# Blockchain

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384>\
**Category:** Technical (archive)\
**Created:** [13 November 2017 11:46 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384 "2017-11-13T11:46:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 10\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [16 November 2017 01:39 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/61 "2017-11-16T01:39:14Z")

</div>

Thomas, I shouldn’t have written my previous reply, I try again.  
I stuck on elaborating on unsafe systems.

What I wanted to say is that systems are not safe and never will be safe.

Safety must come from the data, every event must be in an unbreakable chain, this chain must also include a digital signing to be able to prove altering of data.  
Looking at data is also an event which needs to be in the chain.

And the chain must facilitate the right from the patient to be forgotten and the right from the patient for correction. That seems contradictory but maybe it is not.

And the chains must be cheap.

What we need now is crypto analysts which can work this out.

That is what I wanted to say.

Best regards  
Bert Verhees

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [16 November 2017 03:00 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/62 "2017-11-16T03:00:53Z")

</div>

IMHO,

1. BC is not under the scope of the openEHR specs, if it’s useful, can be implemented by companies/developers over any system, including openEHR compliant systems. I don’t think we need to make any statements about BC from the foundation. If we follow that path, we might need to release statements about any technology that might be applied for health information systems and I think we shouldn’t. Since we are few and this community is small, we should focus on the scope, try to improve the specs, and try to play nice with other specs and technologies.

2. If someone is interested in BC, might write an ITS document relating openEHR and BC at the implementation technology level, I don’t see any links between BC as a technology and openEHR as a specification.

My 2C.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [16 November 2017 06:40 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/63 "2017-11-16T06:40:43Z")

</div>

Hi Pablo,  
You are answering my initial question from last Monday.

But the discussion went in the way, also by me, if we need blockchain at all.  
The initial question is the most important, and I think you are right in your answer.

Bert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [17 November 2017 09:40 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/64 "2017-11-17T09:40:40Z")

</div>

In January, IBM Watson Health established a partnership with the FDA to define a secure, efficient and scalable exchange of health data using blockchain technology, with an initial focus on oncology-related data. IBM and the FDA are exploring the exchange of owner-mediated data from several sources, such as electronic medical records, clinical trials, genomic data and health data from mobile devices, wearables and the Internet of Things (IoT).

[https://distributed.com/news/ibm-partners-cdc-bring-blockchains-public-health](https://distributed.com/news/ibm-partners-cdc-bring-blockchains-public-health)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philippe\_AMELINE](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Philippe\_AMELINE](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Philippe_AMELINE)\
**Post date:** [22 November 2017 10:37 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/65 "2017-11-22T10:37:20Z")

</div>

Hi to all,

Just discovered a decision tree about using Blockchain that pretty well  
sums up our discussion:  
[http://philippe.ameline.free.fr/wordpress/?p=1979](http://philippe.ameline.free.fr/wordpress/?p=1979)

Best,

Philippe

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [22 November 2017 11:01 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/66 "2017-11-22T11:01:58Z")

</div>

How do you explain that mayor players in government and healthcare-ict industry do not agree with this?

Which mistake do they make?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philippe\_AMELINE](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Philippe\_AMELINE](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Philippe_AMELINE)\
**Post date:** [22 November 2017 14:49 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/67 "2017-11-22T14:49:44Z")

</div>

I was just trying to add some level of humor; sorry if it appeared ironic.

However, if you are asking me what mistake major players and governments make, I have an easy answer: they all consider addressing continuity of care through a “record of records” when the only reasonable way (IMHO) is to enable multidisciplinary group work in the patient’s “bio-psycho-social bubble”.

It is a very painful process to see, years after years, the same wrong idea being expensively tested again and again with more and more powerful (and/or exotic) techniques.  
As goes a French saying from the ancient TV comics “Les Shadoks”: “They pumped and pumped and nothing happened… but they kept on pumping for fear that something worse could happen”.

Best,

Philippe

PS: I can provide (for free) a demonstration (with reasonably simple concepts from knowledge management) of the reason why a “record of record” is a wrong idea.  
But I know it is useless since, in France, our technocrats have been trying to do it with the “DMP” for 13 years… and going… since, these days, there is a new attempt… and they are very optimistic since, after carefully listening to the MDs, they built a user interface with less clicks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [22 November 2017 16:37 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/68 "2017-11-22T16:37:27Z")

</div>

Phillippe, in the image on your blog, you make the same mistake as many make. You confuse crypto-currency with blockchain.  
It is the same as confusing asphalt with a parking spot before the bank. An asphalted road, however can lead you somewhere (if you have a car or a bike, of course).

Blockchain, in a special way, facilitates crypto-currency, but there are more ways of blockchain, and completely other things which can be facilitated by it.

Best regards,  
Bert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philippe\_AMELINE](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@Philippe\_AMELINE](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Philippe_AMELINE)\
**Post date:** [22 November 2017 17:07 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/69 "2017-11-22T17:07:45Z")

</div>

Bert,

I just found this image on Twitter and it made me remember this trend where you tried to argue in favor of the blockchain in front of naysayers.  
[https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/932649133256597505](https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/932649133256597505)  
[https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/stat](https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/stat)[https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/932649133256597505](https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/932649133256597505)us/932649133256597505

[https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/932649133256597505](https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/932649133256597505)

Besides, it doesn’t confuse anything. It plainly states “if you don’t build a crypto-currency, then don’t use a blockchain, and if you do, then please stop”.  
Summed up, it means something as “never use a blockchain”, but it is simply a humorous picture.

Best,

Philippe

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [22 November 2017 17:20 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384/70 "2017-11-22T17:20:24Z")

</div>

My reply was also meant to be humorous, but sometimes I am the only person who laughs at my jokes, but I don’t mind. Strictly spoken, you are right, it does not confuse anything, but it states that the only useful thing you can do with blockchain is creating cryptocurrency (which you should not do, it doesn’t explain why) But still, it is what many people know about blockchain: the purpose of blockchain is creating crypto-currency. That is, as you also know, not true, there are as many purposes as your imagination goes. Not all good, or all bad, but some deserve a closer look at. Have a good evening Bert

[Previous page](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/blockchain/14384.md?page=3)