Re: Blockchain community- today's minutes

Benedikt,
Thank you so very much. I really like these contributions! Michael Palage and I are working this week to set up a GitHub area and put our taxonomy into a Mindmap which can be exported to OPML format. OPML format retains relationships, taxonomies and structures in most Mindmap client software packages. Once we "open" this up, anyone should be able to contribute. Stay tuned. In the meantime, we will take your suggestions below and incorporate them. Really appreciate the engagement!
Sincerely,Colleen 

    On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 2:33 AM, benedikt herudek <benedikt.herudek@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 inspired by this excellent blog -  we should try measuring usecases we list against criteria.
https://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/

regards / groetjes / adios  / gruesse

Benedikt Herudek
On 19 July 2017 at 11:08, benedikt herudek <benedikt.herudek@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,
I would suggest next to a taxonomy to try to formulate decision criteria, when Blockchains are a good idea. With the amount of marketing and hype 'cutting through' could be a useful contribution. 
Not an easy task, below my stab at it - also in the (outdated?) google doc.
regards
Benedikt


List of criteria for using Blockchains 
The following list of criteria shall help to decide, if the use case is suitable for a (shared) database or blockchains:
   
   - Are there different entities (persons, departments, corporations, authorities) which have their own versions of facts in separate means of recording like databases?
 Counter example:  You write a diary with your own highly and highly confidential view    
   - Do you need one common version of the truth, e.g. a shared database, into which several entities read and write to work efficiently ?
 Counter example:  You work in a conglomerate in different geographies with highly separate business units. Coordinating for finance reporting via conventional exchange of aggregated data is sufficiently efficient   
   - Is there potential for meaningful and consequence bearing dispute between these entities about what the ‘truth’ (status of the database) of this shared database could be ?
Counter example:  You work in a conglomerate in different geographies with highly separated business units. Coordinating for finance reporting can be done via conventional exchange of aggregated data   
   - Is engaging a trusted intermediary to settle disputes not feasible for e.g. economic reason or lack of such trusted middlemen ?
Counter example:  You are working in an environment, where trust in goverment or organisations like banks is low due to corruption or lack of resources of those intermediaries and costs might be higher than benefit.    
   - Instead of appointing one trusted intermediary are you able to describe a set of entities and consensus based and automated process to come to a conclusion which transactions will be allowed to be recorded into the central blockchain?
Counter example:  You have a very small set of collaborators the majority of which you either do not trust or do not have a proper internal reporting or technological means to participate in such an automated process   
   - Can you set up a governance to follow up or enforce implications of the consensus status of the Blockchains. 
Counter example:  You set up a Blockchain Consortium between vendors & suppliers of natural resources but the homestates of major players in the consortium do not have legal nor economic agreements with your jurisdictionIf any of these criteria are not fulfilled, a Blockchain might not be the right Design. A connected ‘softer’ criteria is linked to your design of transactions and the Blockchain.   
   - Can you describe simple, e.g. time-bound material relations between transactions which can be reflected in the ordering and linking of transactions
Counter example:  You setup an identity registry, where profiles are recorded separate of each other, e.g. a mother of a son could be recorded after her son and there is no link between the two

regards / groetjes / adios  / gruesse

Benedikt Herudek
On 12 July 2017 at 17:24, Colleen Kirtland <cskirtland@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks to those who joined!The only action item out of today's meeting is that Michael Palage and I will continue to work offline to move the needle forward on the online Blockchain Use Case taxonomy.  Michael will be leading the vetting of our current taxonomy to ensure that terminology is standardized.
We will keep the team updated. 
The next US based call is in 2 weeks.