When I started exploring Open Badges a few years ago, I rapidly realised that not only were they a solution to several of the problems we had with ePortfolios, but they also had the potential to help us reinvent them — the Open Badge Passport initiative is our contribution to this. And now that I have started exploring the possible application of blockchains to Open Badges, I realise that not only were blockchains the perfect solution to a number of Open Badge problems, but they could also be a means to review our ideas on Open Badges altogether.
What is a blockchain?
A blockchain is the historical record of all the transactions between the participants (nodes) of a network. This record is referred to as a ledger, the artefact accountants use for book keeping. Adding new entries to the ledger, or modifying existing ones, is done by adding a new block to the chain — previous blocks are the faithful representation of the ledger’s previous states.
Moreover, the blockchain technology makes ledgers unfalsifiable. How is this possible? By providing a copy of the full ledger to all members of the network and defining an ingenious protocol for adding new blocks to the chain so that even if someone tried to add an invalid block, the network would detect the fraud and reject the chain containing the invalid block.
One vital point about blockchain technology is privacy: while transactions are public, they can be verified without having to know the real identities of the participants. Identities remain masked.
What could the representation of an Open Badge in a blockchain be?
The first time a badge is issued, a block is created to record a set of metadata. In a sense, one could describe the first block as a badge: instead of being “baked” into a picture, the metadata is “baked” into a ledger. If the same badge was issued to 300 people, the first block of the ledger would record that piece of information — a block usually records several transactions.
At this stage, there is a first major difference with the current Open Badge Infrastructure (OBI): the information that a certain badge has been issued to 300 people is now accessible to all the members of the network (they all have a copy of the ledger). A piece of information that would normally be kept hidden behind the walls of issuing platforms is now accessible publicly — and it should be so for making the information verifiable.
This was my first approach to applying blockchains to badges : adding blocks representing badge transactions (issuing badges).
When I realised that issuing a badge was nothing more than adding an entry to a ledger, I wondered: if we forget for a moment that the ledger is used to record badge transactions (issuing, endorsing, revoking), what would a ledger allow us to do with/for/from Open Badges that we could not have done before?
One immediate example that came to my mind is connecting evidence to a badge:
Each piece of evidence that will be submitted to get a badge is recorded in the ledger
When all the criteria are covered by sufficient evidence (produced over time in a range of different contexts, etc.) the candidate claims the badge
When the assessor is satisfied with the quality of the evidence produced, a new entry is added to the ledger (as representation of the badge).
The beauty of this solution is that the very same information recorded in the ledger could be used for many different purposes, for example to manage one’s intellectual property: when I write an article or a blog post, a new entry is added to the ledger. When authors quote or make reference to the article or blog post, they can do it by using the entry in my ledger (each entry has a unique identifier). We can then imagine that each time a reference is made, a BitofTrust is added to the account by the author using a reference — c.f. #Openbadges + #Blockchains = #bitoftrust ?.
Using a ledger for badges allows the following operations:
issuing a badge: add an entry to the ledger
endorsing a badge: add a BitofTrust to the account associated with the entry
revoking a badge: erase an entry in the ledger
Revoking badges raises an important issue: how to enforce the right to be forgotten — it might not look good on one’s profile to display lost badges? To preserve the right to re-inventing oneself, Bryan Mathers came up with an elegant solution: one’s personal ledger could actually be wrapped up as the genesis block of a new personal ledger.
Extract from my (future) Personal Ledger
Thinking of badges through a ledger is also a means to de-dramatise the question of self-issued-badges. While I’m a firm believer that they should play a more central role in the badge ecosystem, the current Open Badge infrastructure has made it impossible for the average user to issue badges, notwithstanding the criticism on the “value” of such badges for (hypothetical) employers… Creating a self-issued badge is nothing more than adding an entry to a ledger. Once created, it is possible to start collecting evidence and later ask for endorsements from members of the community.
What I have started to describe here is a Personal Ledger, a lifelong and lifewide inventory of my assets where “badges” are just assets among other assets — with one characteristic, probably shared with other constructs, which is connecting / cross-referencing other assets.
