Slashdot Mirror
Accenture Patents a Blockchain-Editing Tool (techweekeurope.co.uk)
A blockchain "produces a permanent ledger of transactions with which no one can tamper," reports TechWeekEurope. "Until now." Slashdot reader Mickeycaskill quotes their report:
One of the core principles of Blockchain technology has potentially been undermined by the creation of an editing tool. The company responsible however, Accenture, says edits would only be carried out "under extraordinary circumstances to resolve human errors, accommodate legal and regulatory requirements, and address mischief and other issues, while preserving key cryptographic features..."
Accenture's move to create an editing system will no doubt be viewed by some technology observers as a betrayal of what blockchain technology is all about. But the company insisted it is needed, especially in the financial services industry... "The prototype represents a significant breakthrough for enterprise uses of blockchain technology particularly in banking, insurance and capital markets," said Accenture.
They're envisioning "permissioned" blockchain systems, "managed by designated administrators under agreed governance rules," while acknowledging that cyptocurrency remains a different environment where "immutable" record-keeping would still be essential.
Accenture's move to create an editing system will no doubt be viewed by some technology observers as a betrayal of what blockchain technology is all about. But the company insisted it is needed, especially in the financial services industry... "The prototype represents a significant breakthrough for enterprise uses of blockchain technology particularly in banking, insurance and capital markets," said Accenture.
They're envisioning "permissioned" blockchain systems, "managed by designated administrators under agreed governance rules," while acknowledging that cyptocurrency remains a different environment where "immutable" record-keeping would still be essential.
All I read here, is that finance can't use a system that is 100% accountable. They need a way to create scape goats and reverse bad decisions.
I read: we require a backdoor into everything...
Come on, ledgers are never edited, correction transactions are written when a mistake happens.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
"permissioned" blockchain systems,"
"managed by designated administrators under agreed governance rules,"
In other words: They are doing something completely different, but still call it "blockchain" because that's the current buzzword.
Reminds be a bit of what "cloud" should have stood for until it became a generic moniker for simple online storage.
bickerdyke
It reminds me of a story about removing the name of a Very VIP from certain emails.
Basically, they invented a backdoor for bitcoin-like protocols. And then they patented it, so you can't put a backdoor in your bitcoin-like protocol unless you pay them some money!
People patent shit every day
It's interesting, but some of the earliest accounting software I used, which was COBOL-based, didn't allow you to change any ledger once a month was posted and closed. I suppose it was possible to go into the actual database and directly alter records, but the underlying concept was that once a fiscal period was complete, it was inviolate, and the only way you could alter any closed ledger was to post adjusting entries in this period. This could be rather ugly, so you tried really hard not to do any major mistakes. Even end of the year adjusting entries were posted in the next fiscal year.
Since then I've seen a number of accounting systems that allow all sorts of monkeying around, including posting adjusting entries for a fiscal year within that fiscal year, even though you may be a couple of months into the current fiscal year. It seems common practice now, but a quarter of a century ago that was viewed as completely inappropriate, as it opened the door for fraud.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The blockchain isn't new. An editable blockchain isn't new. All the hype is about the concept that created the immutable blockchain, not the blockchain itself.
A blockchain is a data structure that can be modified like any other if you control it. I'm sure you could use vi. It might make testing a new blockchain system easier but it is ridiculous to suggest this new tool in any way undermines anything to do with blockchain technology.
So basically they've taken a bitcoin like distributed ledger, restricted who can do the mining work, and allowed certain privileged entities to produce some form of signed patch. Effectively it's just taking something like bitcoin and adding a new transaction type. As such, it's a blockchain counterpart to the way that UDF allows modifying and deleting on WORM media (that is, a convention for saying 'x was deleted', or 'x replaces y'), perhaps with the means to prevent the erased information being recovered from the updated blockchain.
John_Chalisque
It's like unsliced bread: the greatest thing since sliced bread.
the actual story here is that another bad patent was issued. duh.
And of course that techweekeurope doesn't understand tech. (but I guess thats not news)
Accountants and bankers committing fraud? Say it ain't so!!
The entire purpose of blockchains (the tech behind bitcoin) is that is an immutable ledger, trustless. First off, accenture's tool is useless for Bitcoin (the main use case of blockchains today) because editing transactions within the blockchain will cause that block, and every block after it, to be unable to be validated. Making a new tech and calling it a blockchain while allowing for edits in previous blocks is basically using the term "blockchain" but creating a bastardization of the technology.
If after the fact edits do need to be made, and they're actually above board, then the simplest solution is to simply publish new transactions that reverse the transactions that were made in error, NOT to allow any transaction to be arbitrarily altered after the fact.
Is the remnants of the company which facilitated the Enron scandal. Are we really to trust they will use this crack "responsibly"? Who determines when a block chain should be edited? Them? Why?
Mod parent up.
there's absolutely no technical details on how the aim to accomplish this. Wouldn't they need an insane amount of processing power to accomplish this ? otherwise what use is the blockchain at all ? I call BS.
Are these people completely stupid, or are they just so utterly arrogant and full of themselves that they think they can compromise and destroy the technology, but keep the name as marketing gadget?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Come on, ledgers are never edited, correction transactions are written when a mistake happens.
