Some Nevada Governments Are Using Blockchain For Public Records (apnews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Some Nevada Governments Are Using Blockchain For Public Records (apnews.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday January 10, 2019 @06:45AM from the how-about-that dept.

Some northern Nevada counties are using blockchain, the online ledger best known for helping secure virtual currencies such as bitcoin, to store digital versions of government records like birth and marriage certificates. From a report: The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that as of December in Washoe County, about 950 couples had received secure digital marriage certificates to home computers and smartphones since the program debuted in April 2018. The newspaper found that Elko County is trying similar technology for certified digital birth certificates. Phil Dhingra at San Francisco-based Titan Seal said the Washoe County digital marriage certificate program uses the Ethereum blockchain because it has computing power that makes it hard to hack. He said he believes the number of digital certificates per year in the United States could at least match the billions of paper records that get a certificate or embossed seal of some kind.

95 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 06:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

How can a government put "Official" records on a free service that could vanish or fail at any time???
1. Re:Really? by sabbede · 2019-01-11 01:23 · Score: 2
  
  Poor planning.
Energy by nwaack · 2019-01-10 06:56 · Score: 2

Does it also use 1.21 jigawatts of power to pull up the record and send it to you?
1. Re:Energy by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Does it also use 1.21 jigawatts of power to pull up the record and send it to you?
  Appending information to a blockchain can be energy intensive. Reading it is not.
  Even appending is not inherently energy intensive. If there is only one authorized writer, then no "proof of work" is needed.
2. Re: Energy by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  When only one authorized writer exists, is blockchain the best solution?
3. Re:Energy by mhesd · 2019-01-10 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  End of this year Ethereum switches to 'Proof of Stake' consensus which reduces the power consumption by 99% points. A protocol update next week starts the transition.
4. Re: Energy by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Um, no. The best solution would be a database where you use authentication to control access
5. Re: Energy by jythie · 2019-01-10 08:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Keep in mind, one thing blockchains provide is a historical audit trail. Even if the single authorized writer can change values, all the previous inserts and changes are still examinable. This actually makes it a pretty good tool for public records since you can both see what currently is and what it looked like at every historical point.
6. Re: Energy by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Or, you could just design your database application to include an audit trail and logging. without consuming vast amounts of other people's electricity to perform unnecessary calculations
7. Re:Energy by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-10 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  If there's only one authorized writer then you have a bog standard hash list. The "novelty" of blockchain is that you can put it on the Internet and let any idiot write to it.
  Even the hashes just make things a bit more convenient. If you decide you can use a mirrored copy for verification instead you have, um, a web page.
8. Re: Energy by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  The best solution would be a database where you use authentication to control access
  You are assuming that authorization equals trust, and that all future authorized users will also be trusted, by everyone.
  "Trust" means confidence in competence and diligence as well as trust in honesty.
  If there is a lack of trust, then you need a database plus an audit trail, and automatic external backups. That is what a blockchain provides.
9. Re: Energy by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-10 08:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The audit trail is provided by making the list public. You can make any list public and then anyone who has a copy can check whether you changed something.
  Hash trees/lists make integrity checking quicker, and revision a bit harder. If I want to change an earlier entry in a regular list I just do it. If I want to change an earlier entry in a hash list I have to recalculate and update the hashes from that point forward.
10. Re:Energy by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  If there's only one authorized writer then you have a bog standard hash list.
  You also want automatic distributed backups and integrity checks. Blockchain = hash list + distribution + integrity checks. If it makes you feel better, maybe we could call it something else.
  
