5 ms·

This article seems to conflate using the block chain to verify title transfers, with using Bitcoin to buy/rent property, as it discusses both without really dra

by paulgb 9y ago

This article seems to conflate using the block chain to verify title transfers, with using Bitcoin to buy/rent property, as it discusses both without really drawing a distinction. Can anyone make sense of what's going on here, and in particular why a municipality would prefer a block chain to a public database of digitally signed records?

cwkoss 9y ago
It would allow two private parties to transfer title between themselves without permission or action by the municipality. Not sure why the municipality would want that. Also would create a slew of issues around what happens if you lose the private key to your house, or worse, it gets stolen.
- Goronmon 9y ago
  Same things that happens with Bitcoin, you lose your house.
  - Xeoncross 9y ago
    Well, actually it just sits there forever and no one can use it. Think of this more like converting your home into a museum for future generations.
    - usrusr 9y ago
      Why? If the transactions logged on the blockchain contain annotations about your identity, you (as described by those annotations) would still own the house, only an impersonator matching those annotations as good as you would be able to challenge your ownership. On a blockchain without any fallbacks you would lose any ability to ever transfer ownership. As for future generations, will anyone could claim it but your heirs might have a better shot at it than a random impersonator.
  - danpat 9y ago
    That's apples and oranges. A house and land doesn't become inaccessible if a key is lost, and the gatekeeper of "ownership of land" isn't the mathematics of the blockchain, it's the government.
    - paulgb 9y ago
      Well sure, but that seems to undermine the necessity of the blockchain for this purpose right? If the ultimate arbiter is still the government, decentralizing the ledger is neat but it doesn't remove the requirement for trust in the government.
      - smokeyj 9y ago
        Bitcoin has proven to be an effective ledger in regards to uptime, consistency and not getting hacked. The transaction fees are becoming higher but it's probably still cheaper than administering your own database that's potentially worth billions of dollars. Bitcoin is worth billions of dollars so I'd rather trust it to maintain my records than some municipalities IT guy.
        drdrey 9y ago
        The protocol itself has not been hacked, but private keys get hacked all the time
        smokeyj 9y ago
        This is largely solved with multisignature wallets. But centralized databases have this same attack vector, along with all the challenges of maintaining a database.
        fleetingmoments 9y ago
        And if you get hacked and can prove it, the bank/municipality has the power to correct fraudulent transactions.
        9y ago
  - splintercell 9y ago
    In a naive implementation, yes. But to implement this properly, the real estate title should and would not serve the same purpose a bitcoin 'title' does via it's private key. In case of bitcoin, a private key is literally the ownership of the bitcoins. In case of real tangible assets, the private key would serve as a pretty solid proof of ownership (but not THE ownership itself). So, in case of a dispute over the ownership of a real estate property, you can point out that you had the ownership of the property via the blockchain. In case of a theft of the keys, you must provide supplementary documentation regarding the prior ownership of the stolen keys. A pretty neat solution for the blockchain identity is being described by Vinay Gupta[1]. A simplified version is, imagine if the private key using which you purchased the house is stolen from you, then in front of the arbitrator, you present receipt from Amazon, where you used your private key to pay for goods which were delivered to you in your name, an affidavit from your bank which shows that you did business with them (using your real identity) and connected with your private key. All these 'documentation' (which Vinay Gupta describes as 'insurance') is very hard for the thief to produce. The same is not the case with bitcoin theft, where loss of private keys means loss of control of the assets (and not merely a 'dispute'). I hope that helps to explain it. 1. https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/a-blockchain-solution-for-identity-51fbcae94caa https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/a-blockchain-s...
