Should we be re-thinking this e-Bike thing?

[Jaded]

When looking at the actual figures, it would be informative to also ask the question "what form of transport is being replaced by these e-bikes, and what damage would that have caused to people, roads, pavements, public health"

[mrcharly-YHT]

The thing that makes blockchain records unforgeable is public key signing, same as your boring chip and pin card, same as the HTTPS connection you’re viewing this on now. The blockchain is an irrelevance.

There is a huge difference between public key technology which,  while secure in its essence, is wide open to fraud: stealing your chip and pin, hijacking an https session etc etc etc and blockchain which uniquely proves ownership in its shared open ledger. Crucially, it is not a single key pair, but a distributed sequence which defeats forgery under current, and current view of future, technology. Blockchain gives you a token. Either a fungible (eg bitcoin, every bitcoin is the same as the other)  where holding it is proof of ownership or non-fungible "NFT" where each token is different and crucially links to ownership. The transaction is indeed validated by a private/public key pair (as established, this is secure in itself) but the underlying ownership is the pointer to the blockchain ledger, unique and unforgeable.

Given the value of cars, the amount of technology inbuilt into new ones and their propensity for being stolen, the application of blockchain technology to supplement and replace the current paper/number plate system is an obvious move that would be likely be welcomed by owners, I was floating the concept that the other benefit could be that owners could also be held to account, which would likely be less popular.

Of course any system with meatware is subject to exploitation, and people will be fraudulently tricked out of ownership I am sure, but the big difference is that just stealing the item will no longer be sufficient. Once you have the system established, its application is much wider to anything of value, especially with inbuilt technology and that brings into question the problems that exist with any monoculture, but that's a can we can kick for the moment.

The problem with applying this to cars is you are making an assumption that a car is a unique monolithic object.

What is the car? The chassis? (people replace chassis). The engine?

It is even worse when applying this to bicycles. Is it the frame? What if someone damages a frame and replaces it?

Hang on, we have licence plates for cars! Yes, however people can and do replace these.

[Ham]

]The problem with applying this to cars is you are making an assumption that a car is a unique monolithic object.

What is the car? The chassis? (people replace chassis). The engine?

That's an easy one. The car is the CPU, with various registered components, as many or as few as makes sense (the cost of creating a fungible token/"Bitcoin" simply isn't there for an NFT.

Again with bikes, were talking eBikes, again CPU and registered components, probably just the motor for a bike.

[DuncanM]

Cars already have unique identifiers. There's the VIN, which applies to the car in perpetuity, and the registration plate, which is unique and attached to the VIN. This lives in a database which is secured from fraud by means of firewalls and other old school IT practises.

How does putting a VIN into the CPU (there is a unique identifier already there, and many components need to be bound to it in order to function properly), and storing the data on a publicly audited blockchain make any improvement on this? Does your car function as a node in the chain, and you need a private key to start your car? I pity the poor AA mechanic.

[Ham]

and you need a private key to start your car? I pity the poor AA mechanic.

That's actually the classic implementation for entering and starting a car, is it not? Only currently, the technology is trivially bypassed and not linked to ownership in any way.

[citoyen]

This story was on the local news last night:
E-scooter rider jailed for knocking down woman

Some observations:

• It's only newsworthy because it's not an everyday occurrence.
• He was convicted because he was riding dangerously, not because he was riding somewhere he shouldn't have been or because his vehicle had been illegally modified.
• If he'd been in a car, the sentence would have been much lighter.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The main thing there seems to be "...while trying to evade police". So they were already after him for something else, and you can be sure it wasn't the illegality of his transport.

[citoyen]

The main thing there seems to be "...while trying to evade police". So they were already after him for something else, and you can be sure it wasn't the illegality of his transport.

Yes, that too.

[Pickled Onion]

There was a piece on the Today programme the other day about e-scooters being banned in Canterbury. A pedestrian was hit and badly injured. The interviewer failed to ask the obvious question, viz. "if a car badly injures a pedestrian, will those be banned too?"

[quixoticgeek]

That's an easy one. The car is the CPU, with various registered components, as many or as few as makes sense (the cost of creating a fungible token/"Bitcoin" simply isn't there for an NFT.

Again with bikes, were talking eBikes, again CPU and registered components, probably just the motor for a bike.

And where do we fit this on the 3yr old's trike?

J

[giropaul]

The thing that makes blockchain records unforgeable is public key signing, same as your boring chip and pin card, same as the HTTPS connection you’re viewing this on now. The blockchain is an irrelevance.

There is a huge difference between public key technology which,  while secure in its essence, is wide open to fraud: stealing your chip and pin, hijacking an https session etc etc etc and blockchain which uniquely proves ownership in its shared open ledger. Crucially, it is not a single key pair, but a distributed sequence which defeats forgery under current, and current view of future, technology. Blockchain gives you a token. Either a fungible (eg bitcoin, every bitcoin is the same as the other)  where holding it is proof of ownership or non-fungible "NFT" where each token is different and crucially links to ownership. The transaction is indeed validated by a private/public key pair (as established, this is secure in itself) but the underlying ownership is the pointer to the blockchain ledger, unique and unforgeable.

Given the value of cars, the amount of technology inbuilt into new ones and their propensity for being stolen, the application of blockchain technology to supplement and replace the current paper/number plate system is an obvious move that would be likely be welcomed by owners, I was floating the concept that the other benefit could be that owners could also be held to account, which would likely be less popular.

