3 ms·
> 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,
by 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 agoIf 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 agoThe difference is that the bitcoin wastes more energy to accomplish that.
- brianorwhatever 9y agobut is guaranteed to accomplish that
- hudon 9y agoIf 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...
- cwkoss 9y agoIf only one entity has the signing key, why not just use a centralized database?