10 ms·

Blockchain provides a public ledger to trace the linage of transactions. It doesn't enforce ownership. The legal system enforces the ownership. Blockchain ju

by ww520 5y ago

Blockchain provides a public ledger to trace the linage of transactions. It doesn't enforce ownership. The legal system enforces the ownership. Blockchain just makes the court's job easier. With blockchain, we can know that Mona Lisa is illegally transferred to the corrupted official, and know who that is.

jcrawfordor 5y ago
Wouldn't this only ever be true if we enforced some sort of blockchain-based Torrens title, though? Otherwise it will always become a matter of title research, and at that point I struggle to imagine how a blockchain is more useful than a conventional recorded deed.
- ww520 5y ago
  Speed and cost. It takes time and money to register and maintain the title records. Searching takes time and money. Blockchain just lowers that, supposedly, if they can lower the cost of mining.
  - SahAssar 5y ago
    Is there any proof that a blockchain is (or can be) more efficient than a normal database? Seems like every blockchain I've heard about wastes a lot of energy and time to try to make stuff securely decentralized and if we are going to have special authorities anyway the least secure part will be their keys/access to the chain and the decentralized part isn't really true anymore.
  - jcrawfordor 5y ago
    But many (most?) counties have already digitized recorded deeds, at least by index... so it's just a matter of logging into the clerk's system and searching for the situs address or APN or whatever's handy and you get the deed history, out of a good old fashioned relational database. How does blockchain improve on that?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
wpietri 5y ago
If blockchains make the court's job easier, then presumably the Bitcoin world would demonstrate that. Given the vast amount of fraud and theft in that world, though, the opposite seems to be the case. One example among many is the QuadrigaCX case, a mess the courts have been trying to clean up for a couple of years without success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriga_Fintech_Solutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriga_Fintech_Solutions
- ww520 5y ago
  Losing the wallet is like burning up all the paper cash. They are gone. What can the court do? It's like Mona Lisa got burnt up. What can blockchain help in that case? Or what can the court do in that case? Blockchain is not the end all to all problems.
  - nradov 5y ago
    The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing will redeem burned paper cash as long as part of it is left. https://bep.gov/services/currencyredemption.html https://bep.gov/services/currencyredemption.html
  - Google234 5y ago
    If I lose the password to my back account I don’t lose all my money.
satyrnein 5y ago
Why would anyone record their theft of a real world item on the blockchain? Can you clarify, if I am misunderstanding?
- ww520 5y ago
  The article talks about a corrupted official stole the private key to add a transaction to transfer ownership of Mona Lisa.
- vel0city 5y ago
  If ownership is determined by what is on the blockchain, and the blockchain says I own it, then clearly I didn't steal it. Either that, or the blockchain isn't reality, and I did steal the Mona Lisa, in which case what's the point?
tantaman 5y ago
exactly this. Blockchain is more authoritative than random pieces of paper (deeds) declaring ownership.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pwinnski 5y ago
  Property deeds are more authoritative than blockchain records declaring ownership. Okay, now we've each made a claim, they're in opposition, but mine has the advantage of currently being true in every jurisdiction I'm aware of. In what sense do you think that blockchain is "more authoritative" than the existing legal system?
  - tantaman 5y ago
    Of course a blockchain record has no authority under the current legal system. Authoritative in terms of how easily one vs the other is to forge. Property deeds are more easily forged than a record on the blockchain. https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/what-is-home-title-fraud/ https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/what-is-home-tit...
    - hannasanarion 5y ago
      If blockchain records are impossible to forge, then surely blockchain theft must be unheard of, right? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/1-point-1b-in-cryptocurrency-was-stolen-this-year-and-it-was-easy-to-do.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/1-point-1b-in-cryptocurrency... Oh.
ashtonbaker 5y ago
If transactions on the blockchain don't enforce ownership, then why would the corrupted official put their transactions on the blockchain?
SahAssar 5y ago
If so then the legal system needs to be able to rewrite the ledger. Consider if you have some asset that is represented on the blockchain and you have it seized by the state for some reason. Or you die and you didn't have a system for your heirs to get your private keys. Or any other way that something needs to change owner without the current owner being willing or available. And if the legal system needs to enforce it and can rewrite the ledger at will then why should the system be decentralized? Why should we need to have all this complexity when it gains us nothing?
- ww520 5y ago
  No need to rewrite. Just add a new compensating transaction to declare new ownership, presumably with the court's private key wallet as the authority.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    So why doesn't the state just make a database then?
    - didibus 5y ago
      You'd want a database that is pretty difficult to temper with or hack. This includes from external or internal bad actors. If the government had a database used to identify all ownership of things, but it was possible for internal bad actors to change the data in it, or for external bad actors to do the same, that would be a problem. With a decentralized database, this becomes a lot more difficult to temper with, so the data in the database is much more trustworthy. You can't just bribe your way to its DBA, so there's benefit to it.
      - SahAssar 5y ago
        Is there any proof that a competently run system can not be as secure as a blockchain? > You can't just bribe your way to its DBA Instead you bribe the person that has the court's keys. Or whoever that declares what keys are "special" and granted the special permissions.
fnord77 5y ago
keeping a ledger updated with what happens in the real world makes the court's job harder, not easier. keeping a ledger in sync with reality is going to be near impossible.
snarf21 5y ago
And who is the authority whose job it is to update the blockchain? Why have a blockchain if a deed for property is already recorded in the courthouse on signed paper documents?
nosianu 5y ago
> we can know that Mona Lisa is illegally transferred to the corrupted official, and know who that is. You mean if the thieves are kind enough to record the "transaction"? Nice. I can imagine several replies trying to rationalize the scenario you made, but this is just silly, because without much effort I can take them apart just as easily. How can you possibly construct an argument that the blockchain would somehow magically help when the Mona Lisa gets lost - no matter using what scenario? The pro-blockchain arguments always are soooo strange that I'm not sure what to think I read the enthusiastic comments. There never is a believable causal mechanism that connects those ideas to the blockchain showing how - and that - it helps. I'm feeling a bit lost that there is yet another such discussion, which looks exactly like all the previous ones I read (here, mostly). This is sooo bizarre!
- mmmmmbop 5y ago
  Do you really think it's that bizarre? Consider that for many of the blockchain enthusiasts a tenfold increase in the crypto currency du jour might enable their early retirement. It seems that this could motivate some mental flexibility around the topic if it helps convince others to jump aboard the blockchain train.

