Let's get GDS to build a public blockchain, UK.gov's top boffin says The British government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Mark Walport, has done a Dilbert and declared that the UK needs a blockchain. In an 88-page report (PDF) published today, Sir Mark explained how a distributed ledger could transform governance in the United Kingdom, and even suggested that the Government Digital Service …
This is just an answer looking for a problem. Government IT is beset by all kinds of problems: poorly-specified requirements, ever-changing needs, and of course getting locked in to long-term expensive contracts (HMRC I'm looking at you). Blockchain solves none of these problems.
It doesn't solve any problem the UK government has, but you have guys like the poster above you who wants to suggest this in his job interview so it looks like he's "up on the latest tech" (or more likely because he's been involved with bitcoin and is familiar with the tech so if he can get it established he'll be the SME and firing-proof)
The only real problem the blockchain solves is double spending when you have a lot of untrusted actors using anonymous money. Governments don't have any problems with money being spent twice, or unauthorized people spending it (the many layers of approval required to buy anything takes care of that problem fairly effectively) This is lucky since government money is already spent poorly the first time in a lot of cases, spending it twice would add insult to injury!
It's really good for any system where untrusted actors need to coordinate transfers of ownership, so there might be a few niches. But not many. The real power of blockchains is decentralisation - something that the government doesn't need, at least in the technical sense. They have the budget to track all land ownership on a conventional database with a backup on dusty paper at the local council office, so why would they benefit from using a blockchain?
I agree that the real power of blockchain technology is decentralisation but your assertion that this is something that the government doesn't need is fundamentally flawed. Government is increasingly decentralised through devolution but, in any event, data is already fragmented and duplicated across numerous departments, agencies, local authorities and their respective databases, however, when it comes to citizen-centric processes these typically involve numerous inter-dependencies between multiple data sources. If the data was shared on a cross-government basis it would reduce complexities and costs - it may be the only way of achieving the budget reduction objectives.
What problem does a blockchain solve in government?
It solves the problem of IT budget justification when you're a shareholder in or on the board of some IT megacorp with nothing much to do.
That's the least cynical way I can put it.
Bunch of clowns who don't know what they're talking about paying a lot of taxpayer funds to build things they don't understand. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing in the document makes any sense which is a fairly good clue they don't understand what they're talking about. They really did out-Dilbert Dilbert.
doesn't sound good (although 'unpermissioning' might be better (as long as it is part of the log))
zebm, good luck although I'm not convinced GDI should be lead on this, perhaps you can convince them to fund 20 universities to create a scalable open blockchain based patient treatment log.
> blockchain based patient treatment log
That would be nice, given that there doesn't seem to be any treatment log at the moment. My daughter just attended an NHS clinic for day-surgery, only to find that there was no record of previous procedures being carried out "because that was at a different hospital", though in the same city.
Anon., to protect her privacy somewhat.
If helps ensure data integrity, someone changing your blood type on the NHS system could be fatal if you are in a serious accident,
As a piece of data there is little advantage in keeping it secret, but a lot in making sure it is correct.
This is just a quick example, of course emergency rooms will have procedures that minimise risk etc.
On the one hand, Sir Mark Walport, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK government, thinks blockchain is a good idea.
On the other hand, Tom Loosemore, ex-deputy director of GDS, thinks it's a turkey (47'40"-49'00").
They can't both be right.
Tom Loosemore was referring to the public blockchain as used by Bitcoin whereas the UK Government Report is entitled "Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain". It states that "Distributed ledger technology is still at a very early stage of development. The development of block chain technology is but the first, though very important step towards a disruptive revolution in ledger technology that could transform the conduct of public and private sector organisations.... For government applications, ‘permissioned’ ledgers are likely to be more appealing than Bitcoin’s unpermissioned model, because they allow the owner, or owners, of the data to enforce rules on who is and is not allowed to use the system. Distributed ledgers have the added advantage of moving a lot of the complexity of managing security into the background, making systems easier and cheaper to use."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
