 Okay, so I want to call up the panelists now. So Flood Gunther is not here. He want to like lead the panel. The panel is off, we change it slightly. Like Ali, Lumbert and Ismael. And can you come here for the panel, please? Yeah, yeah, yeah, you want, okay, yeah. Yeah, so okay. Yeah, we just take a seat here, okay? Yeah, so we change it a little bit. So what is blockchain and what is blockchain for signs? Yeah, we are like when we first designed the conference, we were into the technicalities and now we are like more on a definition level, right? So we can just take a seat, okay? I mean, the ones that didn't speak, it's only you. Okay, you just introduce you for like in like two lines. Is that okay? And like how you ended up here at the panel, yeah? Yeah, okay. So hi, everyone. My name is Mo and I'm CEO of Celer Network working on off-chain scalabilities. And I'm here because we just came back from the DevCon and this is an awesome event and we want to chime in what we're thinking as a platform builder and how to contribute for a science for blockchain. Okay, cool. Thank you very much. So, okay, so what is blockchain, yeah? That's a good question, okay? So we have the technical stuff, we discussed it. And I just want to like ask you to use it like one limitation is energy consumption. Yes. And do we all agree with that? Like this is like true for certain blockchain setups, right? True, I said, yeah, yeah, yeah. I just mentioned energy consumption of the well-established systems like Bitcoin or Ethereum. It's not necessarily true. If you use proof of stake, for instance, you don't waste energy in that way as well. Yeah, just. So there are other chains like the consortium of private chain where a simple control mechanism is just, oh, this set of nodes is preset and you cannot change that. Well, then you don't need proof of work as well. Yeah, exactly. So this is like one misconception, right? We just want to clean away, right? Well, the fact is that still the well-known established systems like Bitcoin or Ethereum waste loads of energy. Yeah. And then there is like one thing people say like blockchain, it will expose all data to all people all the time. So it's just a design question, right? You can design it. True. There are also other projects, like I mentioned Zcash, for instance, that tries to hide the transactions. They use something, they use advanced cryptography, something called ZK Snarks, which is like zero knowledge proof. This is also ongoing research and there are many, many new interesting advances in this area and we probably will see something. Actually, ZK Snarks is also a scalability solution because you can kind of compress what you have in a succinct, which kind of means short proof what happens. So if you think of state transitions, you could also have a short proof, like from the genesis block to the current block, what happened in this time using ZK Snarks. So there's loads, as I said, is ongoing research, but there's loads of things going on there. And the cool thing about ZK Snarks is it doesn't only solve privacy, but also scalability. Okay. To some extent, yes. Sorry? To some extent. To some extent, yes. Yeah, so we have like this, there's a cap theory, even the graffiti artist put it there, there's a triangle with a cap on top here, the CAP. And there are a lot of people in blockchain space that want to like solve this problem, but to square the skeptical triangle, it would be really revolutionary if you would have a system. So we all need to be skeptical, but we have like several, like a real world trade-offs, as you mentioned, right? Exactly. And you too, okay? So which one is the best? And like even the state channels on top of a blockchain system, they are not decentralized, right? But they have interesting new reproductions here. So these are, so we, I'm pretty fine with all the technical things that we discussed in terms of blockchain up until now, right? And in the beginning, we had like, well, we need cultural changes, right? So where do we see blockchain in science that we can like support cultural changes in science? Well, we have like the time stamping now, well, we could like also send our hashes to Elsevier, right? Well, but I mean, I mean, would it cross-stamp? I manipulate it, right? But yeah, okay, so, but we have like one thing, it's the time stamping of that. There was a conference once that there was a guy who said like a blockchain, the only thing that blockchain really does is decentralized time stamping of anything, a friend of him told him. So he was a blockchain skeptic, yeah? Blockchain application in science, okay? I think it's great. And this is like the right thing, blockchain does time stamping in a decentralized way. And it's as good as saying the internet is only good for sending bytes around, right? It's as useful as useless, yeah? So, okay, it depends on what we time stamp and what we do with the data on top, yeah? And then I would argue that actually blockchain can offer a lot more than just time stamping. And in the specific context of science and scientific research, you know, there is a lot of things we can do on the crypto economic side. And the one specific topic that I want to introduce to the