4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoWell 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 agoBitcoin 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 agoThe protocol itself has not been hacked, but private keys get hacked all the time
- smokeyj 9y agoThis 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 agoAnd if you get hacked and can prove it, the bank/municipality has the power to correct fraudulent transactions.
- niij 9y agoIf they have the power to reverse the transaction, then what does Bitcoin add over a Database?
- UncleMeat 9y agoIf the government needs to keep a record of who owns the house in order to resolve such problems then used a centralized and auditable system rather than a distributed one.