Ledgers are "corrected" all the time. In theory, that should never happen, but there are plenty of ways to fudge. Some accounting systems, including Quickbooks, have an "owner" mode that allows anyone with a special password to modify and backdate transactions. This is one reason Quickbooks is so popular.
Another possibility is to restore from backup, and re-enter the transactions, leaving out or modifying the troublesome entry. If the software doesn't allow you to enter an arbitrary date, then just set the system date & time between transactions as you enter them. You can download scripts to automate this.
And, of course, there is the classic solution of keeping two sets of books: one ledger for internal accounting, and a separate ledger for the tax man.
Sounds like a bank. Or maybe a payment processor.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Unless, of course, you want to make it easy to cook the books. At one time, bankers and accountants understood that even the slioghtest whiff of impropriety was a problem even if you actually weren't actually doing anything wrong. Today, they're all YOLO.
Remember who "Accenture" really is: the post-scandal-renamed Andersen Consulting, aka: Arthur Andersen. Accounting fraud is their very purpose for existing. And corrupting blockchains to destroy accountability is exactly the sort of thing you expect out of those people.
Imagine all the people...
"And because Blockchain is effectively run by a network of unrelated computers, it produces a permanent ledger of transactions with which no one can tamper. Until now."
“The invention is not designed for ‘permissionless’ systems, like the cryptocurrency system supporting Bitcoin, which is open and decentralised and where the absence of a single governing authority makes absolutely permanent, or ‘immutable,’ recordkeeping vital."
The author of the article does not seem to understand that decentralized openness is an essential part of blockchain tamper-resistance (you can rewrite your copy of the Bitcoin blockchain, but you cannot get it accepted without controlling a significant part of all global Bitcoin mining.)
I wonder how many blockchain-based solutions will be sold on the grounds of tamper-resistance, when the way they use the blockchain actually negates that assumption?
Wait till Mr. Robot becomes an editor. Oh don't worry about that friend, you see we hired Allsafe to keep it secure. (Alf walks by the background).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Disclaimer: I am a business analyst at an insurance company that uses Accenture policy administration software (I do production support).
I can see the value in a product like this. There's a lot of complexity in billing based on premium rating, fx rates, taxes in different states/countries, etc. that are constantly changing. Maintenance teams struggle to keep up with the requirement changes and there are a lot of weird defects and missed requirements that make their way into billing. It's taken as a given that our financial system will include mistakes that need occasional manual correction. So if the blockchain is going to emerge as the new industry standard ledger system, there needs to be a way to correct mistakes.
It defeats the purpose of having a blockchain if you can change it retrospectively.
It's not a blockchain if you can "edit" it.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"to resolve human errors, accommodate legal and regulatory requirements, and address mischief "
But all of those can be treated by adding a transparent new transaction that compensates for earlier erroneous transaction. Deleting the erroneous transaction destroys the audit trail and is unnecessary except for fraud.
So... without reading the patent, this is my idea:
1. Identify the block that you want to correct: X
2. Cut the chain at before X.
3. Write modified X.
4. Replay the chain from X+1 to the end.
5. Profit!
Somewhere before point one there will be a company-wide email saying "Please be aware that the blockchain will be undergoing maintenance on Sunday between midnight and 6am. The blockchain will be unavailable during this time. Thank you for not attempting to commit anything to it while we do this. Our in-house blockchain clients will automatically delete all copies of the original and replace them with the edited chain. Thank you."
Accenture, was know as Arthur Anderson, until they got caught contributing to the Enron scandal (2001 for you kiddos).
Accenture's move to create an editing system will no doubt be viewed by some technology observers as a betrayal of what blockchain technology is all about.
If it is possible to edit, it does not really matter who creates an editing tool. The blockchain is flawed if this possibility exists.
The reality with financial transactions is some decisions are actually reversed or rolled back. What do you do when your ledger says a transaction occurred that actually didn't occur? I am not sure editing is right solution, but neither is simply putting in a second transaction crediting the money back as now you have 2 transactions that didn't occur in your ledger.
Dumbass ...
Andersen Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen before the SHTF. It's not Arthur Andersen renamed.
and this patent will stop someone from writing their own editor and creating/manipulating their funds? ROFL. Idiots and their wet dreams.
I can't help but feel that this is nothing more than a attempt to undermine, short term, confidence in virtual currencies.
Otherwise known as "market manipulation".
Price goes down on some press announcement like this, somebody buys large, price rebounds. Somebody cashes in.
The reality with financial transactions is some decisions are actually reversed or rolled back. What do you do when your ledger says a transaction occurred that actually didn't occur?
If it's in a blockchain, and it pertains to a cryptocurrency exchange, then it DID occur, because the thing in the Blockchain IS the transaction.
If it's something else, then you establish rules that let you create a New entry which will be recorded As If it was an edit, BUT it is not an "In place" edit; it's a new record in the Blockchain that is interpreted as an edit, so you could then later go back and programmatically see that an edit was made, and the historical information "THat such and such transaction was erased" will always be intact as an element in the chain.