audience is something called token curated registry, TCR. Yeah, yeah, this is good. We've heard talk about this and this brings us to the crypto economy, right? This whole new token stuff. So you would sub-summarize it under blockchain too? Includes a crypto economy? Yeah. Under the term? So, you know, just to give a brief overview of it, yeah. Okay, so, sorry, sorry. All right, yeah, no problem. So just to give a quick overview of TCR, what is TCR you can think of? No, no, we will have this later. We will have this tomorrow. It's a perfect, we will have a talk on that. Oh, okay, okay. Yeah, yeah. No, no, no. I just wanted to, like, let's talk on this ever, like what is blockchain and we will sub-summarize crypto economy about it, yeah? Sure, yeah. We will have a talk on that tomorrow, yeah? Okay. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Yeah, and so, I would say that blockchain is a new way. There was, like, this thing, blockchain can be used for everything and blockchain is not useful for everything. We have, like, these both things, like, well, and I think it comes, do you agree with the statement? It's like, well, blockchain is just a new way to organize all online stuff, right? So if you can represent something online, like fashion, like science, like anything, basically, right? You could do it in a blockchain way, right? So what does this represent to you? If you think of, like, we have centralized first parties at the moment that provide services and I want to include institutes to this that are open science institute publishers, mind being archive, but it's also centralized, right? If they shut down, they shut down, right? So to have, like, let's say an open access journal on IPFS, it's, to me, it's more open science than to have a centralized open access repository somewhere, right? And so to define what blockchain means is that you organize an online service that we already had in a distributed way. They are not just some plugs that you can pull, but you have to pull a lot to stop Bitcoin. In other blockchain, it's decentralized. That means that there's, like, no central entities that can manipulate the system. And it's like, it can be immutable, right? It can't be changed arbitrarily. It can only be changed as described. And it's, like, provable to the outside. And then one guy from Resiliency2 came to me, well, we had systems to design provable systems in 30 years, right? But it's, and then I want to bring it to the hype. It's also a hype because we are sitting talking about these things right now here, right? And not 30 years ago when they had the system to make computer system provable, yeah? Is it okay? So I'm, I'm, I mean, like, what's your, like? Yeah. Yeah, is it, like? So, thank you. So you're mixing up a lot of things. Yeah. I must admit that as a professor, I have a strong opinion on almost all of these things you brought up. So let me, let me maybe first kind of sort it. Start with maybe cryptocurrencies. So what I think is a lot of people are afraid of fridulations and so on. I think it is the best thing that can happen if it is regulated because, you know, if it's regulated, it kind of leads to trust and if people trust, this leads kind of to acceptance and if people accept it, then they use it. So it's a kind of an easy path for the trade-offs. We talked a lot about them, all these designs and, you know, all these things like anonymity and so it's, they have their own benefits and they have their drawbacks. So for open science, you know, there is countries in the world right now in the 21st century where people are afraid to tell their opinion like, what I do, I openly say you what I think. They can't. So sometimes anonymity is good because then they can timestamp that they were the first who brought up the idea and they don't have to be afraid that they will have some negative consequence because of saying this. On the other side, anonymity is sometimes criticized because, you know, if we kind of publish a scientific paper and somebody criticizes it, even maybe without reasons or with good reasons, but it's done not in a polite way because of this anonymity, it's sometimes also not good. So it is, everything has its benefits and its drawbacks and it depends on the context and that's what I kind of struggle with here, guys, is that we mix it up. As this was the best introduction, we mix it up. I told you in the end of my talk, open science is quite big and I don't need a particular specific kind of use case we should talk about, but it is completely different. Where, what matters? And for sure, for every of the single questions, I guess blockchain may, or kind of the underlying technology, DLT, may provide some opportunities that we maybe could go for. Okay, thanks. I mean, there are a lot of ways you can think of blockchain. You can think about blockchain from a technology point of view which is like a kind of decentralized ledger or decentralized state machine, pro question. But another way you can think about blockchain is from like application point of view, right? From the scientific society and also like in this community, the way I would like to say blockchain is basically a way to create decentralized trust, right? So