Well, I do think that that is exactly things that are important.
You'd want uncensorable, to give transparency to the patient. E.g. a hospital can't add a record without you knowing, that you might not want an insurance company to have access to later.
Immutable, as a patient you would want to know exactly what your data looks like at any given time. Again insurance is a good example.
If the blockchain is private, could it not be part of the implementation that does the access checking? Can't part of the ledger be unencrypted while other parts are not?
It might be wishful thinking. It's just an idea I have floating in my head, as an actually useful real world implementation for a blockchain.
I can try, but to be totally clear this is only an idea that I have in my head, and is far from fully formed.
But as far as I understand, it should be possible for a user on a blockchain, to have their set of data encrypted in the ledger. It should also be possible to implement a sort of permission scheme.
So I am imagining, instead of relying on things like Epic Systems and other EHR systems, that control your data and might have incentives to not share them with other systems. One could imagine a EHR system based on a blockchain. The patient can then grant permission to, say a hospital, to read certain data from the ledger. This could be scoped to what is necessary in the context of their visit or procedure.
After the visit to the hospital, the patient has full transparency to read what data has been added to their own records.
Anyway, I am not capable to give a full technical solution, since I have not thought it fully through, and not nearly knowledgable enough to actually know. So I might be very wrong in my assumptions, and would gladly be told otherwise if that is the case.
Then there's the whole issues of how do you get existing systems as Epic to integrate with said "blockchain EHR".
Maybe not the healthcare provider, but a service that allows the patient to be in control of their health records. Control who can read and write to their own data.
And is it not up to the implementor of the blockchain, to specify how difficult it is to calculate a new block? So lowering the "gas price"?
So I am not an expert in blockchain or web3, I've only completed a few courses implementing a blockchain in golang and I work in the digital health industry.
But the points you raise, are exactly the issues I've been thinking could be solved with web3. I am imagining using it to give control to the patient of who has read access(to what and when), who can add data, etc.
I.e. give full transparency and control to the patient. Instead of the current situation where a patients data is on different systems, you don't know what it actually says, besides what a doctor tells you.
What is you basis for saying that?
> Nobody cares if you "experienced" something in the comfort of your own home.
By that rationale nobody would play vide games.
I believe it comes down to the experience. The experience of VR is simply not good enough to attract people.