Blockchain systems ought to be measured objectively



Blockchain  like any other system is only as secure as the assumptions upon which it is based. When we look at different Blockchain architectures ( and there are lots coming out onto the market) we would do well to recognise this fact and compare  them against these objective criteria       

 The problem is  "trust" is a normative concept - you can't  put it in a wheelbarrow . Trust is hard won and easily lost...one rogue transaction and individual "trust" in the system  built up over years can be destroyed  almost overnight.  If we view all blockchains as "trustworthy" .... as "trust machines" we sadly miss the point. The question is how trustworthy? 

 "Security"  in contrast to "trust" can be measured objectively - You can statistically  say from a security perspective that 70%  ( 50% or 80% whatever) of all of nodes in a given system need to be fully functioning to maintain  a given consensus protocol.   You can measure how many nodes can crash / or become malicious   before the "consensus" is undependable. Every system has a set of  implicit assumptions about what it can and can't stand before consensus becomes dodgy 

 Cachin and Vukolie from IBM  in their recently published  and excellent white paper " Blockchain Protocols in the Wild" apply the following  criteria to assess different consensus  protocols
1- Dependability :  how available and reliable is it?
2- Resilience; what is the ability of  one node of a set of nodes  crashing a significant proportion of the system?
3- Secure: how good is the encryption against the perceived threats?
4- Safety: Will the protocols reach agreement ( consensus) no matter how the network works? 
5- Live:  Are messages continuously developed, transactions ordered and validated no matter how the network works? 

 Assessing how secure one protocol  is over another will no doubt become ever more -popular  in the years ahead as ( dare I say it) will become the realisation that current systems are probably (and sadly) a lot more vulnerable  than we would like!  . 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Use cases for Financial Services Blockchain that are "ready to go"

Image
Lots of talk , lots of prototyping, lots of hot air - where is the meat? IMHO It is only when Blockchain goes live in real markets with real transactions that  it will gain the professional credibility it deserves - here are a few of the candidates vying to be in the leading pack.  Here is a list of Heavy weight Blockchain orientated projects ( predominately Financial services orientated) that seem close to " about to happen" .....none as far as I am aware are actually live but they could be shortly......It's not meant to a complete list folks - more illustrative of the way the game seemed to be playing out ..If there are other projects around that you feel should be added to the list please advise below and we will add them 1- Trade Finance : Digital Trade Chain   " IBM won the contract to provide the cloud-based platform in a competitive bidding process. It will address the challenge of managing, tracking and securing domestic and international trade tra
Read more

Blockchain - The current view of the financial services community

Image
This video was produced April 2017 ( 3 months ago..ish) . I found the commentary interesting  - David Craig (the Thomson Reuters guy) made three observations about what Peter Smith of the Blockchain platform said ( n.b. not to be confused with the Blockchain technology in general)  1- Peter Smith said Blockchain was about efficiency , David Craig said "yes but but also about market structure and the way in which trust is federated" I agree with both comments here efficiency is the by-product  of trust being federated and I'm sure that had Peter Smith been there in person he would have concurred with David 2- He implied Banks were very politically efficient and so could be resistant to the technology being implemented .  though David suggested it was the operating centres that would be hit not the MD's in charge of M and A....and then he suggested there is yet to be an economic case that justifies the investment being put into the technology. Here I would
Read more