it's basically this thing that can create trust among mutually untrusted parties in the old world, right? So you and I can all trust each other. And for example, in the time stamping case you mentioned, if we have like notary service, maybe you cannot even trust in the notary service in the beginning if it's like a huge, Nobel, you know, bonding discovery. But with blockchain, you can actually trust that this thing actually happened. And with TCR, the same thing that you can basically create kind of this kind of decentralized trust among trust party. So if that is like a one-sentence definition I would give for blockchain to this community. But do we have a trust problem? Like if I submit my paper to a publisher and it will like be received on this date, we trust them, right? I mean, there's no scientist that argues with Springer like putting a long time stamp on my paper. There are cases where people submitted their papers to conferences and then the peer reviewer, they really liked the idea so much that they declined the paper and published it themselves. So this is documented, that really happened. That's why we also have an extension for an open journal submission system so that when you submit your paper to a conference, it's automatically time-stamped. I have to add, Bella, you're absolutely right. And you know what? Why we need sometimes blockchain or this trustless trust in our community and the scientific community? Because we scientists, per definition, per principles, per our identity, don't trust each other. Even me on my own, if I don't know the authors, if they are not coming from the institution, I kind of am aware of. If they are not publishing in a journal, I trust, I read, I don't even take a look at the paper. And that might be bad. That might be evil because maybe they have kind of something in it that is just true. But this would solve a lot of problems and the cases that Bella mentioned, they are really true, so sad that they are true. I think it's very true. It's good that we are skeptical. I mean, just in the news a few days ago, they found out that there was a bug in Bitcoin that would have made, under some circumstances, double spending possible. I mean, that's something we all agree, of course. That's not possible with Bitcoin. But even in that criticism, it was designed to achieve that it was possible. So we have to be skeptical. And we can like, okay, Lambert, do you want to add something? Yeah, let me maybe introduce, to give a little bit of another perspective on why we benefit from this trustlessness of a protocol. Let me introduce an example of blockchain in another but closed field. And that is higher education. So since two years or so, you have several institutions worldwide who notarize, allow people to notarize educational certificates. So for instance, diploma and so on, on a blockchain. And this is huge. Imagine a country like Malta, they even changed their legislation to support this. And why do they do this? As you maybe know, Malta has like hundreds or thousands of language schools. For some weird reason, I never get this why, but for some reason it's hugely popular to travel to Malta and learn some language. So, but what happens now is some school, some language school goes down the drain, yes. Or take for instance, Hungary. They just outlawed one major university within their country for political reasons. So there are lots of reasons why you do not have this want to rely on the trust relationship to your alma mater on the long run, but instead have a proof that you received some certificate on the blockchain. And this is a well established case. They even have standards governing this use case and so on. And we can learn a lot from this. Imagine this kind of autonomy for learners applied to researchers that they literally own the transactions between them. And there it's not about receiving a grade for your diploma, but it's about other forms of assessment, like for instance peer review, yes. This is super important. Or you submit an idea, right? And you can collect likes for the idea, for example, yeah. Or people like retweet your idea, right? And then we can like in blockchain world we could create new economies around that, yeah. This is not possible in ResearchGate because we know that ResearchGate people can sit down in theory or Springer nature people or LZB people and can change the likes of the admin password in the database, right? This is super important because as a librarian I'm very much concerned about the economy of information markets. And this has potentially a huge impact of how these markets work. Because if you imagine a world where like learners own their certificates, where researchers own all kinds of transactions between them, yeah. In a very literal sense, not in this figurative meaning of oh, we have some kind of peer-to-peer network. No, literally, yes, they own this. Then you have these kinds of information, potentially as a commons. So people can build their business models for like delivering analysis of this data and so on upon this. But there is no privileged access to this kind of information. And this is a huge difference to what happens today. Day by day we rely on closed