  The "novelty" of blockchain is that you can put it on the Internet and let any idiot write to it.
  No. There is no requirement that a blockchain be publicly writable.
11. Re:Energy by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-10 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  The novelty of a blockchain is that you can put it on the Internet. You can do that because it has some sort of procedure to decide who gets to write to it.
  Integrity checking, that's not already part of a hash tree, is accomplished by having many copies, in different hands. There's nothing magic about blockchain integrity. If the Nevada government has a private one and decides to delete someone's birth certificate they can go ahead and do that.
  Distribution? If you mean that blockchain requires being distributed to have any value at all, then yes, you're quite correct. It's not "distribution" in the sense many might think of though, since everyone who wants to do anything of note with it needs the whole thing.
12. Re:Energy by F.Ultra · 2019-01-10 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  They are using the Ethereum public blockchain so yes it's energy intensive. And if they would have used a private chain (to fit your single writer) then the whole idea of distributed trust vanishes instantly.
13. Re: Energy by F.Ultra · 2019-01-10 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Since they (TitanSeal) only stores the sha256 digest of the PDF in the blockchain you can only use the audit trail to see if the document is forged if you also have access to the first version of the document (so that you can see that it was in the ledger at a time prior to the second document that is presented to you) and even then you cannot be sure that the first version is actually the first version since there can be earlier versions who's hash is stored in the blockchain only that you have not seen this document yet so you do not know it's hash.
14. Re: Energy by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-14 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  And how does the general public cryptographically validate that the audit hasn't been modified?
Worst idea ever by phantomfive · 2019-01-10 06:56 · Score: 4, Informative

No reason to use a blockchain here. A blockchain is great because it is a public database without the need of a trusted entity. The tradeoff is, it is extremely inefficient.

When you are issuing a birth certificate, you already have an entity that must be trusted to issue birth certificates (the state, and doctors). There is thus no benefit for putting that info in a blockchain, you might as well use a standard database.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No reason to use a blockchain here. A blockchain is great because it is a public database without the need of a trusted entity.
  If you consider the government to be, and always remain, a "trusted entity", then you are correct. If you think that corruption is possible, and public records may be destroyed or altered someday, then a blockchain makes that more difficult.
  
