4 ms·

Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Maybe you can trust a system you or your colleagues design

Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Maybe you can trust a system you or your colleagues design and maintain, but any 3rd party centralized system can be manipulated. In its current state, a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust. You may not value that as much as others, but it certainly doesn’t make blockchain ‘worse.’ And yes, I think the fact that all your comments disparage blockchain shows you may have simply already made up your mind. WRT the OP, the question was ‘is this possible?’ I have shown that is technically possible to finance a home purchase via crypto tokens, assuming one can find interested investors. Whether the solution is of value to you personally is totally irrelevant.

root_axis 9y ago
> Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Of course there is, what do you call the NASDAQ or the NYSE? Those are trusted centralized systems that work just fine every day and process more transactions than any blockchain can hope to acheieve. > a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust No it doesn't in any meaningful way. I need to trust that my tokens will be recognized as a legal share of ownership in the property, all the smart-contract can do is give me confidence that the tokens are not counterfeit or double-spent, but this is obviously a non-issue with our current centralized system. Nobody is concerned about counterfeit Apple stock. There is no benefit to using a smart-contract because it does not solve a problem (in this case). Are there situations where a smart-contract could be useful? Probably, but attempting to tokenize the equity of your home is not one of them and you've completed failed to demonstrate otherwise.
- jasonlaramburu 9y ago
  The tokens would allow you to access a share of the payback on the loan, or the executed deed in the event of default confirming your interest. You are correct, tokens are not securities. As I understand OP’s question is whether or not this is technically possible (not whether this is an actual problem worth solving). It is technically possible. You have only shown why it might be risky or undesirable.

root_axis 9y ago

> Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Of course there is, what do you call the NASDAQ or the NYSE? Those are trusted centralized systems that work just fine every day and process more transactions than any blockchain can hope to acheieve. > a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust No it doesn't in any meaningful way. I need to trust that my tokens will be recognized as a legal share of ownership in the property, all the smart-contract can do is give me confidence that the tokens are not counterfeit or double-spent, but this is obviously a non-issue with our current centralized system. Nobody is concerned about counterfeit Apple stock. There is no benefit to using a smart-contract because it does not solve a problem (in this case). Are there situations where a smart-contract could be useful? Probably, but attempting to tokenize the equity of your home is not one of them and you've completed failed to demonstrate otherwise.

jasonlaramburu 9y ago
The tokens would allow you to access a share of the payback on the loan, or the executed deed in the event of default confirming your interest. You are correct, tokens are not securities. As I understand OP’s question is whether or not this is technically possible (not whether this is an actual problem worth solving). It is technically possible. You have only shown why it might be risky or undesirable.