Overall description of the Blockchain-based Open Badge Infrastructure (BOBI)
The picture above provides a simplified representation of what a blockchain-based Open Badge infrastructure might look like. The blockchains are the records of the changes in the ledger. A user interface provides a meaningful display of the content of the blockchain in relation to one’s assets (e.g. a block will contain the book copyrights but not the book itself) and a number of services associated with the data contained in the ledger.
NB 1: while called a Personal Ledger, it does not mean that I can edit mine. Each change is done by adding a new block, an operation performed by other members (nodes) of the network — in the BitCoin world, the addition of new blocks to the chain is done by “miners” (most happens in China! — link).
NB 2: while in the bitcoin environment there is only one blockchain (for obvious reasons), there is no restriction to the number of blockchains that can run concurrently. So each Personal Ledger, could be represented by its own blockchain, each member of the network having a copy of all the blockchains — this could be optimised by distributing randomly “enough” copies of each blockchain, but that’s another story. On the other hand, there would be one blockchain for the BitOfTrust “currency.”
The blockchain is the federation
One of the issues discussed in the Open Badge community was the need (or not) for a “federation” of Open Badge storage:
We pack a lot of meaning into [the] open badges federation, what we really mean is “distributed badge storage that gives users choice and opportunity to be discovered for their achievements.” Federation means more backpacks, more user choice and more user benefit. (Chris McAvoy, 2014, source)
Without a federation, when I get a badge from Credly and want to put it into my Open Badge Passport, I have first to configure my Credly account to make it aware of my backpack (so, if I don’t have a backpack, I’m stuck), export my badges to the backpack, then go to my Open Badge Passport account to import them (with the hope that it will work). This is unwieldy and a federation of Open Badge storages would allow me to have one single view over all my badges.
The federation did not happen, and it is a good thing as there is a much better solution… which is… blockchains. When we will be using blockchains the Open Badge Factory, Credly and Badgr will have to use MY blockchain/ledger to issue the badges I have earned and when I am in my Open Badge Passport, Badgr of Credly account, I will have access to all my badges, disregarding which platform they were issued from. My blockchain is my passport/backpack and my passport/backpack is part of my Personal Ledger — the old backpack becomes a simple an entry in my Personal Ledger under which will be added everything that looks like a badge.
What other benefits?
Now that we have established that a Personal Ledger can be more than just an elegant solution to managing Open Badges, what else could we do with it?
One of the main benefits with blockchains is a clear separation between data (stored in the blockchains) and the applications serving/exploiting the data. The blockchain contains all the data from the whole network, which is a radical difference with today’s Open Badge infrastructure where the data is fragmented across the various badge issuing platforms (hosting assertions) and various storage platforms (hosting badges) — one of the consequences being the inability to know how exactly how many badges have been issued.
Having the data in a blockchain frees innovation, the same way the opening of public data does: the blockchain is the solution to opening up personal data while keeping full control over its exploitation. The blockchain is an invitation to create new applications and services from the wealth of data they contain. It is a serious threat to established trusts — watch out LinkedIn! Watch out Facebook!
A Personal Ledger is the record of the trust bonds we have established within the community. I can endorse a plumber or an electrician who can endorse me as a good client. Personal Ledgers could be used by the self-employed and voluntary workers to build their professional and social reputation.
Service and goods providers could use the information contained in Personal Ledgers to gain business in a novel way. Let us say that one of the services provided on top of the Personal Ledger is a mailing service. I could decide to only receive mail from people or entities I trust. So, if I trust ACME Ltd, I could endorse ACME ltd who then creates an entry in its Organisational Ledger. When ACME ltd wants to send information to its contacts it does it through the mailing service I trust that will check that I am in the ACME Ltd Organisational Ledger. When I don’t trust ACME Ltd anymore, I just withdraw my endorsement and no more mail will arrive.
The Personal Ledger is also a powerful metaphor for scaffolding learning: a learning plan could be translated into a series of entries in the ledger that have to be filled-in with evidence / proof of work. ePortfolio and personal learning environments (PLE) applicationscould be built on top of the blockchain. Learners would be fully autonomous from the information systems of institutions of formal education. A new generation of learning management systems could emerge, where learners would be in full control over their work and data.
What follows is an additional list of ideas rendered possible with blockchains / Personal Ledgers:
The blockchain is the taxonomy: each time a badge is issued, it makes reference to criteria. Now imagine that when a new badge is created, through the user interface, the creator has access to all the vocabulary already used in previous blockchains. This could seriously reduce the number of redundant criteria and badges by displaying all the existing badges using a particular criterion group of criteria.
