From a technical point of view, blockchain solves one problem – to achieve consensus of all nodes in the network on a certain log of internal transactions. One must take into account that network nodes can hang up, crash for various reasons and, moreover, behave maliciously by trying to send the wrong packets into the network. Even in this case, the blockchain ensures the consistency of the network, provided that most of its nodes behave correctly, i.e. have the same view of the event log.
Let us present a case where this property may be in demand. There is a large metallurgical plant and an oil and gas company. The company orders pipes from the plant, the plant produces them. The quality of the pipes is checked, recorded in some system. Then the pipes are transported by rail, the transportation operator marks them in his system. After transportation the pipes are checked again and the result is recorded somewhere. The pipes arrive at the warehouse and their status is again recorded somewhere. As a result, many intermediate systems like SAP or 1C interact in one process, and it is reasonable to automate this interaction.
The first option is standard point-to-point integrations with all counterparties. With one plant and one oil and gas company, everything is simple: there is only one integration. A transportation company is added – we get three integrations. And then the number of integrations increases exponentially, according to the formula n*(n-1)/2), where n is the number of participants. The task is complicated by the fact that all systems available on the market do not provide for data harmonization. Large companies have been doing such projects for many years, spending many millions and bloating the IT staff to ridiculous sizes. But if the business develops, sooner or later the peer-to-peer approach will complicate the work so much that employees will start solving all problems the old-fashioned way, through mail, phone or whatever.
The second option is a single database in some cloud. The plant, oil and gas company and other contractors would be happy to add all pipes there and just change their statuses. The data reconciliation problem is solved, but many others arise. Who will be responsible for the data? What about “trade secret information”? Can the cloud provider be trusted? Everyone involved is willing to be responsible for their data, but few will trust anyone else with it – and the bigger the company, the more closed.
The third option – a developer of an industry solution comes to the market claiming to be able to solve all business process problems. You just need to exchange data with him. Most of the integrations with an unlimited number of participants are done in this way, with the help of service providers. But who will act as a service provider? Let’s take the example of sensitive data – for example, the exchange of credit histories. Sberbank could act as a service provider here, but such a position would give it an uncompetitive advantage. In this case, the issue is solved with the help of an independent participant with special powers – BCI, a credit history bureau. The BCI is engaged in data exchange and develops the necessary software for this purpose.
Let us assess the possible problems of this approach. The creation of a new global market player will require large expenses, and in cases like the one described above, it will also require changes in legislation. All data is centralized in one place and therefore the whole system becomes more vulnerable. The service provider itself may leak the data for its own benefit or by mistake.
Finally, we come to a solution via blockchain. The main advantages here are:
- You can share data, but still retain control over who sees what data.
- The number of integrations required will always be equal to the number of participants.
- Each participant is only responsible for its own infrastructure.
- The loss of any node in the network will not affect its resilience.
- There are, of course, disadvantages, mostly organizational.
- Each company will have to work on creating the necessary infrastructure at its own place. This can be characterized as self-service SaaS.
All interested companies need to organize themselves and agree on how they will build the blockchain. Few people work in such a masternet.