3 ms·

I don't agree. The article misunderstands a potentially useful aspect of blockchains, physical assets and the legal system. The blockchain is a linked list of i

by kwdc 5y ago

I don't agree. The article misunderstands a potentially useful aspect of blockchains, physical assets and the legal system. The blockchain is a linked list of immutable data. But this doesn't mean the legal system is prevented from taking action. Lets say that the matter of ownership goes to court but events leading up to that mean the private key has been destroyed. The asset is still owned and is sitting in a gallery or lockup. The naive now think "who holds the now-lost key owns the painting but now the key is lost no one owns it". Wrong. The matter is brought to court and the potential list of owners can be determined from the blockchain itself. The court can then confirm using that record the ownership by going back into the blockchain, finding and determining who is the legitimate owner and then order the creation of a new blockchain asset item[1]. Failing to assert ownership in court might even work against you. Then the new blockchain asset is linked to the old. The old block chain item doesn't even need to be updated or deleted. Even if you could. Why? It still provides valuable history. Blockchains recording ownership of assets is a benefit to the court system. Except for keys to lost cryptocurrency wallets. That's likely always going to be a dead end. But that is no different to burning cash[2] or losing gold because you buried it near a beach. [1] a new blockchain tracking item. Not a new Mona Lisa. [2] except that cryptos once destroyed or lost usually can't be replaced.

jjulius 5y ago
>The court can then confirm using that record the ownership by going back into the blockchain, finding and determining who is the legitimate owner and then order the creation of a new asset. - What if the legitimate owner (according to the blockchain) is dead? - What if the last "legitimate owner" in the blockchain decided to give the item to someone else and never updated the blockchain? And if they can't be located to confirm as much? - How does a court order the recreation of an asset such as the Mona Lisa, whose value lies in its history, how complicated it would've been to have painted it when it was painted, and the fact that the painter is certainly not alive to create a new one?
- kwdc 5y ago
  Present in court. The descendant as proxy isn’t a new concept. Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. You can't assert ownership via a blockchain then believe failing to update the blockchain is acceptable. The buyer has records of transfer, eg payment. Right? That would be admissable in court. The court orders new block chain transadtion/item. That new item refers to existing that presumably has all these details. Edit: added "transaction".
  - jjulius 5y ago
    >Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. What sale? An artist I love offers a vinyl record for sale via NFT. Being a fan of the artist moreso than a proponent of blockchain technology, I purchase the record. An unknown number of years go by and I decide that I don’t really enjoy the record anymore. The record sits on my shelf collecting dust for years until a friend comes over and expresses interest in it. I casually tell them they can keep it and I move on with my life. That friend now, for all intents and purposes, owns the record that I bought. It belongs to them. >You can’t assert ownership via a blockchain then believe failing to update the blockchain is acceptable. But in my example, I don’t care about the blockchain. I’m more interested in the music, the blockchain is just a barrier to me obtaining it. My physical copy is far more important to me than an electronic record that says I bought it, so as long as the record makes it to my house after I purchase it, I’m happy. Unless there’s a law that stipulates that I absolutely MUST update the blockchain when I pass it on to my friend, I may just not care about it. Hell, I might even forget about it if that's one of the only blockchain transactions I've ever made. It'd be a damn shame if I forget my blockchain account credentials, too... >The buyer has records of transfer, eg payment. Right? Not always, no. Did you write out, and get notarized, something that says you gave your friend your used frying pan and let them keep it? If I bought that record and just told my friend, “Eh, sure, take it, it’s yours,” then typically we’re not going to generate a record of that transaction. >The court orders new block chain item. Ah, see, that’s where I misunderstood your first post. You used the word “asset” in reference to the artwork early on, and then said the court could “order the creation of a new asset”, when you actually meant, “order the creation of a new blockchain transaction”, correct?
breischl 5y ago
But the point is that the blockchain is not a source of truth, the legal system is. So the blockchain is at best an eventually-consistent view. But if that's the case, then why bother with a blockchain at all? Just use a regular database. There are plenty of ways to make that auditable and/or public without bothering with consensus algorithms.
- kwdc 5y ago
  Blockchain is RECORD of ownership. It is a database with the stipulation it isn't so easy to mess up. Nothing I wrote even asserts the legal system has no power. I'm not an evangelist for blockchain but even I can see a benefit.
  - breischl 5y ago
    Certainly it can be used as a record of ownership. But it's not the real record - that's whatever the legal system holds. So now we're talking about just using it as a view on top of the actual system of record. It being difficult to mess up doesn't even matter, because it's just a view - it it's wrong go back to the source and fix it. Distributed consensus doesn't matter, because no matter what the consensus says the truth is whatever is in the legal system. The main design goals of a blockchain are valuable for a system of record. They are not valuable for things that are just a copy of something else. So while you could use it for that, it's not a good fit.