Of course any system with meatware is subject to exploitation, and people will be fraudulently tricked out of ownership I am sure, but the big difference is that just stealing the item will no longer be sufficient. Once you have the system established, its application is much wider to anything of value, especially with inbuilt technology and that brings into question the problems that exist with any monoculture, but that's a can we can kick for the moment.

The problem with applying this to cars is you are making an assumption that a car is a unique monolithic object.

What is the car? The chassis? (people replace chassis). The engine?

It is even worse when applying this to bicycles. Is it the frame? What if someone damages a frame and replaces it?

Hang on, we have licence plates for cars! Yes, however people can and do replace these.

There’s a real issue around classic veteran, vintage etc cars. Several owners can think they own a certain car because they have the chassis plate, or the engine number or whatever.
A while ago DVLA worked with the owners clubs etc to try to identify the one true car. This led to a lot of very disgruntled owners whose “ original restored” car became a “ replica “, sometimes losing thousands or even more of pounds.

[Ham]

That's an easy one. The car is the CPU, with various registered components, as many or as few as makes sense (the cost of creating a fungible token/"Bitcoin" simply isn't there for an NFT.

Again with bikes, were talking eBikes, again CPU and registered components, probably just the motor for a bike.

And where do we fit this on the 3yr old's trike?

J

Keep up at the back. This whole flight of fancy has at its core the idea of throwing eBikes onto the pyre of regulation as one way to avoid any suggestion of registration for pedal cycles.

[quixoticgeek]

Keep up at the back. This whole flight of fancy has at its core the idea of throwing eBikes onto the pyre of regulation as one way to avoid any suggestion of registration for pedal cycles.

Why? pedal assist ebikes are almost as good for society as a normal bike, and it's well known that we need to be doing everything we can to encourage bike use.

if we allow for ebikes to have some special registration requirement, it will be a gateway to every bike needing it. It's a stupid idea, and needs to be put out of our misery as soon as possible.

Same as 99.99999% of the supposed uses for blockchains...

The only appropriate use of a block chain in the context of pedal cycles is a block of concrete with a chain set in it, that is used to lock your bike to.

J

[lissotriton]

Same as 99.99999% of the supposed uses for blockchains...

The only appropriate use of a block chain in the context of pedal cycles is a block of concrete with a chain set in it, that is used to lock your bike to.

So long as you have a Park Tool NFT-1 to fix it.
https://www.parktool.com/en-us/product/nft-1

[DuncanM]

and you need a private key to start your car? I pity the poor AA mechanic.

That's actually the classic implementation for entering and starting a car, is it not? Only currently, the technology is trivially bypassed and not linked to ownership in any way.

A physical key needs no other infrastructure.
How does your car link a private key to ownership? Via the blockchain? So it needs an always on internet connection just to let you open the door? And if you get hacked, then your car no longer works with you key (or even belongs to you)? I think I'd prefer to take my chances with the DVLA.

[Ham]

How does your car link a private key to ownership?

It doesn't need connectivity for function, you would just use that link to prove (or find) ownership. So, it can still be stolen, just not then sold.

[Ham]

Keep up at the back. This whole flight of fancy has at its core the idea of throwing eBikes onto the pyre of regulation as one way to avoid any suggestion of registration for pedal cycles.

Why? pedal assist ebikes are almost as good for society as a normal bike, and it's well known that we need to be doing everything we can to encourage bike use.

if we allow for ebikes to have some special registration requirement, it will be a gateway to every bike needing it. It's a stupid idea, and needs to be put out of our misery as soon as possible.

Same as 99.99999% of the supposed uses for blockchains...

The only appropriate use of a block chain in the context of pedal cycles is a block of concrete with a chain set in it, that is used to lock your bike to.

J

I absolutely recognised that some would take that stance from the off. But, it is incontrovertible that PTW are historically registered an numberplated, and the boundary between these and the illegal derestricted e-bikes is 100% blurred. The distinction between legal and illegal is also not anywhere in the public consciousness, they will see bikes/legal ebikes/illegal ebikes as one. My contention is that to ignore that issue will potentially lead to the blanket regulation we both would want to avoid.

[DuncanM]

How does your car link a private key to ownership?

It doesn't need connectivity for function, you would just use that link to prove (or find) ownership. So, it can still be stolen, just not then sold.

How is that different from the current system where the VIN is printed into the chassis of the car, and on the V5, and you need the V5 to re-register it? Sure, you can chop the chassis about, but it's not like the ECU is completely tamper proof.

[Paul H]

My contention is that to ignore that issue will potentially lead to the blanket regulation we both would want to avoid.

I think what you're suggesting would lead to that.
If 25kph E-bikes need registering, why wouldn't all bikes?

[Ham]

How does your car link a private key to ownership?

It doesn't need connectivity for function, you would just use that link to prove (or find) ownership. So, it can still be stolen, just not then sold.

How is that different from the current system where the VIN is printed into the chassis of the car, and on the V5, and you need the V5 to re-register it? Sure, you can chop the chassis about, but it's not like the ECU is completely tamper proof.

The V5 does not prove ownership. Conceivably turning the V5 into an instant, unforgeable, system might achieve the same but then, it would be the same. Let me see, how might you turn V5 into an unforgeable, instantly updateable artefact....what technology might you use ? 

My contention is that to ignore that issue will potentially lead to the blanket regulation we both would want to avoid.

I think what you're suggesting would lead to that.
If 25kph E-bikes need registering, why wouldn't all bikes?

There's the heart of it, but the argument works in both directions, I'm suggesting we should look further than our gut reaction, my proposal puts a firebreak in front of pedal cycles. Experience tells us just because a course of action makes no sense and will be bad for everyone does not mean that the GREAT BRITISH public will not choose it.