by ww520 5y ago

jcrawfordor 5y ago

Wouldn't this only ever be true if we enforced some sort of blockchain-based Torrens title, though? Otherwise it will always become a matter of title research, and at that point I struggle to imagine how a blockchain is more useful than a conventional recorded deed.

ww520 5y ago
Speed and cost. It takes time and money to register and maintain the title records. Searching takes time and money. Blockchain just lowers that, supposedly, if they can lower the cost of mining.
- SahAssar 5y ago
  Is there any proof that a blockchain is (or can be) more efficient than a normal database? Seems like every blockchain I've heard about wastes a lot of energy and time to try to make stuff securely decentralized and if we are going to have special authorities anyway the least secure part will be their keys/access to the chain and the decentralized part isn't really true anymore.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  But many (most?) counties have already digitized recorded deeds, at least by index... so it's just a matter of logging into the clerk's system and searching for the situs address or APN or whatever's handy and you get the deed history, out of a good old fashioned relational database. How does blockchain improve on that?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

wpietri 5y ago

If blockchains make the court's job easier, then presumably the Bitcoin world would demonstrate that. Given the vast amount of fraud and theft in that world, though, the opposite seems to be the case. One example among many is the QuadrigaCX case, a mess the courts have been trying to clean up for a couple of years without success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriga_Fintech_Solutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriga_Fintech_Solutions

ww520 5y ago
Losing the wallet is like burning up all the paper cash. They are gone. What can the court do? It's like Mona Lisa got burnt up. What can blockchain help in that case? Or what can the court do in that case? Blockchain is not the end all to all problems.
- nradov 5y ago
  The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing will redeem burned paper cash as long as part of it is left. https://bep.gov/services/currencyredemption.html https://bep.gov/services/currencyredemption.html
- Google234 5y ago
  If I lose the password to my back account I don’t lose all my money.

