2017-01 (January 2017) Meetings
...
Kathleen: possibility in future to have a court where parties need to escrow funding for post-transaction disputes. JeffS: if escrow exists, then you can pursue this as recourse.
Thomas: DAO mentiuoned that participants do not have an external arbitration/dispute process. So developer who siphoned off $60Mis correct in saying he was obeying rules in DAO. Thomas asks Devon: if we wrote a paper-contract and states that there are no disputes allowed, can one of us still go to court of law: Answer is Yes.
Devon: the code in DAO is "law" according the DAO. Permissioned blockchains (operated by private groups) in the future may define its own dispute resolution jurisdiction.
Kathleen: back to the trust question. Difficult to legislate how much trust people must have. JeffS: but that one-to-one.
Thomas: social trust can be seeded by government (e.g. buying car from manufacturer that satisfies gov envronment regulations, eg. EPA). Kathleen: eBay is another example of social trust (between sellers and buyers). Some existing systerms/markets may not need to move to bchains as they are working just fine.
JeffS: technologists' dream. Kathleen: when monetary assets are involved.
Thomas: definition of technical trust from TCG. Compute unit must be able to operate unhindered and must be to report outcome truthfully. Devices that operate as specified, every time, creates technical trust on the part of the user. Thomas will add text.
Kathleen: social trust and economic trust. The "markets are operating fairly". Thomas: social trust is a much broader matter, involves consumer perception (e.g. bad PR from Silk Road/Bitcoin).
JeffS: Social trust is multiple layers. Party who you are transacting with. Enforceability of contract. Enforcer of the contrtact. Trust in the service itself.
Tuesday, January 24
Agenda:
...
Hence seemingly a good match for our use case criteria. Colin will introduce them to Eve in email, and she'll send them the questionnaire. SecureKey has gotten investment for blockchain-based efforts, and they are on the Kantara board, so let's at least ask them for feedback on our report, if not as well contributing a use case; Colin will reach out and cc Susan (whose connection is through Mary Hodder and IDESG). Susan can also send the questionnaire to Bitpesa, and we'll see how much time we have to combine what we get.
Discussion of the prescription use case submitted by Adrian (which Eve will forward to the list, for full context): By "The current introduction of hospitals and other institutional intermediaries into the prescription order process" is meant identity management/authentication (for checking the physician's identity) and the management of EHRs (because the prescription is generated within the EHR system). There is rent-seeking by the systems that have performed this consolidation. The goal with the use case is to have the clinician use as many as three apps or more, e.g. one for login, one for proving you deserve to prescribe, one for payment, etc. The idea is that they're horizontal and you'd have way fewer in total.
Adrian has commented that the Sedona report's logical model of EHR discovery trust (p. 64 here) doesn't account for decentralization, which blockchain can enable. Sedona is an influencer on e-discovery; lawyers and Google and MSFT and others do pay attention to it. So we may want to reflect on this in our Observations section, given that we have several use cases that have implications for health. We recognize that health data itself wouldn't be stored on a blockchain, but the generally accepted approach would be to store a transaction record stating something happened, then a later transaction record stating something else happened (or even some previous record had to be corrected), etc.
Tuesday, January 3
Agenda:
...