
fingerprint. I'm no expert on diamonds, so that might not really work in
reality.

~~~
Isomatik
I can't find very much information on Everledger's features process, just on
the blockchain aspect, which doesn't inspire confidence. It's not enough for
them to create 40 features you can fingerprint a diamond by, they have to be
40 features that are independently and consistently verifiable.

If I have to send my diamond to Everledger to verify it, I'm effectively just
trusting them. Representing a physical object as a cryptographic hash for
security doesn't work if the consumer can't independently verify the hash.

------
cdancette
The pharmaceutical companies are basically using blockchain as a data store.
The only benefit of blockchain here is availability and security (hacking is
more difficult), but they could use exactly the same mechanism and use a
traditional database.

People still need the technology in there phone to scan the product, and we
need to ensure that those proofs can't be tampered directly on the products.
That also seems hard.

------
skywhopper
The author and editor of this article apparently made no attempt to comprehend
what a blockchain is or what it can do, and there's no detail in the article
that tells me how using a blockchain solves the authenticity problems
described. Paperwork can be bought for a bribe? Why couldn't a blockchain
record?

~~~
netsharc
A theoretical solution is a gadget that can read the chemical composition of a
powder placed in front of its sensor, and digitally sign it... obviously
there's a MITM attack there, if I can go between the sensor and the CPU, I can
tell the CPU "the sensors read these values..."

~~~
deevolution
Consumers would need the ability to easily verify that the chemical
composition of the product they purchased matches the manufacturers claim.

------
mcguire
I'm afraid I don't get any of this.

" _A small wire in the formula label wraps around the container, explains
Alexander Busarov, chief executive of blockchain startup WaLiMai. "You cannot
open the can of baby food without breaking the label," he says._

" _The wire acts as an antenna for a signal from an RFID chip, which a
smartphone can read. The chip, like some bank cards, generates a new code each
time it is scanned. Authenticating takes about two seconds, says Mr Busarov,
then you get the result, the logistics details, a picture of the product and
where it was labelled._ "

They're using magic encryption technology and remote servers to ensure that
someone hasn't _opened the can and replaced the contents?_

I kinda see the diamond example, although I'm not sure what the block chain
adds over a simple database. But the problems with the other products invoice
a worker dumpling a bag of melamine powder into the mixer with the other
ingredients and then lying about it. How does this, or any other, technology
stop that?

------
mark_l_watson
The article gets some technical details wrong but does point the way of what I
think are blockchains big use cases.

I took the edX blockchain for business class that covers these use cases and
has some hands on exercises - not much programming, but experimenting with
Hyperledge projects. I am interested in a different use case
[http://hyperledgerai.com](http://hyperledgerai.com) but I have not made much
progress yet.

------
cdancette
I think a good idea would be for the brands to "sign" each product they're
selling, so that you could verify the signature in a very simple way (scanning
a qr code? ).

I think the blockchain is not really necessary here, and it solves a problem
that's not very likely to happen (someone hacking the pharmaceutical's
database to remove evidence of tampering).

------
cheeze
What actually makes this a blockchain? That it uses a Merkle Tree?

Is a CT log a blockchain?

~~~
cdancette
A blockchain is a just a linear merkle tree.

~~~
mbrock
Put differently, it's like a branching DAG with economic incentives to always
treat the longest path as "master."

Quite a lot like a Git repository: you usually want to follow the branch with
the most cumulative work on it.

~~~
cdancette
It's more of a tree than a DAG : you'll never have merging in a blockchain.

A tree where the longest path is considered the real branch.

