Richard Lumb, the chief financial executive of the multinational consulting firm Accenture, believes that immutability is a defect and blockchains should be made changeable. Bitcoin users disagree.

In a New York Times’ article “Downside of Bitcoin: A Ledger That Can’t Be Corrected”, Lumb offers a different view of the blockchain. While admitting that it has “huge possibilities”, he remarks that blockchain’s absolute immutability considered a virtue, “could end up being its own worst enemy.”

The problem is, according to him, that it clashes with vital privacy laws such as “the right to be forgotten” and other European Union legislation to come within the next two years. Besides, a number of US laws “require personal financial data to be easily redacted.” Moreover, says Lumb, the blockchain immutability perpetuates mistakes that penetrate smart contracts just because human nature is susceptible to error. He cites the example of Ethereum Classic supporters who out of idealism enabled the thief to get away with stolen money. Finally, he offers an alternative:

“At Accenture, we’re working with leading academics on a prototype that would enable blockchains to be amended or redacted where necessary — under responsible governance models potentially developed in cooperation with regulators.”

According to Lumb, it is the only way to make blockchain really mainstream. However, bitcoin users seem to disagree. In an article in CryptoHustle, the author writing under the nickname Rocky offered a “rebuttal” of Lumb’s article. In his opinion,

“The narrative of mutable private blockchains may be a symptom of financial institutions trying to use technology that was never built for them. In fact, the entire purpose of a blockchain is to circumvent those very institutions.”

Rocky suggests that regulators may be lenient towards cryptocurrencies to give banks chance “to benefit from the free innovations offered by the open-source community” but when blockchain tech is integrated into the banking system, the use of open blockchains may be restricted. He furthermore argues that mutable blockchains, far from preventing fraud, will lead to its multiplication.

On Reddit, commenters are much less restrained in their criticism of Lumb and Accenture:

“In other words, they're working on water 2.0, Ice 9, the non-wet water.” (mistaik) “Well, if you want to cook the books then it immutability is very bad. Accenture is an accounting company so...” (jerguismi) “He has to say that, otherwise the entire existence of his company would be a joke. If you can't fake things they wouldn't exist.” (nyaaaa) “This is so dumb it's unbelievable. As in, I literally can't believe what I just read.” (mhonkasalo) “I worked for Accenture. Let's just say they're human just like the rest of us, and they can be idiotic just like the rest of us.” (hoffmabc)

It should be noted, however, that Accenture is not a novice to the blockchain. In February 2016, it developed a blockchain-based smart electric plug able to choose between power suppliers and pick up cheaper tariffs. In April 2016, it presented distributed time-stamping and blockchain tracking of drugs aimed to exclude from circulation both illegally produced drugs and those not complying with the original formula.

Alexey Tereshscenko