  The tradeoff is, it is extremely inefficient.
  Blockchains are not inherently inefficient. Cryptocurrencies are designed to be inefficient to throttle the generation of new coins. But there is no reason for a county clerk to use the same algorithm.
2. Re:Worst idea ever by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-01-10 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Same deal with how wall street was looking at blockchain. You certainly don't need it if you have a trusted relationship, and you probably don't need to prevent double-spending attacks when you have billions in seizable assets and no anonymity.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
3. Re:Worst idea ever by Shaitan · 2019-01-10 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  It is also highly resilient. City hall burns down or the russians invade and destroy all county offices, there will still be a record you were born.
4. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Same deal with how wall street was looking at blockchain. You certainly don't need it if you have a trusted relationship
  Finalizing a stock transaction can take several days, and involve a third party clearing house. This is because Wall Street organizations don't trust each other.
  Blockchains could make this process far faster and more efficient.
  If you think Wall Street institutions should trust each other, because, hey, they are big and reputable, then you may want to read up on Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, and LTCM.
5. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  But that has nothing to do with "blockchain". That's just backups. You can do that without an extremely wasteful distributed signing mechanism.
6. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  I agree! Government doesn't make backups
7. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Will there? What if the only digital copies were destroyed as well. You are assuming this data will be copied all over the place. It's not like this is currency changing hands a lot thus people copied all over the place.
8. Re:Worst idea ever by Shaitan · 2019-01-10 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  Thousands of them, globally distributed, across third parties in a way that isn't predictable or centrally vulnerable. Which isn't specific to "blockchain" no but is part of the bitcoin decentralized package.
  Perhaps not as implemented here but ultimately the advantage is that other parties decide who they trust or not, not merely your own government. The records are highly resilient and publicly available without need to contact any government official or occupy their time making a request. The data is distributed, the processing is distributed. But if governments are going to use public blockchains they need to be mining on them to ensure nobody can reach 51% as a matter of national security.
9. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Finalizing a stock transaction can take several days, and involve a third party clearing house. This is because Wall Street organizations don't trust each other.
  Blockchains could make this process far faster and more efficient.
  If you think Wall Street institutions should trust each other, because, hey, they are big and reputable, then you may want to read up on Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, and LTCM.
  Faster and more efficient? What crack are you smoking? Blockchain verifications can take over a week and be outright rejected because no one wants to spend the CPU cycles to do it.
10. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  If the government doesn't own half the servers, they don't control the blockchain.
  Your solution opens up the ability to own more servers than the government and tell the government what is real or not.
  Still not seeing an advantage to this.
11. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Blockchain verifications can take over a week and be outright rejected because no one wants to spend the CPU cycles to do it.
  This is true for cryptocurrencies, but not true for blockchains in general. CCs are based on proof-of-work and anyone can mine. Bitcoin has over 7000 active nodes, and Ethereum has over 25000.
  For financial transactions, there would be a limited number of authorized writers, and no proof-of-work would be needed. Transactions could be done in minutes or even seconds, and at little cost.
12. Re: Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  You have no idea what you are talking about.
13. Re:Worst idea ever by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-01-10 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Committing to a stock transaction takes milliseconds using third party exchanges. Otherwise, everyone would back out of transactions since prices change frequently over the three days you think it takes to finalize. There's no need to have blockchain do it because authoritative third party exchanges do it.
  And I didn't say that Wall Street institutions should trust each other. I said double spending the specific reason Bitcoin uses blockchain, probably isn't an issue. Because the amount of time it would take to notice the double spending is small, the liability is large, and the amount of double-spending to liability is a small ratio before you get caught
  As for your examples, it's really interesting that you included one scam (Madoff) and two examples of bankruptcy (Lehman, LTCM). Only one of those was a "trust" issue, and that was a fraud. I would imagine you could find better examples, but I guess not
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
14. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  No, finalizing most stock transactions takes less than a second, because most transactions don't even exit a brokerage let alone hit an exchange. A broker will still tell you settlement takes several days because, well, who wouldn't want to hold on to someone else's assets for a few days if they could? If you're one of the very few investors that doesn't use a self-clearing broker, more power to you.
  To the extent that clearing houses do handle transactions, even that is evidence of fundamental trust. Could you possibly argue anything else when just the NYSE handles $200B in trading every single day? What clearing house in their right mind could set aside reserves for that kind of risk unless they fundamentally trusted that 99.999% of transactions would go through? Even at that rate, that's $2M a day that would fail and the clearing house would be responsible for, so you know you've got to add some more 9's behind that...
  Also, I'm not sure how you can both claim that "Wall Street organizations don't trust each other" and then suggest someone read up on Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, and LTCM. The single common denominator to those events is that Wall Street organizations DO trust each other. And they continue to do so, as they should, within reasonable limits.
15. Re:Worst idea ever by jythie · 2019-01-10 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes. It would be something like git implemented using a particular type of math that provides a nice strong audit trail. With something like git, you can still go in and slice up the middle to delete or change historical information. A blockchain makes that process more difficult... but yes, it would more closely resemble version control or content management systems than a cryptocurency, but blockchains themselves are about as well suited to either type of problem.
16. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  it much more closely resembles git than a cryptocurrency and talking about it like it's based on the latter instead of the former is just talking in buzzwords.
  Blockchains are not "based" on cryptocurrencies. It is the other way around. Cryptocurrencies are based on blockchains, but they are not the only applications, and non-CC blockchains can have very different characteristics. The one thing they have in common is that "trust" is distributed.
  Comparing blockchains to git is a useful analogy, but there are significant differences. Git is designed to distribute content rather than "trust", commits can be spoofed, and there is no concept of resolving conflicting commits automatically.
17. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Right. I mean, I'm totally hosting a backup copy of Washoe County, Nevada's vital records database and their blockchain thingy. As, so you say, are "thousands" of entities, "globally distributed." In fact, we're eagerly awaiting Esmeralda County, Nevada's blockchain records because we have nothing better to do.
18. Re:Worst idea ever by jythie · 2019-01-10 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  You can always keep the system both distributed and closed, just have multiple states/agencies/etc all using the same blockchain, but not have it open to outside entities to mine. It could actually make a rather clever distributed backup system.
19. Re:Worst idea ever by phantomfive · 2019-01-10 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  It is also highly resilient. City hall burns down or the russians invade and destroy all county offices, there will still be a record you were born.
  This is like backing up your stuff by putting it on P2P. You hope someone has a copy, but they might not.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
20. Re:Worst idea ever by phantomfive · 2019-01-10 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Blockchains are not inherently inefficient
  Blockchain will always be several orders of magnitude slower than mysql.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
21. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  No reason to use a blockchain here. A blockchain is great because it is a public database without the need of a trusted entity.
  If you consider the government to be, and always remain, a "trusted entity", then you are correct. If you think that corruption is possible, and public records may be destroyed or altered someday, then a blockchain makes that more difficult.
  So let's say that public records do get altered. Then you still have the physical birth certificate. The reason it has to get signed by the attending physician and all the other hoops to jump through is precisely so that the physical certificate is self-authenticating. A blockchain is in that sense less secure, since the digital certificate wouldn't be self-authenticating, one would also need the entire blockchain (at least up until when it is issued).
  