    - xorcist 9y ago
      > proof of ownership (but not THE ownership itself) The two could be if not the same then at least intertwined even for tangible assets. One could imagine a safety deposit box for example, with an electronic lock that would open not with a combination but a signature from the key that currently controls it on the blockchain. That would be a nifty hack (and also a good plot for a movie where the hero manages to transfer ownership just in time for the bad guys to reach it).
    - cwkoss 9y ago
      If the arbitrator can alter ownership state (and the govt authorizes them to rewrite the blockchain to incorporate their findings) it isn't really a blockchain: just a centralized database. If they can't alter the blockchain, then ownership state on the blockchain will diverge from reality over time.
- knocte 9y ago
  > if you lose the private key to your house Haha. Sorry that I laugh, but using blockchain for land ownership is not about backing bitcoins with square meters, but about the tamper-proof, immutable, public and resilient aspects of the data you can store in the bitcoin blockchain. The only private key that would be involved in this process would come from the government, which could just sign messages with some standard (encrypted) format that just maps addresses to individuals/entities. This way even notaries will become one day obsolete (or they will simply be there to make sure the blockchain entry happens and the transfer of the assets as well, in an atomic way; and the assets don't even need to be crypto in this case).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hudon 9y ago
    If the government instead stored the deed transfers in a database with digital signatures and exposed a read-only API to it, wouldn’t that solve this problem better? What’s the concern? That the government makes you not the owner of your house anymore? And if your government does that, what’s the difference between fighting for a government that respects the rule of law versus fighting for a government that puts house deeds on bitcoin? Thanks!
    - nwah1 9y ago
      The difference is that the bitcoin wastes more energy to accomplish that.
      - brianorwhatever 9y ago
        but is guaranteed to accomplish that
        hudon 9y ago
        If the government was going to take your house away from you anyway, why would they care what’s on the blockchain? This is so contrived...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 9y ago
Many jurisdictions don't need signed records. Many Americans can deed property among themselves without touching a public database. There are surely reasons why one might want to register such a deed, but it isn't an absolute requirement. I do scratch my head at the desire to use blockchain tech in areas where absolute assurance isn't needed or even desired. And to implement such a system in an area as diverse as contracts and real estate seems folly. What happens when we want to do something that the blockchain's design hasn't anticipated?
bradleyjg 9y ago
For the same reason a group of banks would prefer a blockchain despite not having to worry about the Sybil attacks that motivated it -- it sounds modern and high tech and fancy.
Chirael 9y ago
It also seems to conflate online access to land records with bitcoin. It's possible that the same folks that pushed MERS (trying to move land records out of county systems and into a private, mortgage industry-controlled system) may be pushing this as a second attempt at the same (just with the word "blockchain"). The only way it makes sense to me is as a further means of authenticating exactly what was done and who the parties were. See "Triple Entry Accounting" for a similar concept (added value from blockchain use): http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html