platforms. We got used to it, right? And these valuable branded platforms, they have privileged access to certain types of information and they make use of it. And we can bring, so this is my hope at least, right? In end to this. So there's a decentralization, right? We don't have a central third party anymore that can manipulate the data, right? Who owns the data? Then they don't own it anymore, right? But this brings problems as well, right? If you don't have a centralized entity that can manipulate the data anymore, then we don't have a centralized entity that can manipulate the data anymore. And this is like the problem, it's like whoever has experience with running an internet service is understands how hard it is to maintain the database in a state that is useful to the people. You don't want to have 300 articles, the same articles with different numbers or identities, right? They're like at big companies like Facebook, there are a lot of mechanical turks working to cleaning up the database so that it's useful, right? If you don't have this anymore, we need to like build game incentives, structures around so that people maintain a good database and that's a tough problem for many things, right? For Bitcoin transaction it's easy, right? We just like send it off. In a way, you really have to re-establish trust and reinvent some aspects of information markets. And make it so that the people decentralized become curator of this data, of this service, right? And there are a lot of, we have projects that work on this and they understand that it's a tough problem, yeah? So maybe centralized, decentralized services will be combined in the future or we'll see like centralized services exist for low-value transactions and for high-value transactions like grant money distribution and things, we might have a blockchain-ified thing. Is that a possible future? I mean, I think centralized services can still exist in the sense that it can be a major or main participant of some decentralized systems, right? So imagine like we have this awesome journal that is newly established and the old school publishers can still be a participant in the token, the TCR, for example, looking at it as a search. And this is like entirely possible. Yeah, okay, cool, yeah. I wanted to add some more skepticism to this whole decentralization idea. For instance, if you trust a well-established institution, for instance, your bank and you lose your credit card or someone tempers with your credit card and buys something, you can go and complain and get your money back. If there is no such central institution, for instance, the big one equivalent is someone steals your private key, your money's lost. There's nothing you can do, there's nothing you can, no one you can talk to. Exactly. This is another problem. I don't think that decentralization per se is something we should always try to achieve, but for some systems that make sense, for some systems that make sense to decentralized trust, for some systems that might not make much sense. And I'm pretty sure that both concepts will still exist in the future, decentralized and centralized systems. Probably we have to make sure that the centralized data processing systems that they don't have full access to the data as well, because privacy is becoming more and more of a concern. So there's where cryptography comes in. So I myself don't really trust institutions or academic institutions necessarily as well, but I trust the math behind the things we are doing. So I trust the cryptography that we're using and for instance, I mean, the Bitcoin paper itself is not, it might come from a well-established institution, but at least it's not labeled as if it was coming from a well-established institution and look at Ethereum, it's like an 18-year-old guy who said like, oh, maybe we can replace the scripting language and make this tour incomplete. Oh, then he got money from Till Foundation, boom, there's Ethereum. There's also not a well-established institution. So I mean, yeah, I think we will still need established institutions and central authorities to some extent, but for important things and especially where it's feasible and not expensive, we should aim for decentralization. But I think the trust will change. I wanna give one example. We know about these manipulations with car engines, the diesel scandal. And I don't think that something like this will happen again because nowadays, I mean, there were a lot of people that were involved, technicians, people that wrote the code, people that tested the code, a lot of people knew about that, but it could kept secret for several, several years. But nowadays, for example, with the service I presented with your mobile phone, even if you're just the person that I don't know who serves or changes the water bottles in the meeting room. And if you hear, okay, this team here is discussing a possibility to manipulate this kind of data. You could make a small voice note and say I was just in a meeting attending and they were discussing that they kind of manipulate the data from engines. And if this would be documented in the blockchain, then these big companies that were involved in this kind of fraud, they would