Intel releases source code for their own new Blockchain-styled digital ledger
9 replies, posted
[url]https://github.com/intelledger[/url]
[url]http://www.ibtimes.com/intel-reveals-its-plan-blockchain-technology-sawtooth-lake-distributed-ledger-2350599[/url]
[QUOTE]Intel has published the code on GitHub but warns those planning to use it that it's still very much in the experimental phase. “This project is intended for experimental usage and we recommend against using it for security sensitive applications,” the company said in a detailed post explaining how the system works.
Bitcoin is the world’s most popular distributed ledger but the technology — called blockchain — has become one of the hottest topics in the tech and financial worlds in the last 12 months, with almost all major financial institutions putting resources into developing systems built on top of it.
Intel previously displayed similar technology when it created a fantasy sports marketplace where users would “exchange digitized shares in sports teams and seek to accrue the highest amount of a virtual currency called ‘mikkels,’ ” CoinDesk reported.
Intel says the uses for its Sawtooth Lake platform could include international remittance, insurance claim processing, supply chain management and the internet of things (IoT). Earlier this week IBM revealed it was working on combining its Watson artificial intelligence division with blockchain technology to boost the security of IoT devices.
The HyperLedger Project is a collaborative effort created by the Linux Foundation to help establish an open, distributed ledger platform to “satisfy a variety of use cases across multiple industries to streamline business processes.”[/QUOTE]
[quote]Earlier this week IBM revealed it was working on combining its Watson artificial intelligence division with blockchain technology to boost the security of IoT devices.[/quote]
I...I don't understand. IoT devices are insecure because their owners don't set passwords and other similar stuff, that's usually why. Also
[quote]users would “exchange digitized shares in sports teams and seek to accrue the highest amount of a virtual currency called ‘mikkels,’ ” CoinDesk reported.[/quote]
You don't need a blockchain for something that's centralized, especially if only one app is going to use it
[QUOTE=phygon;50112369]I...I don't understand. IoT devices are insecure because their owners don't set passwords and other similar stuff, that's usually why. Also
[/QUOTE]
Not really, there are also often massive security holes in the software implementation itself, such as easy to guess (or even discover) backdoor passwords, or firmware flash methods that don't check for authentication.
[video=youtube;WHdU4LutBGU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHdU4LutBGU[/video]
Great video on the common downfalls that plague IoT devices that have nothing to do with end user incompetence.
[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;50112498]as easy to guess (or even discover) backdoor passwords, or firmware flash methods that don't check for authentication..[/QUOTE]
How would blockchain technology or AI help with this though? That's just the developers messing up. It's not like the technology to secure IoT devices isn't out there, people just aren't using the methods that are available.
[QUOTE=phygon;50112733]How would blockchain technology or AI help with this though? That's just the developers messing up. It's not like the technology to secure IoT devices isn't out there, people just aren't using the methods that are available.[/QUOTE]
Consider me guilty of blindly attempting to shut down a "IoT is only insecure because end users" comment.
Reading into the referenced articles in the source however, there is this line.
[Quote] One of the potential applications of the technology would be to create a register of IoT devices based on the blockchain, with artificial intelligence programs then used to perform automated self-diagnoses and more advanced functions, which could eventually lead to the ability of engineers and regulators to virtually rewind the clock to go back in time and see at what point a smart device failed and see exactly what went wrong. [/Quote]
But it is not necessarily a tool for securing IoT devices pre launch, and moreso diagnosing security concerns during post launch bug fixing.
[QUOTE=phygon;50112733]How would blockchain technology or AI help with this though? That's just the developers messing up. It's not like the technology to secure IoT devices isn't out there, people just aren't using the methods that are available.[/QUOTE]
yes but many iot sensors already exist in the world in an insecure state. You need a way of making sure the data these sensors output is reliable
The problem with embedded devices is you cant just update them so security holes become much more dangerous. If an iot device uses watson it just sends the raw sensor data to the cloud to be analysed - if that sensor data is wrong it needs to be recognised as such otherwise the watson platform will analyse it as if its correct and bad things happen
On that note, there's a great Twitter account about "smart" devices: [media]https://twitter.com/internetofshit/status/616977426594328576[/media]
[url=http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html]If I'm understanding this correctly[/url], it introduces Intel as a central trust authority, which is kind of antithetical to the point of Bitcoin.
[QUOTE=phygon;50112369]You don't need a blockchain for something that's centralized, especially if only one app is going to use it[/QUOTE]
You know, I don't think fantasy sports markets were ever a business venture Intel was seriously interested in pursuing.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;50114578][url=http://intelledger.github.io/introduction.html]If I'm understanding this correctly[/url], it introduces Intel as a central trust authority, which is kind of antithetical to the point of Bitcoin.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so, they re-enforce the fact that it's decentralised early on, what part make you think that?
Their "Proof of Elapsed Time" scheme depends on the integrity of SGX Trusted Execution Environments. And Intel alone has full control over them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.