Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Maersk, IBM say 94 organizations have joined blockchain trade platform in efforts to reduce the boatloads of paperwork in shipping   ( reuters.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Cargo, Shipping group Maersk, global container shipping, enormous paper trail, Shipping, Transport, container carrier Pacific, industry-wide blockchain-based trading  
•       •       •

478 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Aug 2018 at 1:37 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-08-09 10:45:35 PM  
Neat.jpg
 
2018-08-10 02:37:17 AM  
Remember EDI? Yeah. This is blockchain EDI. Whee.

From the folks that brought you OS/2 and EBCDIC.
 
2018-08-10 03:40:11 AM  

FormlessOne: EBCDIC


Which is still very popular in certain business circles. I never understood the hate from the ASCII crowd. The translation tables always worked very well IME.

Also, IBM may be on a long slide downward commercially-speaking, but don't underestimate the brains of the people in their R&D.
 
2018-08-10 04:12:16 AM  

FormlessOne: Remember EDI? Yeah. This is blockchain EDI. Whee.

From the folks that brought you OS/2 and EBCDIC.


What's your point?
Grandpa's Guitars
Youtube LfQ-Xg_MS3k
 
2018-08-10 05:10:28 AM  

ol' gormsby: Also, IBM may be on a long slide downward commercially-speaking


I'm not sure that'll continue. They've taken a big hit in recent years to make major changes, but those moves seem to be the right ones. And yeah, incredible R&D.

/speaking of blockchain, they're also backing stablecoin Stronghold USD
 
2018-08-10 06:52:37 AM  
If they've found a use for blockchain that isn't just a stupid buzzword and creates some actual value, good for them.
 
2018-08-10 07:57:05 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: If they've found a use for blockchain that isn't just a stupid buzzword and creates some actual value, good for them.


Block chains are a efficient was for storing and transferring information in a mesh network environment.
 
2018-08-10 08:02:55 AM  
This is proof that you should invest in my ICO.  It's sure to make you tons of money with no work on your part.  Just write me a check and all your dreams will come true.  Everybody's doing it.  You don't want to miss out, do you?
 
2018-08-10 09:14:56 AM  
Yeah ok.
So here is what will happen. Right now ever company mismanages their own database of inventory and shipping and they are incompatible with other company's.
So they will introduce a crypto that somebody will lose and either the information on the shipment was stored there and was critical, or it wasn't necessary because each company still kept their relic tracking systems cause it would cost too much money to switch.
All that really will happen is another layer of failure.
 
2018-08-10 09:20:55 AM  

ChimpNipples: Block chains are a efficient was for storing and transferring information in a mesh network environment.


Blockchains are the polar opposite of efficient.
 
2018-08-10 09:24:58 AM  

AlanMooresBeard: Yeah ok.
So here is what will happen. Right now ever company mismanages their own database of inventory and shipping and they are incompatible with other company's.
So they will introduce a crypto that somebody will lose and either the information on the shipment was stored there and was critical, or it wasn't necessary because each company still kept their relic tracking systems cause it would cost too much money to switch.
All that really will happen is another layer of failure.


This, right here, absolutely.

My company migrated to SAP 15 years ago. The legacy business units were forced to change and everything talks pretty well when it is SAP to SAP - interplant transfers, production planning, finance, etc. Really smooth and easy to do reporting for (I'm a supply chain business analyst). Unfortunately, as we grew and purchased new business units or suppliers and integrated them into our company, they were not forced to move to SAP as well, so corporate IT had to write a program that communicates with all the different in-house systems and directs information to the right business units. Essentially, they reinvented EDI to appease the managers that still wanted to keep their Access 95 databases and added another layer of complexity to the whole organization.

Companies with knowledgeable and assertive middle management might be able to force transition to this new technology, but my experience tells me that it will be implemented piecemeal or only to some parts of an organization and will take years or decades to be close to ubiquitous.

Hell, EDI is still a tough concept to grasp for many manufacturers.
 
2018-08-10 09:26:13 AM  

AlanMooresBeard: Yeah ok.
So here is what will happen.


Gosh, these $100B companies sure did screw up by not checking with Fark.
 