have to pay billions more in fines. So I think by having this kind of transparency and the possibility to timestamp any kind of data, people will have to be more honest or they will have to pay really high fines in the future. So first, I want to say that in most parts I agree with Ismael and Bela. So I think it's like in Star Wars, if I stay with movies, there is always a dark side. There will be always people who will try to do something bad. Or they will, for money, so I wouldn't go so far so to say that something like this would never happen. Maybe it will not take years that we will kind of get knowledge of it or maybe it will be in different settings, but so like, never say never. But what Ismael said, I really liked it and I would like to come back to the decentralization question by you, Zange. So I think that we should go step by step here. So I think what we will observe during the next years will be kind of such hybrid approaches. We will have kind of central parties, big parties who still do the work and they of course get incentives for it. But they will combine it with some decentralization that they will involve all other parties to participate. They just need seconds to verify that the central party is acting according to rules. So there is somebody who has to provide computing and storage power. There is somebody who has to do something. And there is incentives like in Bitcoin or other incentives and there will be kind of these hybrid approaches that they will open it up like in a blockchain that if they kind of compute the hash value, they will do it because of course they will get something for it. But it will take seconds for everybody who wants to see that they do it right. And then not only about hash value, it's all about these processes. And I think this is what will be the next step, this combination. So it's not like tomorrow there's only blockchains and there's no central parties anymore. It will combination. We will see some kind of central parties going down. We'll see some central passing writing it up who really better understand the new idea. It's like with the internet. Some parties want, some parties love. It's always winners and losers. Let me expand a little bit on that. This is super interesting. I think when we go further into the implications of making up these game-like incentivation rules that smart contracts are most often about, right? And to regulate parts of real life through this made up games, right? Then we are quickly, we have to be concerned about and dark and potentially dangerous sites of these games as well. So for instance, there's a very well-established notion in the economic research on comments that when you have some activity that so far is done out of an intrinsic motivation, take for instance, things like Wikipedia or so. And when you introduce to such a system a monetary incentive, you can easily destroy the system. Get it, right? So think about what we do. And this is not easy. This is not an easy yes or no question, right? But many of the systems we hear about today and tomorrow are about introducing monetary incentives to things like peer review. And as you know, so far this works just from the motivational standpoint, more like Wikipedia, yeah? You feel inclined to give back to your researchers, your peers' community by doing peer review. So this is really something we have to keep in mind. And this is why I'm grateful for people like Alexander von Humboldt Institute because they are doing this kind of qualitative research that we urgently need next to developing technical solutions, right? About this kind of questions. Very good. And I would like you to take the responsibility because you know, there is libraries, so we as society, we as people pay taxes for society to spend this money on something society is crucial. Like doing research, like educating people. You have money to provide this computing and storage power to run these kind of databases without looking for other incentive mechanisms. So if we as society decide that it's worse for us to have something like Wikipedia is great and it's also chronologically ordered, you know? You can see the whole chronology of all the article. If libraries would run this and not compete with Starbucks for places where students can kind of drink coffee and learn, but kind of do real crucial thing, then this will be a great mover because we as scientists and students will for sure trust more the libraries that's your advantage than others. So if we as society decide to fund such things, make it possible. You know, I would, yeah. I think these are a great point, but I would like respectfully argue against the cautious thing you mentioned about like gamifying economic incentive and monitoring incentive. I think having blockchain govern something called crypto-economics is actually extremely beneficial. Maybe we're still in the early stage, but we're moving to the right direction. The reason for that is, what is crypto-economics? Is really economics plus code? And that code actually dominates and explicitly tell everyone how this economic mechanism is gonna work. And I think that is about 100 times better than what we have today, which is a very ambiguous, obscure