Here is a review I just submitted to Amazon Video on the movie "Code of Trust"
I noticed this movie in new releases and gave it a try because I'm a blockchain researcher and tinkerer. Overall, I'd say go ahead and watch it because it's fun to see and flows pretty well. If you DON'T know much or anything about blockchain watch it and google the heck out of everything that catches your attention or imagination and maybe get a little boost learning about a whole different world. If you DO know about blockchain already, you will enjoy the references and perhaps get a few chuckles at some of the hamhanded treatment of certain concepts.
I have to say up top that the music is awesome and totally fits the mood of every scene they chose. Also, the videography and production values were really good. I like the style and it was a pleasure to watch. I respect that the filmmakers attempt to interweave broadly related statements from documentary interviews they apparently had lying around from a prior project with plot points in the crypto-drama they produced as this current movie project. If I didn't actually listen to what anybody was saying in the interviews or pay attention to what anybody was actually doing in the drama then the flow and feel were totally fine. However... it's hard not to notice that the connection between almost all the interview statements and the specific actions or plot points was very loose at best or just unconnected at worst. So, nice try but an A for effort and D for execution on that interweaving gambit. About 50% of the interview statements came across as compellingly delivered nonsense and 25% as reasonable/accurate statements or projections and 25% as really savvy observations or prophetic wisdom. Good luck sorting out what fits in which category (the sorting would inevitably be a matter of endless debate).
The basic plot just doesn't make sense to the extent the filmmakers' attempt to solve various key challenges with this or that supposed capability of "the" blockchain. The actual technical functionality available just didn't square with what the characters were apparently attempting to achieve. Moreover, there are multiple different major blockchains and very many minor different blockchains with significantly different capabilities. The movie seemed to give a lot of spotlight to Bitcoin but also seemed to assume the distributed software capabilities of Ethereum or maybe some other system?
For example, how does uploading files intended for broad public release with a key only known to one or two people make any sense at all? If the point is to time delay release or to allow release with no trace of the source of the release there are plenty of well know, widely available ways to achieve those goals. But the risk that the revelations contained in the files will never be released is much greater when only two people can trigger the publication and both those people then run away to cross desserts, cross borders illegally and without good plans or resources and take no technology with them. It's most likely the information will NEVER be released. Nothing about how they used blockchain solves the mismatch between what the characters did and what they purportedly desired to happen.
Similarly, why upload identity docs to blockchain then show them to refugee workers in another country? I think the point was that the character needed to dispose of her documents while fleeing her country (so she burned the physical document) and uploaded imaged of the documents so she'd have some evidence of the documents when she arrived where she was going. But, again, the basic "use case" for this character was a need to show a copy of her identity documents to social workers in the country she was fleeing too, so why isn't it just as good (or in fact easier/better) for the character to just upload her documents to GitHub or dropbox or any FTP server then show the images to the social workers when she arrives at the other country? The result is the same - the social worker can verify the documents were validly issued and have not been revoked from the country or some other source that issued the documents and the social worker can get a copy of the photo from the issuer of the documents and look at the character to visually check if it is the same person. But there was nothing shown to link the documents uploaded to any particular verification that the person uploading them was the same person they were issued to so why not just post a commit to GitHub and use that hash and date stamp and such and be done with it. Use a private repo if it's sensitive. Or even encrypt it and memorize your key and toss it anywhere including iCloud, Dropbox, etc or any FTP server or network of servers. What does "blockchain" add here? Perhaps a more interesting angle would have been if the authoritative source of the identity documents had digitally signed them (or used a W3C verifiable claim or another such standard) so they, in effect, became more like "bearer" tokens.
Another weird moment was when a refugee camp worker explained a "crypto-currency" called EuroBits that (in this cinematic near-future speculative reality) was digital but only usable for certain types of purchases like toiletries and food and not for international travel, etc. This, of course, is not especially representative of the anything-goes ideology of most (almost all?) cryptocurrencies but the real cringe moment was when the staffer pointed to the little R in a circle after the brand "EuroBits" on a big explanatory poster and asserted the R is for "restricted". Obviously, the EuroBits prop poster has a "registered trademark" symbol (https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2011/05/trademark-marking-in-europe-what-symbols-to-use-and-when). Ouch.
A cool moment that shed some well-informed light on a not well thought out facet of smart contracts designed to be immutable and beyond any further amendment, interpretation or "appeal". What happened was an angel of a social worker who was helping the main character arrange her "eResidency" in the new country explained that (again, in this hypothetical new system) the permissions for remaining in the country had strict conditions including no tolerance of lawbreaking (that part is customary) and the conditions are enforced through a "smart contract" so even if the character got a "subway fine" there would be "no appeal" because she is dealing with "a machine". This would be an especially bitter use of a smart contract that operates according to cold, hard rules and an open invitation for unintended results based on mistakes or novel situations that the code incorrectly processes leading to all manner of due process, civil liberties and administrative law violations not to mention miscarriage of justice. Kudos to the filmmakers for hammering home the point that superficial smart contracts (which they all are, to some degree) are really bad mechanisms to mete out justice.
Speaking of that angel of a social worker, that character did perhaps the best job of demonstrating the fundamentally important place of simple, human and humane "trust" among and between human beings. Without the basic kindnesses and empathic help this social worker provided, the main character would not have had the tools or transport or other resources she needed to publish the shocking files or get to the place of "safety". This point was delivered with no nuance or ambiguity and I believe it was entirely appropriate to be clear and use a huge neon arrow to drive the point home. The "trustless" almost anarchic ideology driving so many people in the early days of "blockchain" and cryptocurrency, in general, represents a bleak, barren and even chilling vision of the future. In this respect, at least, the filmmakers' vision celebrating the centrality of direct, trust-based relationships at key intersections of physical existence is much closer to a world I'd prefer to live in.
Weird little fact: the main character is offered a “safe place to work” at coordinates: 59.986339, 10.484119 (here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/59%C2%B059'10.8%22N+10%C2%B029'02.8%22E/@60.0046594,10.0782561,9.21z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d59.986339!4d10.484119 visually here by some online personae with the handle "Szabo" (a hat tip to Nick Szabo, a perfectly good guy who - mysteriously to me and despite all the well known prior work - is widely given credit for coming up with the idea of smart contracts). If anybody is in the area and feels like snowshoeing to this spot it would be interesting to know if it's barren tundra or if there is, in fact, a cute little house there deep in the middle of nothing.
All in all, I enjoyed the film and would like to see more from the people who made it. Give it a try and share your views. I'm apparently the first person to leave a review and I'd love to learn what others thought about this movie!
Links
- Movie: https://www.journeyman.tv/film/7525/code-of-trust
- Twitter: #CodeOfTrust