The blockchain is open knowledge: imagine that someone creates a new badge describing emerging competencies related to new knowledge, e.g. data scientist, this could be valuable information for training bodies and employers.
From search to discovery: with blockchains it should be easy to find all the people sharing the same badge (or collection of badges) while ensuring full anonymity. For example, someone willing to quit drinking could claim an AA badge in order to be discovered by the local chapter or another local AA badge holder.
Of course, what is described above is probably not optimal in terms of resources and processes. They are just intended as illustrations of things that could not be done before (with the current Open Badge Infrastructure) and are now made possible with the use of blockchains.
Summary and further questions
The objective of this post was to explore how blockchains could be used to implement Open Badges. I have tried to demonstrate that blockchains would not only be an elegant solution, but would allow the resolution of existing problems and open many opportunities.
If, for a moment, we accept the idea that blockchains are the solution to Open Badges Implementation, this raises a number of further questions:
What body should be responsible for creating and maintaining this new infrastructure? The Badge Alliance is fit to maintain a standard, which is about documentation. With a blockchain infrastructure the business model would have to include software development and maintenance, scalable servers deployment etc. A whole new ballgame!
What will happen to the legacy system? It should not be too difficult to write a programme transforming “pictures with metadata” into “Personal Ledger entries”…
What consequences for existing businesses (issuing platforms) and what new businesses could emerge?
Looking forward to your suggestions, ideas and criticisms!
Many thanks for the discussions that contributed to formulating the ideas discussed in this post to (in alphabetical order) Bryan (including the picture!), Carla, Kerri, Ian, Nate, Sandro, Simone and Sunny.
One aspect of the question regarding a possible relationship between blockchains and Open Badges is to wonder whether the blockchain should be treated as some kind of add-on to the existing Open Badge structure/standard, or should Open Badges be integrated within a blockchain?
A starting point for an informed answer to this question is to do a simple test: take an Open Badge generated by one issuing platform and try to import it into another issuing/hosting platform. I have done this experiment recently, taking only a very small sample, and the results were rather… (un)conclusive — BTW, one suggestion for the Standards Working group would be to run a real life interoperability test (not just through a formal proof) across all platforms and publish the results.
Interoperability is a classical problem to which the ePortfolio community was confronted some years ago and to which no convincing answer was ever provided — the IMS-Global ePortfolio and Leap2A specifications (2 specifications for interoperability is already one too many!!!) are only used by a handful of ePortfolio platforms — notwithstanding that there are many ePortfolios that do not use any ePortfolio platform at all! Moreover, when we organised plugfests during previous ePIC conferences, we had to admit that 3 platforms using the same technical specification (IMS ePortfolio at the time) had problems understanding each other: exporting one ePortfolio from one platform then importing it to another did not always work properly…
One could have imagined that with a structure much simpler than ePortfolios, the problem of interoperability would have disappeared. It has not. And now that we have allowed extensions to the specification, the order of magnitude for potential interoperability problems has increased geometrically, not just arithmetically. Yet, the possibility to extend the specification, even by one single issuing platform, willing to gain a competitive advantage, with a better or innovative service, should probably be allowed. We certainly do not want a “one-size-fits-all” issuing platform. Innovation must go on!
Are blockchains the solution to Open Badges interoperability?
While the current Open Badge architecture has already demonstrated its limit to interoperability, is there a way to ensure that every possible badge issued by one party will always be 100% compatible with the hosting service of the receiving party? Could the blockchain be the answer to that question?
A blockchain-based architecture guarantees that when someone writes on the public ledger, the writing is legitimate and legible. There might still be problems with the content of the writing if those writing on the ledger do not respect the expected structure for the content (therefore we will still need something like a data model for Open Badges) but, at least, sending and receiving badges will always work, the blockchain specification guarantees it. The decision to accept or refuse a badge belongs to the ledger, and as there is only one ledger, it will not be possible to have a situation where a badge accepted by one platform is rejected by another. The public ledger is a means to enforce interoperability in real time and not post facto.
So, if we decided to move Open Badge metadata from “pretty pictures” to blockchains we are sure that at least the infrastructure will be working properly — not withstanding the numerous advantages provided by blockchains themselves.