  The tradeoff is, it is extremely inefficient.
  Blockchains are not inherently inefficient. Cryptocurrencies are designed to be inefficient to throttle the generation of new coins. But there is no reason for a county clerk to use the same algorithm.
  Though it's worth noting that the requirement to have universal agreement on the head of the chain does introduce real, concrete inefficiency of the type you're dismissing, the main reason a blockchain is inefficient as applied here is simply because it's a lot of technology introduced for no real, concrete benefit.
22. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Committing to a stock transaction takes milliseconds using third party exchanges.
  Committing may take a millisecond. Clearing the transaction can take far longer. Most small transactions are cleared internally within a single brokerage. They just match up buys and sells from their own client base, or make-market from their own account. But if there is a large transaction or an imbalance, and they need to go through the exchange or a dark pool, it can take days to clear.
23. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  With something like git, you can still go in and slice up the middle to delete or change historical information.
  Uh, no, not really. You can go back and rewrite a previous commit, at which point once you push it back everyone who already downloaded the previous commit it can identify that you modified it. But blockchain has the same situation. You can certainly go back and rewrite it (though it will take a lot more processing power) but then everyone will be able to see that you did so.
24. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe this is part of a process flow. Hospital staff claims baby is born. Doctor digitally signs concurrence. State certifies and attests to veracity. Instead of being a simple ledger stating "Baby Doe @ datetime_stamp + metadata" it actually indicates a sequence of events along that path. The doctors may not trust the state and the state may not trust the doctors, but you would need to circumvent three organizations to digitally create a counterfeit baby. And because of the block chain, changing old records will become exponentially harder.
25. Re:Worst idea ever by phantomfive · 2019-01-10 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's an argument for digital signing, but it's not an argument for using blockchain.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
26. Re:Worst idea ever by Shaitan · 2019-01-10 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  "If the government doesn't own half the servers, they don't control the blockchain."
  Which is of great comfort to those who don't trust your government, such as other governments. Why would they need to control the blockchain? They don't need to control the block chain, they only need to ensure nobody else controls the block chain. It is less about having control of the library of congress, who can view it, and who can shelve books there and more about making sure nobody can ever control it or burn it down. You can still pick the books and authors you trust. The bitcoin assembly, including the blockchain, combines to prevent counterfeiting so effectively it can replace money and aside from the 51% issue (which is a function of the design and not so much a bug) the framework has stood up to all attempts to compromise it to date even with institutional level money flying around. it can certainly be adapted to be public records, books, or documents rather than purely numeric transactions.
  Indeed, the government can't burn the books or the records, they can issue a new document to revoke a previous entry or put some expiration tag on it but the record remains where it can be scrutinized later. You can also detect if someone else is at risk of gaining 51%, allowing you to add more power to block their effort.
  "Your solution opens up the ability to own more servers than the government and tell the government what is real or not."
  No it doesn't, nothing prevents the government from publishing a public key and signing documents with it to be verified. They can distribute that public key through other methods and it can be verified by other parties who can in turn confirm it on said blockchain with their own signed messages. The government verifying the documents isn't an issue, they can digitally watermark as they choose. It is third parties who need to be able to verify the documents and decide if they trust them.
  Look at this another way, if there were degrees your international corporation no longer needs an apostle on international degrees or even to ask you for one to verify. This not only speeds things up and eliminates the cost to do it, it also eliminates the overhead of doing it on the embassy and any resources required for verification from the university.
27. Re:Worst idea ever by jbmartin6 · 2019-01-10 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  What does blockchain provide in this case that standard digital signatures do not?
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
28. Re:Worst idea ever by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-10 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  "then a blockchain makes that more difficult."
  This is technically true, but trivially so. Computing hashes is not difficult. The resistance to revisions comes because you make the list public. Everyone can see when you make a change.
  "Blockchains are not inherently inefficient."
  Hash lists aren't inefficient, but if you're going to let anyone write to them (a la a "blockchain") then you have to design it so winning the right to write is difficult.
29. Re:Worst idea ever by ceoyoyo · 2019-01-10 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Blockchains are like git except you put the password on the Internet and let people race to make commits. Then you take the longest continuous chain of commits and call that the correct one.
30. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  So let's say that public records do get altered. Then you still have the physical birth certificate.
  When there is a difference between public records and physical documents, the physical document may be suspected as a forgery.
  