by kwdc 5y ago

jjulius 5y ago

>The court can then confirm using that record the ownership by going back into the blockchain, finding and determining who is the legitimate owner and then order the creation of a new asset. - What if the legitimate owner (according to the blockchain) is dead? - What if the last "legitimate owner" in the blockchain decided to give the item to someone else and never updated the blockchain? And if they can't be located to confirm as much? - How does a court order the recreation of an asset such as the Mona Lisa, whose value lies in its history, how complicated it would've been to have painted it when it was painted, and the fact that the painter is certainly not alive to create a new one?

kwdc 5y ago
Present in court. The descendant as proxy isn’t a new concept. Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. You can't assert ownership via a blockchain then believe failing to update the blockchain is acceptable. The buyer has records of transfer, eg payment. Right? That would be admissable in court. The court orders new block chain transadtion/item. That new item refers to existing that presumably has all these details. Edit: added "transaction".
- jjulius 5y ago
  >Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. What sale? An artist I love offers a vinyl record for sale via NFT. Being a fan of the artist moreso than a proponent of blockchain technology, I purchase the record. An unknown number of years go by and I decide that I don’t really enjoy the record anymore. The record sits on my shelf collecting dust for years until a friend comes over and expresses interest in it. I casually tell them they can keep it and I move on with my life. That friend now, for all intents and purposes, owns the record that I bought. It belongs to them. >You can’t assert ownership via a blockchain then believe failing to update the blockchain is acceptable. But in my example, I don’t care about the blockchain. I’m more interested in the music, the blockchain is just a barrier to me obtaining it. My physical copy is far more important to me than an electronic record that says I bought it, so as long as the record makes it to my house after I purchase it, I’m happy. Unless there’s a law that stipulates that I absolutely MUST update the blockchain when I pass it on to my friend, I may just not care about it. Hell, I might even forget about it if that's one of the only blockchain transactions I've ever made. It'd be a damn shame if I forget my blockchain account credentials, too... >The buyer has records of transfer, eg payment. Right? Not always, no. Did you write out, and get notarized, something that says you gave your friend your used frying pan and let them keep it? If I bought that record and just told my friend, “Eh, sure, take it, it’s yours,” then typically we’re not going to generate a record of that transaction. >The court orders new block chain item. Ah, see, that’s where I misunderstood your first post. You used the word “asset” in reference to the artwork early on, and then said the court could “order the creation of a new asset”, when you actually meant, “order the creation of a new blockchain transaction”, correct?

breischl 5y ago

But the point is that the blockchain is not a source of truth, the legal system is. So the blockchain is at best an eventually-consistent view. But if that's the case, then why bother with a blockchain at all? Just use a regular database. There are plenty of ways to make that auditable and/or public without bothering with consensus algorithms.

kwdc 5y ago
Blockchain is RECORD of ownership. It is a database with the stipulation it isn't so easy to mess up. Nothing I wrote even asserts the legal system has no power. I'm not an evangelist for blockchain but even I can see a benefit.
- breischl 5y ago
  Certainly it can be used as a record of ownership. But it's not the real record - that's whatever the legal system holds. So now we're talking about just using it as a view on top of the actual system of record. It being difficult to mess up doesn't even matter, because it's just a view - it it's wrong go back to the source and fix it. Distributed consensus doesn't matter, because no matter what the consensus says the truth is whatever is in the legal system. The main design goals of a blockchain are valuable for a system of record. They are not valuable for things that are just a copy of something else. So while you could use it for that, it's not a good fit.