MediBloc

MediBloc Shortcomings

• Deploying a proprietary chain (we consider this a huge development overhead but we hope they can deliver!)

• Using IPFS decentralised storage, but simultaneously offering their own copy to increase the reliability — which means they don’t trust IPFS but are still using it which increases development costs and overall complexity of the system. No information can be found wether this system would be open to public nodes or not, and what happens if keys leak and encrypted data is just there for the taking.

• Voting on “p2p identity” concept, seems reckless and lacks clear definition (how will it protect against Sybil attacker trying to revoke one’s identity?).• They claim to offer zero-knowledge and re-encryption but their whitepaper is saying that there are users who can read everything (missing pieces, technical details).

• MediBloc centralises all searchable information on their servers (opt-out)! They would be using Intel SGX enclave for privacy. This method has already been proven to be a dead end; breached by different teams, or even used to hide spying (undetectable spyware!),

• No information on key recovery.

MediBloc Positives:

• Open source (although their GitHub appears dead?)

• Public blockchain.

• Mobile phone has a copy of the medical data.

• Encryption with patient key.

• Using NuCypher for re-encryption (this information is missing in their whitepaper, so we are unable to confirm for sure).

Token distribution:

• 50% stays with team/founders/investors/researchers.

• 50% went to the general crowdsale sale.

• They added 5% yearly inflation (first year, then slowly declines).

Bearer Health Record score: 3/5 (mainly because of missing documentation).