  The reason it has to get signed by the attending physician and all the other hoops to jump through is precisely so that the physical certificate is self-authenticating.
  Signatures can be forged. How else did Obama become president?
31. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  It prevents corruption of the record in the future...
  Take for example Obama's "forged" birth certificate. If it had been issued on the blockchain, there would be no question of its authenticity. Once something is committed to the blockchain ledger it is there forever.
32. Re:Worst idea ever by phantomfive · 2019-01-10 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is no question of the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. At best you might say that's an argument for greater public access to these records, but that's for Hawaii to decide.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
33. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  What does blockchain provide in this case that standard digital signatures do not?
  Distributed trust. If you trust one entity, and know you will trust that entity's successor, and their successor, etc., then you don't need a blockchain.
  With a blockchain, you don't have to trust a single entity, you just need to trust that they will not collude to cheat you. For instance, I don't trust the US government, the Russian government, nor the Chinese government. But they trust each other even less than I trust them. So if all three verify a hash, it is almost certainly valid.
34. Re:Worst idea ever by jbmartin6 · 2019-01-10 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  And how does that apply to a birth certificate? Regardless, any number of entities can digitally sign (i.e. cosign) a document. A blockchain might be useful if there were a time series with input from multiple sources, like a medical history. But that doesn't apply here.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
35. Re:Worst idea ever by F.Ultra · 2019-01-10 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's even less usable than a standard database if you lookup how this all works (they have bought this service from TitanSeal.com) because they do not store any documents at all. They simply create a sha256 digest of the pdf that they send you and insert that in the metadata field in a Ethereum block, so the "only thing" that you can do here is that you can present the pdf to some one else and they can verify that yep it's in the blockchain.
  In the end I don't actually know what exactly that information gives us, yes they have a verify function at their site but what if the site goes down, how then will I know that the digest is just not from random person uploading whatever to Etherum?
36. Re:Worst idea ever by F.Ultra · 2019-01-10 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  And in this case you have to put your trust in not only a single organisation but also on a single page. In fact you have to trust that this site: https://clerk.titanseal.com/ve... actually will verify that the pdf that some one have given you is authentic. And since they give zero details on how they verify the authenticity of the pdf you just have to assume total blind trust here.
37. Re:Worst idea ever by F.Ultra · 2019-01-10 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  No there will not. All that they store in the blockchain is the sha256 digest of the PDF that you got when you where born. Loose the PDF or (with your invasion and destruction of offices) you can no longer even verify that the document you have (or had) was authentic. The only way to do that is to use this site: https://clerk.titanseal.com/ve... so once that disappears so does your chances of checking that record.
38. Re:Worst idea ever by TranquilVoid · 2019-01-10 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's correct, but in this case the blockchain is used by a single entity. How would they use it to increase their trust in themselves? Organisations already have procedures, checks and balances to address this problem. I suppose they could set up 50 blockchain servers with separate owners inside the government but it really seems such a system would have to be integrated into those existing audit structures.
39. Re:Worst idea ever by ShanghaiBill · 2019-01-10 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  And how does that apply to a birth certificate?
  If the county recorder used a blockchain, it would not help you verify that the original birth certificate was valid. But it would verify that the birth certificate retrieved 40 years later is the same as the original.
40. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-11 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Inefficient? The "efficiency" of a blockchain is the ratio of real usage / jerking off. This is real usage. The cost is some hashes on a block, and the payoff is nobody, not even the government, can tamper with that history. There's value in that.
41. Re: Worst idea ever by phantomfive · 2019-01-11 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's an argument for using publicly copyable records or cryptographic signing, not for block chain.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
42. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-14 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Blockchains are only a verifiable system of record. You can create your own system of truth based on the blockchain, and apply your own indexing whiling tracking the last known head of the chain and importing the difference as new blocks are added to the chain.
43. Re:Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-14 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  "Winning" is only one of an infinite number of arbitrary protocols one could use to decide who gets to write and when. When you want a currency, "winning" makes sense in order to show proof of work, but if you want to use a blockchain as a general verifiable log database, anyone can write, as long as you have a way to handle conflicts. Most common way to handle multiple writer conflicts is akin to compare and swap. Keep retrying appending to head until you get success.
44. Re: Worst idea ever by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-14 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  A blockchain is just a limited type of merkle tree. Verification cost is a direct result of size and linear in scaling. I can validate the Ethereum blockchain faster than some of my git repos, which are also merkle trees, and so is ZFS. All merkle trees can be validated. Just walk the tree. Blockchains are really easy to walk since they're only a linked list, which is a special kind of "tree". More like a vine. Validating future changes are even faster since you've already validated up to your current head. Once a new head comes in, just validate the blocks between your current and the new head. Lends itself to stream processing.
Seems people don't grasp ... by angel'o'sphere · 2019-01-10 07:21 · Score: 1