satyrnein 5y ago

Why would anyone record their theft of a real world item on the blockchain? Can you clarify, if I am misunderstanding?

ww520 5y ago
The article talks about a corrupted official stole the private key to add a transaction to transfer ownership of Mona Lisa.
vel0city 5y ago
If ownership is determined by what is on the blockchain, and the blockchain says I own it, then clearly I didn't steal it. Either that, or the blockchain isn't reality, and I did steal the Mona Lisa, in which case what's the point?

tantaman 5y ago

exactly this. Blockchain is more authoritative than random pieces of paper (deeds) declaring ownership.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pwinnski 5y ago
Property deeds are more authoritative than blockchain records declaring ownership. Okay, now we've each made a claim, they're in opposition, but mine has the advantage of currently being true in every jurisdiction I'm aware of. In what sense do you think that blockchain is "more authoritative" than the existing legal system?
- tantaman 5y ago
  Of course a blockchain record has no authority under the current legal system. Authoritative in terms of how easily one vs the other is to forge. Property deeds are more easily forged than a record on the blockchain. https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/what-is-home-title-fraud/ https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/what-is-home-tit...
  - hannasanarion 5y ago
    If blockchain records are impossible to forge, then surely blockchain theft must be unheard of, right? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/1-point-1b-in-cryptocurrency-was-stolen-this-year-and-it-was-easy-to-do.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/1-point-1b-in-cryptocurrency... Oh.

ashtonbaker 5y ago

If transactions on the blockchain don't enforce ownership, then why would the corrupted official put their transactions on the blockchain?

SahAssar 5y ago

If so then the legal system needs to be able to rewrite the ledger. Consider if you have some asset that is represented on the blockchain and you have it seized by the state for some reason. Or you die and you didn't have a system for your heirs to get your private keys. Or any other way that something needs to change owner without the current owner being willing or available. And if the legal system needs to enforce it and can rewrite the ledger at will then why should the system be decentralized? Why should we need to have all this complexity when it gains us nothing?

ww520 5y ago
No need to rewrite. Just add a new compensating transaction to declare new ownership, presumably with the court's private key wallet as the authority.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  So why doesn't the state just make a database then?
  - didibus 5y ago
    You'd want a database that is pretty difficult to temper with or hack. This includes from external or internal bad actors. If the government had a database used to identify all ownership of things, but it was possible for internal bad actors to change the data in it, or for external bad actors to do the same, that would be a problem. With a decentralized database, this becomes a lot more difficult to temper with, so the data in the database is much more trustworthy. You can't just bribe your way to its DBA, so there's benefit to it.
    - SahAssar 5y ago
      Is there any proof that a competently run system can not be as secure as a blockchain? > You can't just bribe your way to its DBA Instead you bribe the person that has the court's keys. Or whoever that declares what keys are "special" and granted the special permissions.

fnord77 5y ago

keeping a ledger updated with what happens in the real world makes the court's job harder, not easier. keeping a ledger in sync with reality is going to be near impossible.

snarf21 5y ago

And who is the authority whose job it is to update the blockchain? Why have a blockchain if a deed for property is already recorded in the courthouse on signed paper documents?

nosianu 5y ago

> we can know that Mona Lisa is illegally transferred to the corrupted official, and know who that is. You mean if the thieves are kind enough to record the "transaction"? Nice. I can imagine several replies trying to rationalize the scenario you made, but this is just silly, because without much effort I can take them apart just as easily. How can you possibly construct an argument that the blockchain would somehow magically help when the Mona Lisa gets lost - no matter using what scenario? The pro-blockchain arguments always are soooo strange that I'm not sure what to think I read the enthusiastic comments. There never is a believable causal mechanism that connects those ideas to the blockchain showing how - and that - it helps. I'm feeling a bit lost that there is yet another such discussion, which looks exactly like all the previous ones I read (here, mostly). This is sooo bizarre!

mmmmmbop 5y ago
Do you really think it's that bizarre? Consider that for many of the blockchain enthusiasts a tenfold increase in the crypto currency du jour might enable their early retirement. It seems that this could motivate some mental flexibility around the topic if it helps convince others to jump aboard the blockchain train.