3 ms·

There's tons of uses: you can fractionally hold real estate, Estonia uses a blockchain to ensure only citizens can grant access to their data siloes to governme

There's tons of uses: you can fractionally hold real estate, Estonia uses a blockchain to ensure only citizens can grant access to their data siloes to government entities and that that data remains untampered, you can track lineage of art pieces (who owned when), there are healthcare applications, and encrypted messengers like Jami and Status leveraging. You're a few years late on the let's-hate-blockchain trend. Time to update your optics.

kylebenzle 6y ago
Apparently HN still hates Bitcoin, you're comment will be removed in 3, 2, 1...
joosters 6y ago
Real estate (and 'real' anything) on the blockchain is fatally flawed. What happens when the blockchain forks? Which fork holds the real estate, and which fork holds nothing? Or do the blockchain proponents think that the real estate will magically fork into two just like their money?
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  Just to play a bit of a devil's advocate here, a lot of the same questions have "bedeviled" (and I mean that a little sarcastically) securities lawyers in corporate restructuring cases over the last century. And by "bedeviled" I mean not really. It's a bit of a leaky analogy that you really have to squint at to make work, but the concepts of subordination for bonds and liquidation preference for equities can roughly be analogized how to how forks achieve consensus and resolve disputes. Which is to say, the fork that the network operators (even if that's a distributed, automated consensus) agree to use is almost tautologically is the one that wins. Just like in real life with courts. That's not to say your comment doesn't have some merit -- I think a lot of blockchain proponents are also of the type to believe that manual edge case dispute resolution (otherwise known as "the law") can be completely removed from blockchain use cases. And of course that is a bit farfetched. But is that a bad goal to strive for? I don't know, I think it would be kind of neat to have some sort of algorithmic countervailing force balancing against an otherwise unstoppable proliferation of bureaucracy, corruption and regulatory capture that I see almost everywhere in the world. Is that such a bad thing?

kylebenzle 6y ago

Apparently HN still hates Bitcoin, you're comment will be removed in 3, 2, 1...

joosters 6y ago

Real estate (and 'real' anything) on the blockchain is fatally flawed. What happens when the blockchain forks? Which fork holds the real estate, and which fork holds nothing? Or do the blockchain proponents think that the real estate will magically fork into two just like their money?

yowlingcat 6y ago
Just to play a bit of a devil's advocate here, a lot of the same questions have "bedeviled" (and I mean that a little sarcastically) securities lawyers in corporate restructuring cases over the last century. And by "bedeviled" I mean not really. It's a bit of a leaky analogy that you really have to squint at to make work, but the concepts of subordination for bonds and liquidation preference for equities can roughly be analogized how to how forks achieve consensus and resolve disputes. Which is to say, the fork that the network operators (even if that's a distributed, automated consensus) agree to use is almost tautologically is the one that wins. Just like in real life with courts. That's not to say your comment doesn't have some merit -- I think a lot of blockchain proponents are also of the type to believe that manual edge case dispute resolution (otherwise known as "the law") can be completely removed from blockchain use cases. And of course that is a bit farfetched. But is that a bad goal to strive for? I don't know, I think it would be kind of neat to have some sort of algorithmic countervailing force balancing against an otherwise unstoppable proliferation of bureaucracy, corruption and regulatory capture that I see almost everywhere in the world. Is that such a bad thing?