Seems they don't grasp what a block chain is.
You get born only once ... one block, no chain.
You marry how often? And how often is your marriage "transferred" elsewhere? Aka as in having a reason to have an old block describing your previous marriage chained to the block of your actual marriage?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1. Re:Seems people don't grasp ... by mhesd · 2019-01-10 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  You get born only once ... one block, no chain.
  It's one block with a record immutably recorded in a blockchain.
2. Re:Seems people don't grasp ... by angel'o'sphere · 2019-01-12 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Oh!? The block chain is not a chain of blocks? Stupid me coming from a germanic/nordic language!
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
3. Re:Seems people don't grasp ... by mhesd · 2019-01-12 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the blockchain is a chain of blocks, and some blocks can hold an immutable record like e.g. a birth or marriage certificate or land ownership etc.
4. Re:Seems people don't grasp ... by angel'o'sphere · 2019-01-12 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually all blocks are immutable, hence you create a new block for every "change" and chain it to its predecessor. It basically is just a digital cryptographic accounting book.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
FYI by Shaitan · 2019-01-10 07:21 · Score: 1

"Titan Seal said the Washoe County digital marriage certificate program uses the Ethereum blockchain because it has computing power that makes it hard to hack"
Ethereum is the major blockchain just successfully hit by 51% attacks.
I'm not opposed to a public records blockchain, it has integrity, is publicly accessible and verifiable without needing staff to handle requests, and will theoretically be cheaply and easily replicated without spending tax dollars. That said, if there is going to be one it should be a significant endevour with government mining ensuring nobody can ever reach 51%.
1. Re:FYI by mhesd · 2019-01-10 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ethereum is the major blockchain just successfully hit by 51% attacks.
  This is not true.
2. Re: FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  You must not read slashdot then.
3. Re: FYI by jythie · 2019-01-10 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  A lightly used fork of Etherium got hit with a 51% hack, just like many other minor alt-coins.
4. Re: FYI by Shaitan · 2019-01-10 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  No he is right and I was incorrect. "Etherium Classic" was hit and not "Etherium", what makes no sense is that coinbase carried it.
5. Re:FYI by Shaitan · 2019-01-10 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Your comment would have actually served a useful function if you'd stated the mix-up "Etherium Classic" vs "Etherium" instead of implying it was a lie.
6. Re:FYI by mhesd · 2019-01-10 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  This is true.
I don't get it by nospam007 · 2019-01-10 07:22 · Score: 1

Can somebody enlighten a foreigner to the use of this license, embossed or digital?
In Europe you just need a copy for the IRS and one for the boss to get your free extra week of vacation, that's about it.
Also some Unions give out a couple of hundred bucks for their members who get married.
Do you need it for other stuff too?
1. Re:I don't get it by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2019-01-10 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Can somebody enlighten a foreigner to the use of this license, embossed or digital?
  In Europe you just need a copy for the IRS and one for the boss to get your free extra week of vacation, that's about it.
  Also some Unions give out a couple of hundred bucks for their members who get married.
  Do you need it for other stuff too?
  Often it is needed if you want to change names after marriage, prove you are married for benefits, apply for US citizenship, etc. There are lots of reasons you may need one and a digital copy won't be of any use.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
2. Re:I don't get it by nospam007 · 2019-01-10 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  "Often it is needed if you want to change names after marriage, "
  Thanks for the answer.
  So you can change your name at any moment later and are not forced to do it the moment you're getting married?
3. Re:I don't get it by Dragonslicer · 2019-01-10 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  So you can change your name at any moment later and are not forced to do it the moment you're getting married?
  Yes, but otherwise it costs money (usually in the $100-500 range) to officially change your name with the government. Right after you get married is the only time that they'll do it for free.
4. Re:I don't get it by nospam007 · 2019-01-11 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  "Yes, but otherwise it costs money (usually in the $100-500 range) to officially change your name with the government. Right after you get married is the only time that they'll do it for free."
  Thanks.
There's one born... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 07:29 · Score: 0