way of governing the economic mechanisms. Yes, there are a lot of challenges to make that explicit code work, including governance, including how to, like there are people trying to acting as central bank these days to issue stable coins to have like a reserve and a bond system programmed as a smart contract. But this mechanism I think could work and could work better than today because it is transparent, basically. Talking about the society, I would like the experts, what's your opinion about how soon can we expect a technology based on blockchain so that elections, local, provincial, or national level starts to become a little more real participatory democracy? Is there any hope for that anytime soon? Can you see that technologically speaking? I would say that technology is far enough. And I think also when we think about elections in Spain, when they wanted to get independent, if we think about how everything would have worked out differently, if this technology would already be in the hands of the normal person, I mean, what did the government do? They sent police forces to ensure that people couldn't go to these election rooms. But if you were able to vote without going anywhere, then maybe the whole outcome would have been differently. So it really, I think your question is a really good one because blockchain technology can have a huge impact on other society questions as well. But let's stay with science and research, okay? We can like say vote on a good idea, okay? Elect in the next good flying concept, okay? Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah. So it's opened up basically, yeah, yeah, Alexander, yeah? I'll have to go back to the election just for this one comment. So it's actually happening already. I just wanted to say that the mayor of Tug, so where our company is, is super forward thinking. And there were already possibilities for people because Switzerland is extremely democratic. So to go and to vote on some local aspects. Actually taking this election example, it's cool. And it's like blockchain, and I completely agree to time same things there, but there's one big problem that is unsolved and that is in the science world, the same problem that blockchain is not about replacing trusted third parties or like get them like get probably rid of them. But we have to have new third parties for the real world blockchain interfaces and one of this is the identity problem. So even the mayor of Tug has to have to find a way to prove the identity of somebody to participate in the election, right? So and we have this example and we talk about this, right? And then we have some problem of like, how do we feed data into a blockchain-ified, totally immutable data set or whatever if you can't trust the sensor, right? We have a talk on this, we have a talk on identity and we should focus on these discussions as well. And then, okay, and then I want to like include one more thing into blockchain, like all blockchain and this is new ways to look at data, yeah? It's like there are projects that deal with like, today there's like this one thing and James said it like once in a good way, like today we give data, we trust somebody with the data to do everything with it and just give them some data. So we give some data very carefully in most of the case in research world, right? To somebody to do everything with it, right? So in the future, we might end up in a point where we give all data to an entity that can only do something with it and very constrained things. So think of sending all blood pressure data of all patients of Berlin. It's my favorite example to a smart contract and the internal review board, IRB board, can carefully review the smart contract and can see line by line that this smart contract is only able to release average blood pressure with a four weeks delay of all Berliners, for example. That would be a cool new way, right? I know that it's like at the moment it's not possible because the smart contract will leak the data to all every nodes that evaluates the smart contract but they are like publication and then we get into trusted hardware and everything. But projects that work on this calling their projects block chain-y fight data, whatever, because they have like, how do we constrain the access to the data? We don't want to have like one entity that is trusted with the constrainment. We have several entities, right? And they call this system block chain too, like so. So in this term, like the block chain of distributed trust becomes like the social, philosophical, political representation of our responsibility to constrain the access to the data. If we like come up with a thing that let's get all patient data from all patients and like send it somewhere, we don't want to have just Max Planck server to trust that the data is constrained. We want to have all research institutes maybe taking responsibility for that, yeah? So this is like it has to do with crypto economies, strong cryptography, new data handling ways, distributed trust and this should be block chain as well because we can like piggyback on the hype to introduce in these new decentralized data ways. This actually is the most, I think, we will like in