3 ms·

He's still recommending blockchain. Four years after writing the initial article, you think it'd be easier just to say its worthless...but he didn't. There's q

He's still recommending blockchain. Four years after writing the initial article, you think it'd be easier just to say its worthless...but he didn't. There's quite a bit of spirited discussion regarding these points elsewhere.

dmitriid 6y ago
> He's still recommending blockchain. He's literally not recommending it in the paper linked. [1] > There's quite a bit of spirited discussion regarding these points elsewhere. You'd think that if there was such a discussion, there would be links to it, or articles addressing these points. But,... no. [1] Edit. Here's section on permissioned blockchains as a datastore (emphasis mine): --- start quote --- Solutions can be built on either open source datastores (like mysql or postgres), on proprietary datastores (Oracle), or on blockchains. Our position on this topic is that the proof is in the pudding: let the bidders describe the system they can build and the costs, let them choose the underlying technologies they will employ, and let the state’s procurement officials select the most competitive bid. If blockchain offers an advantage, they will be well positioned to win in the marketplace. --- end quote --- Here's section on unpermissioned or semi-permissioned blockchains as a datastore (emphasis by the authors): --- start quote --- recall that the most complex and burdensome aspect of maintaining a non-Torrens ledger is preventing false data from entering the system. Absent tremendous progress in digital identity, we believe the types of title fraud commonly seen in the lived experience of the several states would be increased by such a system rather than decreased. --- end quote --- And then: --- start quote --- (v1) We do not see any reason that a permissioned blockchain is inherently more likely to be error-free or fraud-free than the existing system, and so do not believe new technology supports a move to Torrens any more than was the case in the past. (We are open to being proved wrong!) (v2) Torrens title system implemented on an unpermissioned blockchain. For the reasons described above, we believe this would be a disaster (v3) imagines that the potential for fraudulent transactions being entered into the blockchain is reduced by using smart contracts or similar means. ... [lists the very serious issue with fraud] We do not believe the technology is ready to seriously consider moving tens of millions of property owners collectively holding $4 trillion worth of real property in California onto a system such as this one... In contrast, if the adoption was mandatory and universal, it seems likely that just its first year adoption of a system like this would lead to thousands or even tens of thousands of homes being irrevocably and fraudulently transferred --- end quote --- And the only "recommendation" is this: if you're evaluating technologies, evaluate all tech, including emerging tech like blockchains on equal footing, and that includes, quote, "potential to make search, record validation, or detection of error or fraud cheaper, faster, or more accurate". In all the points above they considered blockchain on equal footing, and found it wanting.

dmitriid 6y ago

> He's still recommending blockchain. He's literally not recommending it in the paper linked. [1] > There's quite a bit of spirited discussion regarding these points elsewhere. You'd think that if there was such a discussion, there would be links to it, or articles addressing these points. But,... no. [1] Edit. Here's section on permissioned blockchains as a datastore (emphasis mine): --- start quote --- Solutions can be built on either open source datastores (like mysql or postgres), on proprietary datastores (Oracle), or on blockchains. Our position on this topic is that the proof is in the pudding: let the bidders describe the system they can build and the costs, let them choose the underlying technologies they will employ, and let the state’s procurement officials select the most competitive bid. If blockchain offers an advantage, they will be well positioned to win in the marketplace. --- end quote --- Here's section on unpermissioned or semi-permissioned blockchains as a datastore (emphasis by the authors): --- start quote --- recall that the most complex and burdensome aspect of maintaining a non-Torrens ledger is preventing false data from entering the system. Absent tremendous progress in digital identity, we believe the types of title fraud commonly seen in the lived experience of the several states would be increased by such a system rather than decreased. --- end quote --- And then: --- start quote --- (v1) We do not see any reason that a permissioned blockchain is inherently more likely to be error-free or fraud-free than the existing system, and so do not believe new technology supports a move to Torrens any more than was the case in the past. (We are open to being proved wrong!) (v2) Torrens title system implemented on an unpermissioned blockchain. For the reasons described above, we believe this would be a disaster (v3) imagines that the potential for fraudulent transactions being entered into the blockchain is reduced by using smart contracts or similar means. ... [lists the very serious issue with fraud] We do not believe the technology is ready to seriously consider moving tens of millions of property owners collectively holding $4 trillion worth of real property in California onto a system such as this one... In contrast, if the adoption was mandatory and universal, it seems likely that just its first year adoption of a system like this would lead to thousands or even tens of thousands of homes being irrevocably and fraudulently transferred --- end quote --- And the only "recommendation" is this: if you're evaluating technologies, evaluate all tech, including emerging tech like blockchains on equal footing, and that includes, quote, "potential to make search, record validation, or detection of error or fraud cheaper, faster, or more accurate". In all the points above they considered blockchain on equal footing, and found it wanting.