...every minute. For everyone else, there's digitally signed databases.
1. Re:There's one born... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-14 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Signing only shows who did something, not what they did. A block chain is a log datastrcuture implemented as a merkle tree. You get the total history of a log structure and the validation of a merkle tree. A signature can only say the current value was written by something with a cert, but can't tell you what the something use to be in a way that can be validated.
That was premeture by sdinfoserv · 2019-01-10 07:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Hard to hack"... well, ummm...apparently not...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/...
Additionally, there's hsitory:
1- Parity Freeze Hack : 512K ETH
2- Party multisig wallet Hack : 150K ETH solen
3-The DAO hack: 15% of ALL in circulation stolen
Stop calling this nonsense secure......
1. Re:That was premeture by sdinfoserv · 2019-01-10 07:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  and 1 more nugget O fact..... a study last year found 0% success rate for ANY blockchain project.
  https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
2. Re: That was premeture by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  Those were hacked Smart contracts. Insecure programs written by users. The actual Ethereum blockchain was not hacked.
3. Re: That was premeture by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot doesn't understand what a smart contract or Decentralized application is? This place is falling off.
4. Re:That was premeture by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  That would be about issuing *new* records/transactions at a given moment - historical data is not altered.
5. Re: That was premeture by phantomfive · 2019-01-10 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  The DAO hack was a hack on the Ethereum, it showed how their version of the blockchain was vulnerable, and required a patch (along with rewinding transactions).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re: That was premeture by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  âoeThe DAOâ is the name of a particular DAO, conceived of and programmed by the team behind German startup Slock.it â" a company building âoesmart locksâ that let people share their things (cars, boats, apartments) in a decentralized version of Airbnb"
  The dao was a smart contract. Ethereum was not hacked.
7. Re: That was premeture by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 22:51 · Score: 0
  
  âoeThe DAOâ is the name of a particular DAO, conceived of and programmed by the team behind German startup Slock.it â" a company building âoesmart locksâ that let people share their things (cars, boats, apartments) in a decentralized version of Airbnb"
  The dao was a smart contract. Ethereum was not hacked.
  My fucking God. You want the entire World to adopt a financial system where everything could disappear due to a simple fucking bug, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN TYPE A SLASHDOT COMMENT WITHOUT FUCKING IT UP. DOES THIS BODE WELL FOR THE FUTURE DO YOU THINK?
8. Re: That was premeture by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 23:20 · Score: 0
  
  that is because technical competence is falling off.
  the new era of programming is
  "Can I program it in Rails?"
9. Re:That was premeture by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-11 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Well apparently some places in Nevada are using ETH for document audit trails. I'd call that a successful use of blockchain for a real purpose, and a particular purpose for which blockchain actually shines.
10. Re:That was premeture by sdinfoserv · 2019-01-11 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's not more secure, it's not cheaper, it''s more complicated to develop and support.... in other words a waste of tax payer dollars. If you want to call that "winning", i disagree.
Misguided by twebb72 · 2019-01-10 08:33 · Score: 1

Wow.. yet another misguided application of technology.
Why does this need to be decentralized? Answer: It doesn't
Does this need to be efficient? Answer: Presumably yes, this solution won't scale well
How straightforward is this solution? Answer: Its not, and the maintenance cost is super high

Yes, I can probably do most of my job from a mainframe and cobol too, but that would likely get me fired since its not a responsible choice of technologies. Clearly, a lack of leadership going on here
This is dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-10 10:12 · Score: 0

the dumbest thing ive ever read