> You have not demonstrated how this is so. Putting the records up on S3 is sufficient for the purpose of access.
That's a matter of choice, isn't it? I just demonstrated how easily accessible it was. Just because there's another method available, doesn't mean this one isn't valid.
> Immutability has no practical benefits that were not already possible using cryptographic hashing and signatures. If you disagree, please explain.
That's exactly what the smart contract and blockchain system used does. It's just another vehicle that functions in a different way than just signing the files and uploading them to a server somewhere.
> This is already solved by the inherent decentralization of the internet. This inherent property of the internet is so pervasive that it is actually a serious problem for situations like "right to be forgotten" and revenge porn.
No. That ultimately relies on the proactive efforts of others making and serving unadulterated copies of the data in question. In the form the council is experimenting with, no additional conscious action is required. The copies are made perpetually as long as the network exists. I consider that a boon for data like this.
> You don't need smart contracts for this, if a government is willing to be open the problem is already solved, smart contracts don't add anything to the mix.
You say that they're not needed. The role of the National Research Council is to research and experiment in all manners, including new technologies. That is what they're doing here. It's not a question of "was it ever needed in any form"— it's a question of: is it an improvement? Do we see benefits or detriments? Are the results net positive or net negative? And what next?
There is one way to empirically answer that question: experiment, gather data, and draw analyses and conclusions.
You continually ask me to explain myself, and I have—you've however yet to explain your assertions.
That's a matter of choice, isn't it? I just demonstrated how easily accessible it was. Just because there's another method available, doesn't mean this one isn't valid.
> Immutability has no practical benefits that were not already possible using cryptographic hashing and signatures. If you disagree, please explain.
That's exactly what the smart contract and blockchain system used does. It's just another vehicle that functions in a different way than just signing the files and uploading them to a server somewhere.
> This is already solved by the inherent decentralization of the internet. This inherent property of the internet is so pervasive that it is actually a serious problem for situations like "right to be forgotten" and revenge porn.
No. That ultimately relies on the proactive efforts of others making and serving unadulterated copies of the data in question. In the form the council is experimenting with, no additional conscious action is required. The copies are made perpetually as long as the network exists. I consider that a boon for data like this.
> You don't need smart contracts for this, if a government is willing to be open the problem is already solved, smart contracts don't add anything to the mix.
You say that they're not needed. The role of the National Research Council is to research and experiment in all manners, including new technologies. That is what they're doing here. It's not a question of "was it ever needed in any form"— it's a question of: is it an improvement? Do we see benefits or detriments? Are the results net positive or net negative? And what next?
There is one way to empirically answer that question: experiment, gather data, and draw analyses and conclusions.
You continually ask me to explain myself, and I have—you've however yet to explain your assertions.