4 ms·

One good use case I've found is file authentication. If a file is signed and it can be matched against a distributed ledger, it can help ensure the authenticity

One good use case I've found is file authentication. If a file is signed and it can be matched against a distributed ledger, it can help ensure the authenticity of the file. I can imagine uses for this everywhere from piracy prevention to checking authenticity of documents, records, etc. Imagine that all land records are in a distributed ledger. The land owner has a signed certificate that can be verified anytime for authenticity. The only way to access the certificate is with a 12 word passkey.

sthnblllII 6y ago
Either if that passkey is forgotten no one can own the land anymore, or there is a central authority (court) that can reallocate land, at which point there is no need for the decentralized trust of a blockchain.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  The central authority is useful in reaching disputes, but is not omniscient. Registration of deeds is a fairly inconsistent and non-centralized process. Still. So this record would be useful in the case of disputes.
- mpfundstein 6y ago
  ever heard of corruption?
  - sthnblllII 6y ago
    Yes. Thats why courts need to be able to intervene, which they cant do in the case of a truly decentralized blockchain. Which is why a blockchain is a poor fit for recording the ownership of non-digital assets.
    - mpfundstein 6y ago
      what about corrupt courts? or at least biased courts?
      - sthnblllII 6y ago
        Thats a problem too, but not one that will be solved by blockchains.
lucb1e 6y ago
I don't quite understand this one. > If a file is signed and it can be matched against a distributed ledger, it can help ensure the authenticity of the file. So I guess the point is that you don't want to have a central, trusted party. So someone can't simply hack or bribe that party. But what prevents a malicious actor from pushing their file's signature onto the blockchain? If only certain keys are allowed to use for signing, we're back to the trusted party: those with key access. What is the benefit here? > Imagine that all land records are in a distributed ledger. The land owner has a signed certificate that can be verified anytime for authenticity. Is this related to the file authentication thing? Perhaps because I don't know what benefit the former should have, I don't get what this is supposed to have in common. Here too, though, I don't see an advantage of doing it on a blockchain. The department of land records can publish a public key corresponding to the private key they use to sign land certificates: "that can be verified anytime for authenticity."

sthnblllII 6y ago

Either if that passkey is forgotten no one can own the land anymore, or there is a central authority (court) that can reallocate land, at which point there is no need for the decentralized trust of a blockchain.

freeone3000 6y ago
The central authority is useful in reaching disputes, but is not omniscient. Registration of deeds is a fairly inconsistent and non-centralized process. Still. So this record would be useful in the case of disputes.
mpfundstein 6y ago
ever heard of corruption?
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  Yes. Thats why courts need to be able to intervene, which they cant do in the case of a truly decentralized blockchain. Which is why a blockchain is a poor fit for recording the ownership of non-digital assets.
  - mpfundstein 6y ago
    what about corrupt courts? or at least biased courts?
    - sthnblllII 6y ago
      Thats a problem too, but not one that will be solved by blockchains.

lucb1e 6y ago

I don't quite understand this one. > If a file is signed and it can be matched against a distributed ledger, it can help ensure the authenticity of the file. So I guess the point is that you don't want to have a central, trusted party. So someone can't simply hack or bribe that party. But what prevents a malicious actor from pushing their file's signature onto the blockchain? If only certain keys are allowed to use for signing, we're back to the trusted party: those with key access. What is the benefit here? > Imagine that all land records are in a distributed ledger. The land owner has a signed certificate that can be verified anytime for authenticity. Is this related to the file authentication thing? Perhaps because I don't know what benefit the former should have, I don't get what this is supposed to have in common. Here too, though, I don't see an advantage of doing it on a blockchain. The department of land records can publish a public key corresponding to the private key they use to sign land certificates: "that can be verified anytime for authenticity."