From Open Badges to BitofTrusts
The whole process of sending and receiving badges can be extremely unwieldy, starting with the obligation to create a “pretty picture” — and if one is not a graphic designer, use paint-by-numbers-canned-badges clip-art to generate “ugly pictures” — I made some time ago the suggestion of the “one pixel badge” and it was a total flop! There must be a better mechanism. It is what I would like to explore now.
Imagine that every individual and organisation joining the Badge Alliance (or some other overarching body) receives 1,000 BitofTrusts to be distributed to entities they trust (people, organisations, services and things (Internet of Objects). Let us say that the distribution of trust is treated as a deposit (unlike bitcoins) that can be withdrawn when you do not trust one entity anymore. Now imagine that trust deposits generate interests in favour of the holder of the trust (the host of the deposit) that can be used to further trust other entities. We would have the basic components for establishing the foundations of a trust economy — which is a somewhat redundant expression considering that there is no economy possible without anticipated trust. To complete the description of the infrastructure, one would assume that every entity has a place to store trust deposits. Let us call it a Passtrust (it would be a wallet in the Bitcoins world, theOpen Badge Passport or Badgr in the current Open Badge world and the Backpack in the old model).
To refine the model further, we could add algorithms mimicking the behaviour of local currencies such as the Chiemgauer in Bavaria, where the capital looses part of its value if not spent during the year after being acquired, the objective being to have a currency used to facilitate the circulation of goods and services within the community rather than a means to hoard.
At this stage, we have simply defined a general trust mechanism that is not that different from an idiosyncratic local currency. In order to align Bittrusts with Open Badges, we need to define a mechanism to represent values, affiliations, achievements or competencies. Instead of a pretty (or ugly) picture, we could simply use entries in a public ledger: When an entity gives a badge to another entity, this entity adds an entry in the ledger and deposits a Bittrust — it doesn’t have to be a complete Bittrust; 1/1,000th or less would do the trick for establishing a trust link between an issuer and a recipient. For endorsement, instead of creating a new entry, a fraction of a Bittrust would be added to an existing entry.
NB: one advantage of this mechanism over the current revocation of Open Badges is that the revocation information will remain within the ledger instead of being erased from the infrastructure. And knowing that a trust bond has been revoked could be a very useful piece of information — that should probably be erased after a few years to avoid lifetime stigmas…
Of course, I realise that what precedes is a rather crude description that needs to be refined further through thought experiments as well as mathematical and computational models — something we have not judged useful for the current Open Badge Infrastructure so far. The idea of giving everyone 1,000 BitofTrusts is just one option among many — it could be a certain amount each year, some entities might have the right to produce BitofTrusts and give them, not just as a deposit. I like the idea of having the trust others have in one entity generates interests in favour of this entity as it would be a tangible representation of the benefits of being trusted, but I am certain that there are other ways to achieving similar results.
All I wanted to achieve with this post is open a conversation, using blockchains as a “tool to think with,” opening new horizons for establishing a resilient, trustworthy, open and distributed Open Badge Infrastructure.
I am looking forward to your comments and criticisms.
NB: changed BitTrust to BitofTrust after publishing the next blogpost.
Last Thursday, as I attended a meeting at the old Paris stock exchange (palais Brogniard) with people working on blockchains to discuss the Open Badge Passport, what did I discover? A number of the ideas we wanted to develop with the Open Badge Passport (as services exploiting the content of badges metadata) were already in full development using… blockchains, not Open Badges. That was some reality check! The following morning I read Certificates, Reputation, and the Blockchain (link) where Philipp Schmidt, from the MIT Media Lab, explains how they are moving from paper certificates to blockchains after a short encounter with digital badges…
Issuing a certificate is relatively simple: we create a digital file that contains some basic information such as the name of the recipient, the name of the issuer (MIT Media Lab), an issue date, etc. We then sign the contents of the certificate using a private key to which only the Media Lab has access, and append that signature to the certificate itself. Next we create a hash, which is a short string that can be used to verify that nobody has tampered with the content of the certificate. And finally we use our private key again to create a record on the Bitcoin blockchain that states we issued a certain certificate to a certain person on a certain date. Our system makes it possible to verify who a certificate was issued to, by whom, and validate the content of the certificate itself.