Since then I've seen a number of accounting systems that allow all sorts of monkeying around, including posting adjusting entries for a fiscal year within that fiscal year, even though you may be a couple of months into the current fiscal year. It seems common practice now, but a quarter of a century ago that was viewed as completely inappropriate, as it opened the door for fraud.
Thanks for updating me to 2016, amazing!
Of course, as another poster has mentioned, it is always possible to restore from backup or whatever to fool the system around but the only thing I knew about was what I described first.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
"Accenture" is Andersen Consulting under a stupid-sounding name to try to avoid the stench of the Enron scandal. As an organization, they have always been devoid of any ethical qualms, and they should be ignored.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Andersen Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen before the SHTF.
Not before crimes were committed, just before they were discovered.
Andersen remains a pack of crooks, and hiring shills like you to spin the story doesn't change that.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The reality with financial transactions is some decisions are actually reversed or rolled back. What do you do when your ledger says a transaction occurred that actually didn't occur? I am not sure editing is right solution, but neither is simply putting in a second transaction crediting the money back as now you have 2 transactions that didn't occur in your ledger.
Typically there is an approval stage in accounting where a transaction can be reviewed and corrected before being posted. Once it has been approved (posted), it may be not be edited. Any adjustments must be made by creating a new transaction. If you have transaction xyz, and you later decide it is in error, you enter another transaction, labeled "reversal of transaction xyz" for the opposite values (inventory adjustment, credit, debit, etc.) Modern systems can even link the adjustment to the original transaction for clarity.
You are thinking only of bitcoin type scenarios, blockchains have been proposed as solutions for recording financial information for businesses, in those scenarios it most definitely is possible for the transaction to have been recorded yet not have occurred.
If there is a need for transactions to be atomic, perhaps multiple signatures with expiration dates would be useful. One to "pre-sign" the transaction, and if that transaction isn't cancelled (perhaps with a nonce that is stored as a hash), after "x" amount of time, the transaction becomes permanent. Or, a signature to start a transaction, another to end it. One can use blockchain technology in a lot of ways, and allowing people to "un-sign" something is just asking for trouble.
Andersen Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen before the SHTF.
Not before crimes were committed, just before they were discovered.
Andersen remains a pack of crooks, and hiring shills like you to spin the story doesn't change that.
-jcr
The partners at AC divorced themselves from AA long before Enron. There was much shit and hatred between the two organization for a very long time.
In addition to being immune to hacking it will of course be immune to abuse. Because, as we all know, the financial industry never lies or covers anything up.
Dude, Andersen actually sued Andersen Consulting to stop using the valuable Andersen name. AC lost the suit and were forced to change their name or pay licensing fees. In the end, this was a blessing in disguise, but the order of events was clear and preceded Enron by at least a year.
They are really Arthur Andersen. the big accounting firm who rebranded after the Enron scandal http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1023409436545200
1
Blockchain + Editing Tool = Database
2
Blockchain + Editing tool + N 'clients' = N copies of the database
3
Blockchain + Editing tool + N 'clients' + M 'concurrent edits' = chaos
I have a suggestion - Use a proper database.
Does your $multi-billion business depend on this blockchain|database|record, If it does - Use a proper database, keep it safe.
I think you mean "i.e." (that is, in other words), not "e.g." (for instance, for example).
Another hit from Jean-Luc and The Suits: "Make It So!" Combine with Gresham's Law, Clipper chips, etc. to see the end game. Just the Borg at work. Nothing to see here, move along.
You are correct my friend..... That's what I get for posting while driving. :/
You NEVER need to edit. You only need to make a referenced notation and cancel in a write-only fashion. Doing it this way instead accomplishes exactly the same effect but leaves a permanent, unalterable audit trail. Yes, you may make mistakes but that's the point of notation/cancellation.
Either this IS for nefarious purposes OR they are incompetent.
To be accurate Andersen Consulting split off from Arthur Andersen and then became Accenture. Arthur Andersen was the accounting firm that closed shop because of their malfeasance with Enron. The thing was that the partners at Andersen Consulting started making tons of money that the Arthur Andersen partners were not. So Arthur Andersen added consulting to their business services and that is when they got into trouble.
Thats it. If a system is build to permit abuse, it will be abused. If they want to make a "blockchain" that can be "edited", it is not a blockchain, but abuses the blockchain name for fraudulent uses.
If a record in a blockchain is wrong, just add a clearly marked correction record at the end, and that's it. No need to "edit" a blockchain, and the error and its corrections are visible and can be accounted for.
I'm not really knowledgeable in the subject, but I wonder if it's even possible at all. Isn't a blockchain exactly there to not be tampered with? Isn't it a distributed system? So "editing" a former block would require you to "edit" it in all distributed systems, changing the hash, and would require all following blocks to be re-edited and re-hashed as well.
Yes, you're right. That's what Accenture is proposing. They can do this since it is a "private" blockchain and they control all copies. After an edit, they'll need to recompute everything and they can do this since they own all copies.
Kind of defeats the purpose of the blockchain.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
you don't ignore large entities you believe to lack ethical qualms, you watch them closely for information