by paulgb 9y ago

cwkoss 9y ago

It would allow two private parties to transfer title between themselves without permission or action by the municipality. Not sure why the municipality would want that. Also would create a slew of issues around what happens if you lose the private key to your house, or worse, it gets stolen.

Goronmon 9y ago
Same things that happens with Bitcoin, you lose your house.
- Xeoncross 9y ago
  Well, actually it just sits there forever and no one can use it. Think of this more like converting your home into a museum for future generations.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Why? If the transactions logged on the blockchain contain annotations about your identity, you (as described by those annotations) would still own the house, only an impersonator matching those annotations as good as you would be able to challenge your ownership. On a blockchain without any fallbacks you would lose any ability to ever transfer ownership. As for future generations, will anyone could claim it but your heirs might have a better shot at it than a random impersonator.
- danpat 9y ago
  That's apples and oranges. A house and land doesn't become inaccessible if a key is lost, and the gatekeeper of "ownership of land" isn't the mathematics of the blockchain, it's the government.
  - paulgb 9y ago
    Well sure, but that seems to undermine the necessity of the blockchain for this purpose right? If the ultimate arbiter is still the government, decentralizing the ledger is neat but it doesn't remove the requirement for trust in the government.
    - smokeyj 9y ago
      Bitcoin has proven to be an effective ledger in regards to uptime, consistency and not getting hacked. The transaction fees are becoming higher but it's probably still cheaper than administering your own database that's potentially worth billions of dollars. Bitcoin is worth billions of dollars so I'd rather trust it to maintain my records than some municipalities IT guy.
      - drdrey 9y ago
        The protocol itself has not been hacked, but private keys get hacked all the time
        smokeyj 9y ago
        This is largely solved with multisignature wallets. But centralized databases have this same attack vector, along with all the challenges of maintaining a database.
        fleetingmoments 9y ago
        And if you get hacked and can prove it, the bank/municipality has the power to correct fraudulent transactions.
        9y ago
- splintercell 9y ago
  In a naive implementation, yes. But to implement this properly, the real estate title should and would not serve the same purpose a bitcoin 'title' does via it's private key. In case of bitcoin, a private key is literally the ownership of the bitcoins. In case of real tangible assets, the private key would serve as a pretty solid proof of ownership (but not THE ownership itself). So, in case of a dispute over the ownership of a real estate property, you can point out that you had the ownership of the property via the blockchain. In case of a theft of the keys, you must provide supplementary documentation regarding the prior ownership of the stolen keys. A pretty neat solution for the blockchain identity is being described by Vinay Gupta[1]. A simplified version is, imagine if the private key using which you purchased the house is stolen from you, then in front of the arbitrator, you present receipt from Amazon, where you used your private key to pay for goods which were delivered to you in your name, an affidavit from your bank which shows that you did business with them (using your real identity) and connected with your private key. All these 'documentation' (which Vinay Gupta describes as 'insurance') is very hard for the thief to produce. The same is not the case with bitcoin theft, where loss of private keys means loss of control of the assets (and not merely a 'dispute'). I hope that helps to explain it. 1. https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/a-blockchain-solution-for-identity-51fbcae94caa https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/a-blockchain-s...
  - xorcist 9y ago
    > proof of ownership (but not THE ownership itself) The two could be if not the same then at least intertwined even for tangible assets. One could imagine a safety deposit box for example, with an electronic lock that would open not with a combination but a signature from the key that currently controls it on the blockchain. That would be a nifty hack (and also a good plot for a movie where the hero manages to transfer ownership just in time for the bad guys to reach it).
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    If the arbitrator can alter ownership state (and the govt authorizes them to rewrite the blockchain to incorporate their findings) it isn't really a blockchain: just a centralized database. If they can't alter the blockchain, then ownership state on the blockchain will diverge from reality over time.
knocte 9y ago
> if you lose the private key to your house Haha. Sorry that I laugh, but using blockchain for land ownership is not about backing bitcoins with square meters, but about the tamper-proof, immutable, public and resilient aspects of the data you can store in the bitcoin blockchain. The only private key that would be involved in this process would come from the government, which could just sign messages with some standard (encrypted) format that just maps addresses to individuals/entities. This way even notaries will become one day obsolete (or they will simply be there to make sure the blockchain entry happens and the transfer of the assets as well, in an atomic way; and the assets don't even need to be crypto in this case).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hudon 9y ago
  If the government instead stored the deed transfers in a database with digital signatures and exposed a read-only API to it, wouldn’t that solve this problem better? What’s the concern? That the government makes you not the owner of your house anymore? And if your government does that, what’s the difference between fighting for a government that respects the rule of law versus fighting for a government that puts house deeds on bitcoin? Thanks!
  - nwah1 9y ago
    The difference is that the bitcoin wastes more energy to accomplish that.
    - brianorwhatever 9y ago
      but is guaranteed to accomplish that
      - hudon 9y ago
        If the government was going to take your house away from you anyway, why would they care what’s on the blockchain? This is so contrived...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sandworm101 9y ago

Many jurisdictions don't need signed records. Many Americans can deed property among themselves without touching a public database. There are surely reasons why one might want to register such a deed, but it isn't an absolute requirement. I do scratch my head at the desire to use blockchain tech in areas where absolute assurance isn't needed or even desired. And to implement such a system in an area as diverse as contracts and real estate seems folly. What happens when we want to do something that the blockchain's design hasn't anticipated?

bradleyjg 9y ago

For the same reason a group of banks would prefer a blockchain despite not having to worry about the Sybil attacks that motivated it -- it sounds modern and high tech and fancy.

Chirael 9y ago

It also seems to conflate online access to land records with bitcoin. It's possible that the same folks that pushed MERS (trying to move land records out of county systems and into a private, mortgage industry-controlled system) may be pushing this as a second attempt at the same (just with the word "blockchain"). The only way it makes sense to me is as a further means of authenticating exactly what was done and who the parties were. See "Triple Entry Accounting" for a similar concept (added value from blockchain use): http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html