Suddenly Open Badges seemed to have regressed from a technology that could conquer the world to a parochial technology solely at the service of the great priests of education spraying badges like papal indulgences so their parishioners could join the heaven of employment… one day… if their prayed with enough fervour.
I will not go into details, but my observation over 30 years of a number of attempts at combining “education” and “technology” into one thing called “educational technology” resulted (most of the time) in impoverished education and impoverished technology — which is very different when education meets general purpose technology and add to each other. I would love to be proven wrong, but what is the technical innovation, born within the premises of education that has had any value outside? Apart from Facebook (and Open Badges, one day?) I cannot recall any.
Innovation (technical and social!) happens outside of the world of formal education. If innovators choose to use blockchains and not Open Badges to produce services based on trust relationship, then it is probably a sign that we should rethink the badge technology and its infrastructure altogether — or promote Open Badges as an alternative to blockchains!
A few months ago, Doug Belshaw wrote a post on Peering Deep into Future of Educational Credentialing (link) where he explored how Open Badges and blockchains could be connected.
While we wouldn’t want to entirely remove the “human” element around credentialing, a hybrid OBI and blockchain approach could add value to our current system. Machines and software are extremely good at fact-checking, whereas humans are good at meaning. We need both.
At the time, I asked Doug to explain the benefits of blockchains over signed badges (which is one way to make them verifiable). When I look at today’s explosion of innovations based on blockchains and compare it to innovations based on Open Badges, there is a clear advantage in favour of blockchains.
Some of the innovations based on blockchains:
D-CENT (Decentralized Citizens ENgagement Technologies) a Europe-wide project to create digital tools for direct democracy and economic empowerment (link)
La`Zooz synchronises empty seats with transportation needs in real-time, matching like-minded people to create a great ride-sharing experience for a “Fair fare” (link)
Storj (pronounced: storage) a cloud storage platform and suite of decentralized applications that allows users to store data in a secure and decentralized manner. It uses blockchain features like a transaction ledger, public/private key encryption (link) — much better than a backpack!
For a longer list of potential domains where blockchains could be used read the annex.
What I would like to elicit is, if we compare the breadth and number of innovations enabled by blockchains with the breadth and number of innovations enabled by Open Badges, we might just want to decide to reinvent Open Badges from the blockchain (some already do!).
As one of the winners of the DML Trust challenge, we planned to use Open Badges to create something truly innovative: a bottom-up trust architecture enabling a new generation of services exploiting badges metadata. We are now almost half way, the first version of the source code is in the process of being released, and I now wonder how should we go for the second half. Can we just go on ignoring the promise of blockchains of a fully symmetric trust infrastructure (something we have failed to achieve so far)?
What do Open Badges and blockchains have in common? Bottom-up Trust!
In a previous post I suggested the idea of “the one pixel badge.” Blockchains are the means to have “the zero pixel badge.” Using a picture to store metadata was a genius idea and we should be grateful to those who came up with it. The problem with this genius idea is that it took on an entirely different meaning in the heads of the not so genius. The picture, that was just a convenient vehicle for hosting a set of metadata, became the central element. Efforts were made to create badge editors (to create “pretty pictures”) but not a single development has been engaged in developing a proper criteria editor (using linked data / RDFa to create machine readable criteria). As long as the picture is pretty, if the content is dumb (i.e. with no semantic value) it should not be considered a problem…
The main problem with the “pretty picture” is that it hides to most the fact that a badge is a trust relationship between two parties, which is precisely what a blockchain is about! The major problem with the Open Badge Infrastructure (OBI) is that we have not been able yet to create chains of trust and networks of trust (although it is one of the goals of the Open Badge Passport).
Open Badges = blocks without chains
Therefore, when I look at Open Badges and compare them with blockchains, I am tempted to describe them as “blocks without chains.”
I must state that this description does not do justice to the great work done with “linked data” in the new Open Badges specification (1.1). Exploiting the power of JASON LD (linked data) the new specification provides “chains.” My question is: how much effort would be required to make Open Badges, or rather P2P credentials (with JASON LD, no need for a “pretty picture”) a viable general purpose technology that could compete with blockchains?
What was wrong in our initial attempt at connecting Open Badges with blockchains? Currency!