2018-08-10 11:27:04 AM  

trialpha: ChimpNipples: Block chains are a efficient was for storing and transferring information in a mesh network environment.

Blockchains are the polar opposite of efficient.


That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.
 
2018-08-10 12:49:33 PM  

togaman2k: Unfortunately, as we grew and purchased new business units or suppliers and integrated them into our company, they were not forced to move to SAP as well, so corporate IT had to write a program that communicates with all the different in-house systems and directs information to the right business units....Companies with knowledgeable and assertive middle management might be able to force transition to this new technology, but my experience...


Projecting your experience at a single company that did something tremendously stupid is a silly exercise.

I worked at a mid-sized company that acquired ten others while I worked there.
 
2018-08-10 12:54:21 PM  

jaytkay: I worked at a mid-sized company that acquired ten others while I worked there.


...We bought ten other companies while I worked there. We got them onto the corporate line of business software quickly. Every time it was a few weeks of grumbling and then people got to work.
 
2018-08-10 01:40:13 PM  

trialpha: ChimpNipples: Block chains are a efficient was for storing and transferring information in a mesh network environment.

Blockchains are the polar opposite of efficient.


By themselves yes, it's a horrible way to store and transfer data. But if you want everyone to know what's going on, with event history, then they work well.
 
2018-08-10 01:44:01 PM  

OptimisticCynicism: trialpha: ChimpNipples: Block chains are a efficient was for storing and transferring information in a mesh network environment.

Blockchains are the polar opposite of efficient.

That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.


What their looking for is a way for groups of people to know what's going on. Shipping transactions happen much slower than financial transactions, so computational speed isn't as big of an issue. Blockchains are a type of accounting mechanism used to advertise change across groups. This is what they are doing.
 
2018-08-10 01:48:21 PM  

ChimpNipples: OptimisticCynicism: trialpha: ChimpNipples: Block chains are a efficient was for storing and transferring information in a mesh network environment.

Blockchains are the polar opposite of efficient.

That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.

What their looking for is a way for groups of people to know what's going on. Shipping transactions happen much slower than financial transactions, so computational speed isn't as big of an issue. Blockchains are a type of accounting mechanism used to advertise change across groups. This is what they are doing.


Forgot to add, advertise change across groups in a mesh environment that provides fault tolerance.
 
2018-08-10 01:56:35 PM  

trialpha: ChimpNipples: Block chains are a efficient was for storing and transferring information in a mesh network environment.

Blockchains are the polar opposite of efficient.


This seems to equate blockchains with cryptocurrency.

It's inefficient when 100s of thousands of miners are grinding away at intentionally difficult computations designed to maximize the effort and constrain the blockchain.

That isn't what TFA is about.
 
2018-08-10 03:44:57 PM  

OptimisticCynicism: That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.


I took exception to the word "blockchain" and "efficient" being in the same sentence together. Having everyone store a complete copy of every single transaction ever made will never classify as efficient.

That doesn't mean it can't be more efficient than some other, also grossly inefficient process. But it's still not efficient.
 
2018-08-10 05:11:20 PM  

trialpha: I took exception to the word "blockchain" and "efficient" being in the same sentence together. Having everyone store a complete copy of every single transaction ever made will never classify as efficient.


That is a narrow, arbitrary definition of efficiency and means nothing viewed separately from the business processes and needs.
 
2018-08-10 05:20:56 PM  

trialpha: OptimisticCynicism: That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.

I took exception to the word "blockchain" and "efficient" being in the same sentence together. Having everyone store a complete copy of every single transaction ever made will never classify as efficient.

That doesn't mean it can't be more efficient than some other, also grossly inefficient process. But it's still not efficient.


For what they want to do, it is efficient compared to the alternative. We arnt talking about how many transactions can be accomplished in 1 second. We're talking about a mechanism that can provide secure, reliable, atomicity form of distributed communication. Blockchains are efficient at providing that.
 
2018-08-10 10:39:08 PM  

ChimpNipples: trialpha: OptimisticCynicism: That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.

