7 ms·

Why blockchain? If you have a trusted entity (the government) you just need a public database.

vxNsr 9y ago
Because that trusted entity kinda sucks at these things. Also it'll mollify the people who don't wanna cede all control to the government. Some central database controlled by the government doesn't solve the issue that all databases have, which is that you need to have absolute trust in the people who admin that db, the beauty of blockchains is that trust is no longer needed, as long as the there are a reasonably diverse number of entities involved no single person can make unilateral changes. Also this would mean that we could go from each lender and predator having all my personal info to just retaining my public key which can unlock more info with their private one, but means they are no longer selling my phone # and ssn because they don't need to store it. I truly believe that the power of blockchain tech isn't in $1200 btc but in powerful and secure logging.
- nradov 9y ago
  That doesn't actually fix anything, it just replaces one problem with a set of worse problems. There's no good way to manage the private keys. Many borrowers will inevitably lose control of their keys, either accidentally or by hacking. Then what?
  - vxNsr 9y ago
    That problem isn't a whole lot different than what happens today when you lose control of your SSN. I'm not advocating for your private key to become your ID, in fact it'd be best if each time you took out a loan you used a new key. How is a private key any harder to manage than a all the myriad of personal and private info we are required to manage today. At least this way you're the only person responsible for managing it, not every single FI and bank.
    - nradov 9y ago
      Nobody really has "control" of their SSN anymore; most have been leaked one way or another. The only effective control is locking your credit files. Even if you generate a new private key for every loan it wouldn't help much. A significant fraction of borrowers will still lose control of their keys during the life of the loan. So the reality is that to make such a scheme workable would require one or more trusted central authorities to perform identity management and key recovery. Who would do that work and what's the funding model?
- tzs 9y ago
  > Because that trusted entity kinda sucks at these things. Also it'll mollify the people who don't wanna cede all control to the government In your top level comment you said: top> If we required that all debt be digitally signed in a central ledger, either nationally or by state, and then all payment transactions were also recorded there, it'd be a lot harder to fake this stuff If we make it required, we've already ceded control to the government, since it is the government that would control enforcement of the requirement. Even if the government decides to use a block chain, they still have control because they get to pick which block chain is used, and they can change that choice at any time. Also, who signs this digitally signed debt? If you mean that the debtor signs it, then I don't see why you even need a public record of the debt as far as validating debt collection attempts goes. All that needs to be public is the alleged debtor's public key. > Some central database controlled by the government doesn't solve the issue that all databases have, which is that you need to have absolute trust in the people who admin that db, the beauty of blockchains is that trust is no longer needed, as long as the there are a reasonably diverse number of entities involved no single person can make unilateral changes. That doesn't require a block chain. All it requires is that more than one entity keeps a copy of the database.
  - vxNsr 9y ago
    >That doesn't require a block chain. All it requires is that more than one entity keeps a copy of the database. And maybe we should give a few different people copies of the db and every 30 minutes or so they could sync up and add any transactions that happened in the meantime, and it would be best if they all used some sorta signature to ensure that all the transactions are legit... >If we make it required, we've already ceded control >to the government, since it is the government that >would control enforcement of the requirement. Even if >the government decides to use a block chain, they still >have control because they get to pick which block chain >is used, and they can change that choice at any time. We also cede control to the government by using USD but no one (serious) is suggesting that the government should also be everyone's bank. It's question of how much control to give up in exchange for what. I see real benefit in a central loan ledger that doesn't have a single point of failure.

Because that trusted entity kinda sucks at these things. Also it'll mollify the people who don't wanna cede all control to the government. Some central database controlled by the government doesn't solve the issue that all databases have, which is that you need to have absolute trust in the people who admin that db, the beauty of blockchains is that trust is no longer needed, as long as the there are a reasonably diverse number of entities involved no single person can make unilateral changes. Also this would mean that we could go from each lender and predator having all my personal info to just retaining my public key which can unlock more info with their private one, but means they are no longer selling my phone # and ssn because they don't need to store it. I truly believe that the power of blockchain tech isn't in $1200 btc but in powerful and secure logging.

nradov 9y ago
That doesn't actually fix anything, it just replaces one problem with a set of worse problems. There's no good way to manage the private keys. Many borrowers will inevitably lose control of their keys, either accidentally or by hacking. Then what?
- vxNsr 9y ago
  That problem isn't a whole lot different than what happens today when you lose control of your SSN. I'm not advocating for your private key to become your ID, in fact it'd be best if each time you took out a loan you used a new key. How is a private key any harder to manage than a all the myriad of personal and private info we are required to manage today. At least this way you're the only person responsible for managing it, not every single FI and bank.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Nobody really has "control" of their SSN anymore; most have been leaked one way or another. The only effective control is locking your credit files. Even if you generate a new private key for every loan it wouldn't help much. A significant fraction of borrowers will still lose control of their keys during the life of the loan. So the reality is that to make such a scheme workable would require one or more trusted central authorities to perform identity management and key recovery. Who would do that work and what's the funding model?
tzs 9y ago
> Because that trusted entity kinda sucks at these things. Also it'll mollify the people who don't wanna cede all control to the government In your top level comment you said: top> If we required that all debt be digitally signed in a central ledger, either nationally or by state, and then all payment transactions were also recorded there, it'd be a lot harder to fake this stuff If we make it required, we've already ceded control to the government, since it is the government that would control enforcement of the requirement. Even if the government decides to use a block chain, they still have control because they get to pick which block chain is used, and they can change that choice at any time. Also, who signs this digitally signed debt? If you mean that the debtor signs it, then I don't see why you even need a public record of the debt as far as validating debt collection attempts goes. All that needs to be public is the alleged debtor's public key. > Some central database controlled by the government doesn't solve the issue that all databases have, which is that you need to have absolute trust in the people who admin that db, the beauty of blockchains is that trust is no longer needed, as long as the there are a reasonably diverse number of entities involved no single person can make unilateral changes. That doesn't require a block chain. All it requires is that more than one entity keeps a copy of the database.
- vxNsr 9y ago
  >That doesn't require a block chain. All it requires is that more than one entity keeps a copy of the database. And maybe we should give a few different people copies of the db and every 30 minutes or so they could sync up and add any transactions that happened in the meantime, and it would be best if they all used some sorta signature to ensure that all the transactions are legit... >If we make it required, we've already ceded control >to the government, since it is the government that >would control enforcement of the requirement. Even if >the government decides to use a block chain, they still >have control because they get to pick which block chain >is used, and they can change that choice at any time. We also cede control to the government by using USD but no one (serious) is suggesting that the government should also be everyone's bank. It's question of how much control to give up in exchange for what. I see real benefit in a central loan ledger that doesn't have a single point of failure.