My understanding of the initial discussion on blockchains and Open Badges was veiled by discussions on Open Badges as “new currency” (how to “monetise” badges?) and Bitcoins being the “new currency.” I replied earlier that the “true currency” of Open Badges is “trust” and that it is probably the oldest currency ever. I did not see the need to use something like Bitcoins to represent this currency when Open Badges already had this trust relationship embedded. Why change a technology that works?
Moreover I thought that badges were probably “greener” as they do not require the huge computing power Bitcoins need for “mining” (i.e. enforcing contracts). And if the value of a Bitcoin is inherently wrapped up in its rarity, then it violates my principles and those of a knowledge economy where value is unlimited. My mistake was to restrict my understanding of blockchains to Bitcoins. They are so much more than that!
What is wrong with the Open Badge Infrastructure? The Backpack!
Mozilla recently decided to fund the improvement of the backpack (an idiosyncratic silo where Open Badges can be hosted with the hope that someone might be interested to see them, one day, after pushing them to LinkedIn and Facebook) when the only reasonable thing to do would have been to get rid of it altogether.
Open Badges and blockchains are both about trust. What makes blockchains powerful is the ability to create a fully trustworthy infrastructure without any super-authority or having one party more trustworthy than any others.
One of the arguments I heard for continuing the Mozilla Backpack was “Mozilla is an organisation that can be trusted.” As Kerri Lemoie noted aptly, Mozilla could not be trusted for a while, simply to maintain the service, a duty that includes correcting bugs. But there is a more fundamental reason why we do not need to have a backpack hosted by Mozilla: in a blockchain ecosystem, there is no need for a super-trusted entity like Mozilla to protect the interests of the badge owners.
The Badge Alliance and the Open Badge specification is what is needed to protect the interests of the community.
A bottom-up trust ecosystem can be built without the need of a surrogate parent! The Mozilla foundation has done great things and will continue to do so, but “improving” the backpack is probably the worst signal that could have been given to the community. It might please those who want to keep Open Badges within a disconnected silo — which it is — something “just for educators.” The Badge Alliance and the Open Badge specification is what is needed to protect the interests of the community.
“improving” the backpack won’t change this annoying fact an iota [asymmetry].
I keep repeating that the Open Badge Infrastructure is deeply asymmetric (blockchain architectures are symmetric!) and “improving” the backpack won’t change this annoying fact an iota. Migrating the OBI to a blockchain infrastructure might be a better investment if Mozilla really cares to deal with solving bugs. The most serious one in its architecture: asymmetry!
And now?
Considering that Open Badges are:
a trust relationship (contract) between two parties (individuals, organisations, services, etc.) — P2P credentials
verifiable — while preserving anonymity
revocable — according to contractual rules
actionable — to open a door, access content, etc.
My suggestion is to explore the feasibility and value of implementing a blockchain-based Open Badge Infrastructure by addressing (in parallel) the following questions:
What currentissues could be solved with blockchains?
What currentissues could not be solved with blockchains?
What new issues would emerge from a blockchain-based OBI?
What new opportunities would emerge from a blockchain-based OBI?
What are the pros and cons of a blockchain-based OBI vs. the current OBI?
Could a technology derived from Open Badges (or another technology) offer a viable alternative to blockchains in their current applications?
Your inputs are welcome!
Annex: The Mega-Master Blockchain List
I. Financial Instruments, Records and Models
Currency
Private equities
Public equities
Bonds
Derivatives (futures, forwards, swaps, options and more complex variations)
Voting rights associated with any of the above
Commodities
Spending records
Trading records
Mortgage / loan records
Servicing records
Crowd-funding
Micro-finance
Micro-charity
II. Public Records
Land titles
Vehicle registries
Business license
Business incorporation / dissolution records
Business ownership records
Regulatory records
Criminal records
Passports
Birth certificates
Death certificates
Voter IDs
Voting
Health / Safety Inspections
Building permits
Gun permits
Forensic evidence
Court records
Voting records
Non-profit records
Government/non-profit accounting/transparency
III. Private Records
Contracts
Signatures
Wills
Trusts
Escrows
GPS trails (personal)
IV. Other Semi-Public Records
Degree
Certifications
Learning Outcomes
Grades
HR records (salary, performance reviews, accomplishment)
Medical records
Accounting records
Business transaction records
Genome data
GPS trails (institutional)
Delivery records
Arbitration
V. Physical Asset Keys
Home / apartment keys
Vacation home / timeshare keys
Hotel room keys
Car keys
Rental car keys
Leased cars keys
Locker keys
Safety deposit box keys
Package delivery (split key between delivery firm and receiver)
March 30th, 2015 | Doug BelshawImage BY-ND Bryan Mathers
I recently attended Nesta’s FutureFest event in London. It was a heady mix of everything related to what’s next: from food to technology to economics to politics. What really caught my attention, however, was the way in which one particular innovation seemed to have captured the imagination of people across various sectors. That technology is the blockchain.