this next session, we will talk about this, yeah? And have talks on that. Any comments on that or is it okay to call this still block chain or is it too far out? What would you say? You are the early, early, early, you command on this. Yeah, you are the computer, you know trusted hardware, you know that these are still dreams, right? How did you call it? What kind of block chain? And no, no, no, no, no. This is, it has like this distributed trust, strong cryptography, approvable ability. Or audits ability. Yeah, all these things. It has no block chain. I mean, all the block chain project in the future might not have a block chain at the end, right? As a data structure, right? So there can be something, right? But it's cool to call this block chain as well. If I'm careful, like enough, okay? Because it is distributed stuff, strong cryptography, and you command on the feasibility or later, you have to go, but I would love to see you like on the next session, but okay, yeah. So one thing is how do you get the data into the block chain? Yeah. There are projects that are working on this. Town Crier for instance, I think it's a group from Connell that's working on this, but how do you actually make sure that the data you get into the smart contract, make sure that it's actually the data you wanted to be in the smart contract? Yeah, that's right, but only the smart contract can decrypt it, maybe, you can just expose it to the outside and only the smart... Yeah, but how do you make sure the authenticity of the data that comes from outside of the block chain? Exactly, we have an identity problem again, right? I could just create 10,000 of patients, virtual patients, and just send it somewhere, right? So we have to constrain that as well, and this is a big problem, I agree, yeah? Maybe a useful way to think about all this is to think about use cases where actually you want to solve existing problems and you explore the problem space and then you think how could I use a block chain or whatever technology that is there? I think that's the right way to approach it in general. Yes, and to expand a little bit on that, maybe there are already interesting use cases out there that you can apply in research and science. So for instance, we had this super interesting hint to that cache and zero-knowledge snarks, and imagine that, yes? You can prove to your tax office, if necessary, that you received a certain amount of money in a certain times, man, and at the same time, to the rest of the world, this is completely opaque and nobody understands this, and this is exciting and think about this level of autonomy that you have above your own transactions and you can easily, as an analogy, you can find use cases for that, or I see use cases for that, and higher education and research as well, yes? It gives you much, much more autonomy against, yeah. Enough said. Okay, yeah, so I just wanted to do two things. There's lunch outside and we continue, and everybody who wants to go to lunch just goes to lunch, the other people just stay, okay? Yeah. Is that okay? And we open up the panel at the same time, yeah? Okay, so, or should we just, no, we just continue if you're hungry to eat, okay? Okay, yeah. Just coming back to the data point a little bit, like basically, how do we see data in blockchain? Right, so the great question is that, okay, we have all this cryptographic construction, so we have homographic computation, which means that you can do computation like entirely, sorry. Sorry, I have to go. Yeah, yeah, yeah, just go, okay, excellent. Yeah, cool, yeah. Sorry. Yeah, it's okay. Yeah, okay, so yeah, yeah, this is a very interesting topic. Yeah, so basically, we have data, you have data, and if we derive this from first principle, that is like we want to use blockchain, why? Blockchain is for decentralized trust, to create a trust amount on trusted people. So why do, what kind of data you really want this kind of trusted services? Is your own data, your own generated data, your genomic data, your browsing history, your all that stuff. So this is like for data on blockchain, or data's use case on blockchain is mostly about self sovereignty of the data, right? So you have a genomic data, you want to contribute to the scientific research, but you don't want to, like not everyone know that, you know, maybe like I will go Alzheimer's like in 50 years. So how do we do that? The blockchain is a layer to break down the financial barriers to make the incentive work, but there are a lot of things that need to be built on top to make this actually work. And several key pieces including privacy computing, that is like you can do computation on encrypted data and extract some information out of this. And you know, homographic encryption, that is like basically zero knowledge proof, that is you can prove something is valid and fit some property saying that, okay, my blood pressure is about 150, but like at the same time not revealing exactly what's your blood pressure, for example. This is the kind of a thing that zero knowledge proof is capable of. And these things that would need to be built on top of this incentivized layer because at the end of the day, you're selling your data, you're selling yourself. So this kind of incentive need to be realized on blockchain in a trust free way. So yeah, that's my thing to understand. I forgot this, like the multi-party computation to like a source incentivize it that you have a decentralized way. Yes, yes, that's right. Okay, okay, this was even the more obvious argument to call it also blockchain. These new data handling paradigms, yeah. So since nobody's going, like you can leave. No, I have a question. