The European Commission sees a lot of potential in blockchain technology. "Blockchain can be a new foundation for large parts of our economy", EU Commissioner Mariya Gabriel said at the launch of the 'EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum'. Some interesting quotes.
The EU has the ambition to become a world leader in the development and rollout of blockchain.
We want to build on Europe's substantial talent base and excellent startups to become a leading world region that will develop and invest in the rollout of blockchain.
Blockchain technologies bring security online in business transactions and has already gained a foothold in the financial sector, but also in the healthcare, logistics and insurance world. Through research programs, the EU will invest 340 million euros in blockchain related projects until 2020.
Game changer
According to the EU Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society, Mariya Gabriel, also civilians can benefit from it:
I see blockchain as a game changer and I want Europe to be at the forefront of its development. We need to establish the right enabling environment - a Digital Single Market for blockchain so that all citizens can benefit, instead of a patchwork of initiatives. The EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum is an important step in that direction.
I agree that the 'EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum' is a step in the right direction. This should bring together the largest blockchain experts, examine the socio-economic impact of blockchain and keep an eye on the opportunities that technology can offer for European industry.
Strangely enough, Europe selected an American company to support the observatory. ConsenSys, which builds applications on the Ethereum blockchain, was chosen as the official partner of the initiative.
Visionary vs feasible
The real die-hards are unlikely to be happy with so much political interference. You could say blockchain is a liberal technology. Extremely liberal groups, also known as libertarians, quickly embraced the blockchain principle. Their aversion to government intervention fitted well with this technology.
(see also my post: https://steemit.com/blockchain/@keysa/blockchain-background-is-blockchain-a-liberal-technology-some-different-opinions )
But there are laws and practical objections between dream and action.
Many innovative ideas have their origin in commercial and other organizations. The advantages of blockchain are easy to name. If you sell something with VAT and you have to pay back the amount of VAT afterwards, would it not be much easier if this happened automatically, that this settlement is incorporared into the blockchain? And would it not mean huge savings on time and administrative costs if we could also calculate customs transactions in this way? Or to draft and officiate contracts, without any human intervention? These examples are not even such visionary ideas, but they could radically change the lives of many, and many individuals and organizations can save tons of money.
But then again laws and practical objections will arise. And that is why we need politics. A legal framework is needed to make transactions binding and to use them as official evidence. This is the world we live in. There is no need to denay this. Partly justifiably , because these are far-reaching changes that have to be thoroughly investigated before they are officially ratified. It can be predicted that prudence will determine the agenda in such a way that we do not have to expect these innovations in the coming years.
And then we have not yet talked about privacy: if you can only let a transaction between you and your neighbor take place by making them part of a chain that can also be viewed by totally uninvolved third parties, you would open the door for unwanted third parties looking for incriminating or other material? Logically, this has to be handled with the necessary caution.
Human fallibility
Another practical objection is the fallibility of man, as we’ve painfully learned when trying out smart contracts. Due to a bug in a program, 12 million bitcoins had disappeared.
What if that error occurs in an automated process and is only discovered weeks later? How big is the damage? And how can we solve it? Not to mention other pressing questions that arise at the time: who will pay for the consequences of the damage? The programmer who wrote the wrong code? The parties that are involved in the incorrect transaction(s)? The organization that made the wrong software available? Precisely because of the nature of blockchain – technology takes control, not the human being - it becomes very difficult to place that responsibility with someone.
And ironically enough, we get to the starting point that blockchain believers just wanted to get rid of: an independent audit body is needed to make everything work with sufficient confidence from all parties involved. So back to where we started? Not necessary. You can ensure that this control body is recognized by all parties involved. So yes, we need politics.
Great article!