3 ms·

Why not? Blockchain is a document timestamping system, which means its whole purpose is to tell which of the two connected documents was issued earlier. As such

by dozzie 9y ago

Why not? Blockchain is a document timestamping system, which means its whole purpose is to tell which of the two connected documents was issued earlier. As such, it doesn't care if the document was subtracting a number from one account and adding the same number to another account or if it was some text telling who gets the ownership of a described plot. In fact, this particular use is one of the few that blockchain is actually good for (because it was designed as document timestamping), unlike stuff like voting or databases.

tom_mellior 9y ago
This is a particular use for a public database. The public database must be writable (only) by the corrupt authorities. What exactly does a blockchain do to make the authorities non-corrupt here?
- chipgap98 9y ago
  The data is stored on a decentralized database (many nodes). I buy my house and am send the rights to that land on a blockchain. Only someone with the private keys to my address/account/whatever could send that house to someone else. The scale of the network should make it impossible for the database to be corrupted. The whole idea here is distributed trust
  - tom_mellior 9y ago
    > Only someone with the private keys to my address/account/whatever could send that house to someone else. And that is exactly the opposite of what a land title database is. The authorities must be able to transfer your house to your heirs if you die. The authorities must be able to take away your deed in certain cases. The authorities must be able to correct entries in the database. They must be able to override things. Land titles are worthless if they are not enforced by courts, and courts will not enforce land titles in a database that has illegal entries.
    - dorgo 9y ago
      So the logical next step it to move courts and enforcement to the blockchain.
    - eksemplar 9y ago
      > And that is exactly the opposite of what a land title database is. It's exactly what it is where I live. When you purchase property both parties log in with their state issued digital id to sign the transfer of ownership. This isn't done by blockchain in Denmark, which means the nationstate owns and operates the system with little openness. NOT a problem in one of the least corrupt countries in the World, but it might as well have been done through blockchain and in 20 years I imagine that it will.
      - tom_mellior 9y ago
        > It's exactly what it is where I live. No. Yes, you can do it online, great. And yes, no other private person can fraudulently do it in your name, also great. But it does not follow that it's impossible to do it without your key; it is possible, and it must be possible, for the authorities. Should the database be public for reading? Yes, absolutely. But you don't need a blockchain for that.
- dozzie 9y ago
  > The public database must be writable (only) by the corrupt authorities. What exactly does a blockchain do to make the authorities non-corrupt here? Wrong. In selling land to somebody else, authorities -- corrupt or not -- have nothing to say. The only thing authorities are needed for is to put an official stamp on the sale document. This official stamp is generally a good thing; land is too valuable, so such transactions need some friction, like public notary's involvement, so one cannot sell a property by merely clicking "accept" under EULA. Corrupt authorities, as I understand, can delay the process of stamping the sale for indefinite time, so what blockchain is supposed to do here is to do away with authorities altogether.

by dozzie 9y ago

tom_mellior 9y ago

This is a particular use for a public database. The public database must be writable (only) by the corrupt authorities. What exactly does a blockchain do to make the authorities non-corrupt here?

chipgap98 9y ago
The data is stored on a decentralized database (many nodes). I buy my house and am send the rights to that land on a blockchain. Only someone with the private keys to my address/account/whatever could send that house to someone else. The scale of the network should make it impossible for the database to be corrupted. The whole idea here is distributed trust
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  > Only someone with the private keys to my address/account/whatever could send that house to someone else. And that is exactly the opposite of what a land title database is. The authorities must be able to transfer your house to your heirs if you die. The authorities must be able to take away your deed in certain cases. The authorities must be able to correct entries in the database. They must be able to override things. Land titles are worthless if they are not enforced by courts, and courts will not enforce land titles in a database that has illegal entries.
  - dorgo 9y ago
    So the logical next step it to move courts and enforcement to the blockchain.
  - eksemplar 9y ago
    > And that is exactly the opposite of what a land title database is. It's exactly what it is where I live. When you purchase property both parties log in with their state issued digital id to sign the transfer of ownership. This isn't done by blockchain in Denmark, which means the nationstate owns and operates the system with little openness. NOT a problem in one of the least corrupt countries in the World, but it might as well have been done through blockchain and in 20 years I imagine that it will.
    - tom_mellior 9y ago
      > It's exactly what it is where I live. No. Yes, you can do it online, great. And yes, no other private person can fraudulently do it in your name, also great. But it does not follow that it's impossible to do it without your key; it is possible, and it must be possible, for the authorities. Should the database be public for reading? Yes, absolutely. But you don't need a blockchain for that.
dozzie 9y ago
> The public database must be writable (only) by the corrupt authorities. What exactly does a blockchain do to make the authorities non-corrupt here? Wrong. In selling land to somebody else, authorities -- corrupt or not -- have nothing to say. The only thing authorities are needed for is to put an official stamp on the sale document. This official stamp is generally a good thing; land is too valuable, so such transactions need some friction, like public notary's involvement, so one cannot sell a property by merely clicking "accept" under EULA. Corrupt authorities, as I understand, can delay the process of stamping the sale for indefinite time, so what blockchain is supposed to do here is to do away with authorities altogether.