Bear with me. Some of this will have to be slightly technical in order to get across the point I want to make about credentialing. First, I’ll explain in broad brushstrokes how the blockchain is currently used to underpin Bitcoin, the ‘cryptocurrency’ you’ve no doubt heard something about. After that, I’ll investigate ways in which it could be used with web-native systems such as Open Badges to profoundly transform the way we think about trusted credentials.
Blockchain Technology
When people talk about “the blockchain,” they’re almost always referring to the technology underpinning Bitcoin. The blockchain is literally a chain of blocks of code serving as a “public ledger” to record transactions within a distributed database. Everyone involved in Bitcoin transactions has a complete copy of the blockchain. This is important as it prevents double spending without the need for central oversight.
At the moment, most things being placed into the blockchain are hashes (i.e. obfuscated representations) of currency transactions. In other words, you can prove that something took place at that point in time. Those not involved in the “transaction” would not be able to see what actually took place — unless you provided them with the key.
Anything that can be “hashed” can be placed into the blockchain. Many suggestions have been made for the kinds of information that could be placed into it. In essence, anything that usually requires central oversight could, in theory, be replaced by using the blockchain. Examples include extremely sensitive information such as voting patterns, HR records, and, even, nuclear launch codes.
Blockchain and Badges
One of the potential stumbling blocks when it comes to the Open Badges Infrastructure (OBI) can be verification. How do I make absolutely sure that the person with this badge is the same person who created the evidence claiming it? I’ve told the story many times of my great-uncle who based his entire career on the “fact” that he attended Oxford University. He claimed his degree certificate was destroyed in a fire when, in fact, he’d simply doctored an old photo of the year he would have been at the university.
If we used the blockchain for Open Badges, then we could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person receiving badge Y is the same person who created evidence X. This would use a “proof of work” system. At the moment, the situation is still better than paper-based certificates but, such an approach would allow Open Badges to be used in extremely high-stakes situations. The blockchain would prove a connection between the evidence and the badge. More details could be unlocked if the earner chooses to share his or her key.
Going a Step Further
Blockchain technology underpins Bitcoin and is the original and best-known example. However, there’s no reason why there can’t be multiple blockchains that aren’t so tied to cryptocurrencies. One soon-to-launch example of this is Ethereum which describes itself as “a platform for decentralized applications.”
Ethereum allows for a situation in the not-so-distant future where smart contracts will allowentirely autonomous corporations to exist. Those who have seen the Terminator series of films may have concerns about the potential for Skynet in all of this. The reality, while exciting, is likely to be much more prosaic (and much less dystopian) than those works of science fiction suggest. With terms of service instantiated in code, such organisations will work on behalf of us to perform tasks that cause problems when subject to human error. These could include automatic issuing and verifying services around trusted credentials.
Conclusion
While we wouldn’t want to entirely remove the “human” element around credentialing, a hybrid OBI and blockchain approach could add value to our current system. Machines and software are extremely good at fact-checking, whereas humans are good at meaning. We need both.
If my evidence to earn a badge (or whatever we end up calling such credentials) is part of the blockchain, then I have data upon which to draw that is distributed, public, and objective. Compare that with our current ad-hoc system of certificates languishing in drawers that struggle to be represented online. Verification moves beyond questions such as “does this look legitimate?”to verified, trusted credentials.
It’s worth saying that all of this talk of using the blockchain with the OBI is highly speculative. There have been some initial conversations and a group at Dartmouth College is investigating possibilities as the Open Badge Exchange. If you have an interest, now is the perfect time to start thinking about these things and getting involved!
Originally published at dmlcentral.net on March 30, 2015.
