IBM Unveils Blockchain As a Service Based On Open Source Hyperledger Fabric Technology (techcrunch.com)

IBM has unveiled its "Blockchain as a Service," which is based on the open source Hyperledger Fabric, version 1.0 from The Linux Foundation. "IBM Blockchain is a public cloud service that customers can use to build secure blockchain networks," TechCrunch reports, noting that it's "the first ready-for-primetime implementation built using that technology." From the report: Although the blockchain piece is based on the open source Hyperledger Fabric project of which IBM is a participating member, it has added a set of security services to make it more palatable for enterprise customers, while offering it as a cloud service helps simplify a complex set of technologies, making it more accessible than trying to do this alone in a private datacenter. The Hyperledger Fabric project was born around the end of 2015 to facilitate this, and includes other industry heavyweights such as State Street Bank, Accenture, Fujitsu, Intel and others as members. While the work these companies have done to safeguard blockchain networks, including setting up a network, inviting members and offering encrypted credentials, was done under the guise of building extra safe networks, IBM believes it can make them even safer by offering an additional set of security services inside the IBM cloud. While Jerry Cuomo, VP of blockchain technology at IBM, acknowledges that he can't guarantee that IBM's blockchain service is unbreachable, he says the company has taken some serious safeguards to protect it. This includes isolating the ledger from the general cloud computing environment, building a security container for the ledger to prevent unauthorized access, and offering tamper-responsive hardware, which can actually shut itself down if it detects someone trying to hack a ledger. What's more, IBM claims their blockchain product is built in a highly auditable way to track all of the activity that happens within a network, giving administrators an audit trail in the event something did go awry.

Comments

so IBM "fixed" the block chain

[OutOnARock]

By centralizing authority???

Re:so IBM "fixed" the block chain

[ASDFnz]

Basicly. It is a valid use of blockchain technology if you don't mind having trusted entities.

Bitcoin unaffected. Ethereum on the other hand....

Re:so IBM "fixed" the block chain

[AHuxley]

Compliance with all US banking regulations :)

Blockchain is going to cure all the worlds ills!

[hsmith]

We've reached peak buzzword for blockchain in the last 6 months. It'll balance our national debt, cure cancer, and make everyone happy according to all the con artists, errr, sales people pitching it as the be all end all.

Could be big in Fintech

[Camembert]

From what I understand, an advantage of Fabric is that it allows selective distribution, unlike a traditional blockchain with a global distribution of the "truth" in a more granular way than possible with a permission based ledger. This kinda marries the business benefit of a normal selective network and that of using a distributed ledger. I am not a programmer, this is my interpretation. This selective distribution makes the blockchain interesting for more solutions for example in financial services. Considering the technicalities involved it makes sense to offer it as a generic cloud service. Interesting developments for sure.

Re: Could be big in Fintech

[orlanz]

I am not sure... seems centralizing/clustering the system into many parts is opposite the concept of a open network where all participates vote on the validity of all transactions. They might have a way to keep votes localized for segregated transactions and then have the results accepted as valid by the rest of the system but still seems like a vector to create inconsistencies and disputes.

At that point you might as well get rid of the complexity of segregation/sharding and go with a central trusted authority or core members... like a Senate. Now you are just one step away from a traditional accounting ledger or... our current ACH system.

Re: Could be big in Fintech

[BBCWatcher]

IBM started offering Blockchain as a Service some months before Microsoft did. This particular announcement is significant because IBM is apparently the first to offer Linux Foundation Hyperledger 1.0 Blockchain as a Service, and in the industry unique ultra high security form, too.

Re: Could be big in Fintech

[hackwrench]

Well given my experience with the ACH system, if that one step is speed, then it will be worth it.

Re:Could be big in Fintech

[sandmaninator]

IBM CEO Ginny Rometty gives speeches at Fintech conferences all the time. They are available on YouTube. One oft-repeated phrase:
"Blockchain will do for transactions what the internet did for information".
BitCoin had no buy-in from large multinationals or any governments, yet, it was successful. These new business-friendly blockchain implementations absolutely DO.

Re:Blockchain is going to cure all the worlds ills

[EvilSS]

We've reached peak buzzword for blockchain in the last 6 months. It'll balance our national debt, cure cancer, and make everyone happy according to all the con artists, errr, sales people pitching it as the be all end all.

So it's like... everything ever. Welcome to the Hype Cycle!

Bingo!

[Nkwe]

Not bad, a bullshit bingo win in the title alone.

Digital Assets Property Record Office

[martiniturbide]

I was wondering if a "Digital Assets Property Record Office" can be created using blockchain, so when I buy a Def Leppard song on iTunes it get registered that I got that property and it will also be recognized on Google Play Music and others. And the same applies to my games, so don't keep re-buying the Mortal Kombat 2.

Re:Digital Assets Property Record Office

[martiniturbide]

You read the words, you missed the point.