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hi, I'm over here. It's totally okay that you just stand up, okay. I know that I mean like for lunch, sorry. Oh, cool. So you're sitting there, you're sitting there. Yeah, I really like sitting. I'm a little bit confused about this conference because I'm hearing, I love that we're talking about blockchain and everything like that, but it was my impression that was gonna be how is blockchain gonna help us in science with all the problems that we really, really have. And from what I'm hearing is that there's all this great technology, but I'm not hearing a lot of how are you gonna solve professors not getting tenure because there's so many people still not, they're not leaving. How are they gonna solve the paywall problems? How are we gonna help people in countries in like Brazil? They're not trusted, their research is not trusted just because they're not at Max Planck, for example, right? So I'm just saying, right, you have to move as a scientist to be, these are the actual problems in science that we really want to solve. So how is blockchain gonna help us? Yeah, good question. We have like, we create new incentive structures. We create new different incentive structures. We submit things blindly, but immutably, and you don't know whether it's for Max Planck's idea or for like some remote country in wherever, and some people don't accept this and you don't know whether it's a valid, it's from a arena, it's from a well-known institute or not, and you can reveal it later if you want. But people might still invest in it. They might think it's maybe from Harvard, but it's like really not from Harvard, you know? So they don't know, so we have this pseudonymity that I could like think of, right? Or we can have new value flows. We have new systems that can of course be game, but the current system is game big times, right? But we just have like changing incentivization structures that we can easily build on top of blockchain systems because today we only have like one, two, three systems. We have a monolithic incentivization structure. We have like all these committees that like come up with review in processes because they have the obligation to the taxpayer to distribute the research money in a very well-planned way, right? So it is this big effort of like grants and grant review and you plan your research for the next three years, right? Like what we addressed today, right? But we have a blockchain system. We can like rely on this obligation to have a trustworthy way of distributing the research money and at the same time have very innovative new ways, yeah? So this would be one answer to this, the one vision, okay? Now we're talking visions, right? We like, it's like the phoenix from the ashes. Like blockchain was completely destroyed this morning. Now we rebuild it for the next one and a half days, okay? So just your timing on that a little bit also, right? So if we were talking about real problems, maybe like the 10 year problem that I also couldn't solve, that's why I quit academia and started a company. But what, well, so, but another thing that you just reminded me is that it may make the flow of public contribution to research funding much more easier, okay? So let me just give you an example here. So in Berkeley, in UC Berkeley, there is a project called BONIC. And BONIC's about finding aliens. So it basically analyzed the tattics of scope data and tried to see if there is like a planet that is suitable for human living. And maybe aliens, little green guys are living there. So that project is struggling, right? So they cannot get enough funding because who cares the finding aliens, right? So, but if you think, and there are a lot of projects like that. So basically you can install a software on your laptop and fold proteins for medical researchers. But no one is doing that these days. Now, but what blockchain can enable is this kind of frictionless micro payment, frictionless micro contribution to researchers, right? So you could now actually start to run a folding protein program on your cell phone or on your laptop, even when you're sitting at the conference. And at the same time, someone, some rich guy or some like a research institution who has money can directly fund this process by giving you cryptocurrency, because the cryptocurrency entire friction to cross financial barriers and financial silos are so low that it's not becoming a problem if you're just doing like $1 of work. You can do $1 of work and still get paid, but you just couldn't do it today because of the financial barriers. And that's kind of the thing that's just one thing that can immediately make me think of how this can help research. We have to close the panel, all right? Lunch.