If you’ve come across the BadgeChain site, or our Medium pub and you’re intrigued, you most likely already know what Digital Badges are all about. If you don’t…This post is intended to provide an overview of information about digital badges.
Please keep in mind that this is merely a primer on digital badges, open badges, etc. If you want to really understand…get involved in the Open Badges 101 course.
What is a digital badge?
Digital badges are visual representations of learner accomplishments. They are symbols or indicators of an accomplishment, skill, quality, or interest. They are symbolic representations that can be easily shared and communicated across varied academic, social, and work-related contexts.
Unlike traditional scout badges or other credentials such as school grades or transcripts, digital badges can contain specific claims regarding what the earner learned or did and detailed evidence supporting those claims.
Badges contain detailed claims about learning, links to evidence of learning, and they’re shareable over the web.
Please review the video overview that details elements of a badge.
What is an open badge?
Open badges are digital badges are designed to be collected by individual learners in their digital backpack and displayed across different contexts and environments. A digital backpack is an online space where learners can collect and display their badges online. An open badge is a digital image or digital badge that has metadata ‘baked’ into it.
As Doug Belshawindicates, once the metadata has been baked into the image to create the open badge, it cannot be removed from the resultant “cake.” Open badges have the potential to form living portfolios for recognizing personal competencies and achievements while communicating these between education and work.
What is metadata?
A digital badge is really a graphic with a ton of “metadata” behind it. Metadata is data about data, or more specifically, data that contains an underlying definition or description.
The real power in the badge is in the metadata associated with it. The metadata is a series of links and data that indicates what the badge is for, what criteria were used to award the badge, and any standards associated with the badge. Image and metadata work together to form a graphical representation of some collection of knowledge, skills, dispositions, or competencies that have been determined by the issuers.
To earn a badge, in most instances you need to “pledge” for a badge as a pathway to a goal, or to identify an accomplishment. In this, there needs to be some formal announcement from a student that they are working toward earning a badge, or that they believe they have conducted work that would earn them a badge.
After they have completed the requirements for the badge, a review process is typically conducted to see if they earned the badge. This review might consist of a self-review, a peer-review, or an assessment by experts. All of this information is made openly available by the badge issuer, and is sometimes included in the metadata for the badge.
One of the benefits of open digital badges is that you can often access and review the work, reflections, and feedback from the review given to individuals that have already earned the badge you’re pledging for. In this process, you are able to see the knowledge, skills, and dispositions the badge issuer is looking to recognize.
In some instances, digital badges are awarded as a form of “stealth badge”, or an award given for criteria unknown to the earner. These stealth badges are often viewed as a surprise by the earner.
Please review the following video to learn more about badging ecosystems, and the possible value of badges.
How do you issue a badge?
Anyone can issue open digital badges, either by running a badge creation application on their own web server or signing up with an issuing platform. Before considering the technical requirements, it is important to design badge systems to fit your goals as you design a badging program.
As you start building your badge, and possibly a full badge ecosystem, you might start with this template which was developed by digitalME to use as develop the individual badges.
As indicated earlier, badges are awarded as a way to use a layer of technology and a layer of social media to document learning by an individual. To ensure that you don’t confuse learners, and eventual earners of your badges, you’ll need a certain level of “granularity” before beginning to award them to students. In plain speak, it needs to be crystal clear as to what the badges mean, and how people can earn them.
To learn more about assumptions as you create and issue badges, please review the following video from Doug Belshaw.
We need to indicate that digital badges may be open, or they may exist in closed ecosystems. An example of this is a school or organization that wants to ensure the privacy of their users, and as a result does not openly share online the badges, metadata, and the users in the badge ecosystem.
In an open badging ecosystem, Nate Otto indicates that:
Open badges are visual symbols of accomplishment that include detailed metadata describing that accomplishment and featuring automated verification of their authenticity.
In closing
There are many other factors associated with developing and awarding digital badges, or a full badge ecosystem. Hopefully this primer helps you start to wrap your head around digital and open badges. Please reach out, or comment on this post for more support.
Like what you see here? Sign up for my newsletter to stay on top of weekly events in literacy, technology, & education.
BadgeChain keeps you up to date on the ways in which blockchain and related distributed technologies intersect with education, politics, business, and society.
Follow Us