Selective or Universal, Multiple Consensus

[BBCWatcher]

Once you spend even a few minutes trying to understand how financial and other industries operate (and want to operate in the future), you quickly realize that one size does not fit all. There are a few Blockchain use cases when it makes sense (if you can meet the scalability requirements) to have an open network, to distribute every transaction record (in whole form) to every node, and to have a "flat" consensus mechanism, with every node getting one equal vote. An awful lot of real world use cases don't fit that particular formula -- maybe most of them. Yet Blockchain, as a solution approach, still makes a great deal of sense if you can relax those artificial restrictions. That's exactly what the Hyperledger/Linux Foundation community has done. The Hyperledger 1.0 network can be permissioned, can avoid distributing every record (contents) to every node (but still maintains the chain itself), and offers pluggable consensus mechanisms. And you don't have to consume the equivalent of Holland's total electricity production, and climbing, to make it work -- far from it. That's flexible, and that's significant progress. It's also open source.

Re: Selective or Universal, Multiple Consensus

[BBCWatcher]

By that I mean, Intel, coke, att etc each get only one vote's worth of trust each, same as Linus, stallman, BoA and any registered, trusted developers.

Because that's not what certain industries (or regulators) want, but they have many, many use cases where Blockchain fabrics are useful. The Linux Foundation's Hyperledger fabric (and open source code) certainly isn't opposed to "flat" consensus models -- you can do that! But telling the semiconductor industry, or the beverage industry, or some other group that they must adopt one specific consensus model slams hard into reality very quickly. Choice is good, even democratic. ;)

Hyperledger provides something called Byzantine Fault Tolerance using the PBFT protocol as a supplied consensus algorithm. It's a great choice for many use cases, in part because it's well proven over many years, with mathematical proof. So you've got something solid to work with, out of the box. But the consensus algorithm is pluggable, and there are Hyperledger users plugging away. Pluggable consensus is critically important for openness and flexibility.

Re: Selective or Universal, Multiple Consensus

[Tanktalus]

One thing these customers want .. is to gain all the auditability of a blockchain (the chain itself is impervious to manipulation) without their competitors seeing what they do. If user "A" has a transaction pending with user "B", "A" does not want competitor "C" to know about it and try to swoop in somehow. They want their purchase to provide real market advantage with a level of surprise, instead of having all their competitors roll out the same functionality two months later. And thus, limit their transaction chains to approved people only (e.g., "A", "B", and the bank(s) or escrow managers).

Re:Selective or Universal, Multiple Consensus

[BBCWatcher]

If you don't trust an identified host to execute your transaction how does blockchain magically make that better?

Tanktalus provided one example upthread, what you might call "trusted competition" (or "competitive trust"). More generally, "trust" in the real world has many complexities, many shades of gray, and they are are not static. You might trust Ben Carson (or at least a younger one) to perform complex neurosurgery on your infant, but you might not trust him to run HUD. (Ben Carson didn't trust Ben Carson to run HUD. Oops.) As another analogy, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union trusted each other in certain ways, not in others. In particular, they trusted each other to blow each other up if sufficiently provoked ("Mutual Assured Destruction").

You could easily make the same basic argument about Bitcoin, and I might even join you in making that argument -- that the world is full of currencies (including many better currencies in terms of what currencies are supposed to do), and there are many other ways to create and to operate a currency than to use Blockchain algorithms (and to consume the equivalent of Holland's entire electricity demand in the process, last I checked). I remember the early commercial Internet when lavishly funded startups like Pets.com could advertise on the Superbowl but made absolutely no business sense. Blockchain is going to have its share of dubious applications and hucksters. Bridge well crossed, actually. Blockchain's first use case (Bitcoin) might be extra dubious. That said, I'm not brave enough to predict that Blockchain algorithms have no reasonable use cases that are "best fits" for the technology, especially if parties who understand business and government at least fairly well are working together. No matter. We'll find out soon enough, probably within the next year or so.

I am sure IBM will do very well with this

[Crashmarik]

mostly by selling it to people who have no idea what it is but trigger on a buzzword or two.

Doesn't this sorta defeat the purpose?

[rsilvergun]

e.g. that you get to decentralize your database and maybe get your users to pony up the computer time/electricity you're currently paying through the nose for at a datacenter?

Re:But how to convert Hyperledger Fabric into Bitc

[fluffernutter]

I could use an HDMI to blockchain converter.

Still missing...

[DrYak]

Still missing a way to cram the word "Organic, gluten-free, equal gender representation" into the title.

In-game assets

[DrYak]

There's a company called Everdreamsoft (I have a friend working there) that has a working prototype for in-game assets.

Buy (on a market place) or receive (in one of the games) an asset (usally cards for a card game), then you can use that asset in any other of the games that you play. A blockchain is used to keep track of who has what assets are in possession of which player.
(No steam-like central authority).

Re:Like everything ever.

[hackwrench]

No, it's late... which I suppose actually is like everything ever. But that's just what sprang to mind, and this time I remember the exact YouTube video with that sentiment: https://youtu.be/nelX9oC21B4