I took exception to the word "blockchain" and "efficient" being in the same sentence together. Having everyone store a complete copy of every single transaction ever made will never classify as efficient.

That doesn't mean it can't be more efficient than some other, also grossly inefficient process. But it's still not efficient.

For what they want to do, it is efficient compared to the alternative. We arnt talking about how many transactions can be accomplished in 1 second. We're talking about a mechanism that can provide secure, reliable, atomicity form of distributed communication. Blockchains are efficient at providing that.


So does a supply blockchain still require "mining"? I've never understood whether that was an adjunct to bitcoin or an integral part of the system.
 
2018-08-10 11:45:26 PM  

morg: ChimpNipples: trialpha: OptimisticCynicism: That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.

I took exception to the word "blockchain" and "efficient" being in the same sentence together. Having everyone store a complete copy of every single transaction ever made will never classify as efficient.

That doesn't mean it can't be more efficient than some other, also grossly inefficient process. But it's still not efficient.

For what they want to do, it is efficient compared to the alternative. We arnt talking about how many transactions can be accomplished in 1 second. We're talking about a mechanism that can provide secure, reliable, atomicity form of distributed communication. Blockchains are efficient at providing that.

So does a supply blockchain still require "mining"? I've never understood whether that was an adjunct to bitcoin or an integral part of the system.


As I understand it, mining is integral to Bitcoin because it's the mechanism for restricting Bitcoin supply to generate value as a currency but it would be counterproductive in a system like TradeLens (the one in TFA) where "supply" is just a matter of how many records permissioned users need to keep. Or for that matter in a stablecoin where the value is governed by pegging it to the USD or whatever. In those cases the info still needs to be distributed but there's no point in making it intentionally complicated.
 
2018-08-11 12:09:16 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: morg: ChimpNipples: trialpha: OptimisticCynicism: That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.

I took exception to the word "blockchain" and "efficient" being in the same sentence together. Having everyone store a complete copy of every single transaction ever made will never classify as efficient.

That doesn't mean it can't be more efficient than some other, also grossly inefficient process. But it's still not efficient.

For what they want to do, it is efficient compared to the alternative. We arnt talking about how many transactions can be accomplished in 1 second. We're talking about a mechanism that can provide secure, reliable, atomicity form of distributed communication. Blockchains are efficient at providing that.

So does a supply blockchain still require "mining"? I've never understood whether that was an adjunct to bitcoin or an integral part of the system.

As I understand it, mining is integral to Bitcoin because it's the mechanism for restricting Bitcoin supply to generate value as a currency but it would be counterproductive in a system like TradeLens (the one in TFA) where "supply" is just a matter of how many records permissioned users need to keep. Or for that matter in a stablecoin where the value is governed by pegging it to the USD or whatever. In those cases the info still needs to be distributed but there's no point in making it intentionally complicated.


Got it, series of tubes.

/joking, I think I do get it. More than I did few minutes ago at least.
 
2018-08-11 12:35:40 AM  

morg: ChimpNipples: trialpha: OptimisticCynicism: That really depends on the use-case and what measure you are trying to increase efficiency on. They are not computationally efficient, but might be efficient from a cost perspective when it comes to replacing manual auditing processes and reducing counter-party risk on certain transactions.

I took exception to the word "blockchain" and "efficient" being in the same sentence together. Having everyone store a complete copy of every single transaction ever made will never classify as efficient.

That doesn't mean it can't be more efficient than some other, also grossly inefficient process. But it's still not efficient.

For what they want to do, it is efficient compared to the alternative. We arnt talking about how many transactions can be accomplished in 1 second. We're talking about a mechanism that can provide secure, reliable, atomicity form of distributed communication. Blockchains are efficient at providing that.

So does a supply blockchain still require "mining"? I've never understood whether that was an adjunct to bitcoin or an integral part of the system.


Bitcoin mining is nothing more than  exploiting the bitcoin encryption algorithm to get free bitcoin. The reason why it becomes harder to mine bitcoin the bigger the blockChain becomes is there are less unused permutations(choices) within the encryption that the minners have to find.

Mining in this instance is a huge liability which could result in rouge "approved" international shipping documents.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report