3 ms·

> Now this is a bit of a stupid example obviously. Obvously. For some reason, no one can come up with a real non-stupid example for blockchain that would work

> Now this is a bit of a stupid example obviously. Obvously. For some reason, no one can come up with a real non-stupid example for blockchain that would work better than whatever we already have. > But say the laws of France were such that Let me give you an actual concrete example. Some time ago someone mentioned that someone decided to create a land registry in Afghanistan based on blockchain because reasons: https://unhabitat.org/un-habitat-oict-and-lto-network-release-first-open-source-urban-land-registry-solution-for-the https://unhabitat.org/un-habitat-oict-and-lto-network-releas... I came up with a very simple use case: - Ahmed is registered as the rightful owner of Kolula Pushta Road, 25, Kabul. - A month later Mohammad appears and is also registered as the rightful owner of that same place. - Half a year later Zahra, who has never even lived in Afghanistan, wins a court battle and is registered as the rightful owner of that same place. Questions: - Who is the rightful owner? - How does blockchain help here? To skip long discussions, all of the below are possible, and are not solved in any way, shape, or form by blockchain. - Ahmed is the rightful owner. Mohammad bribes local council which enters him as the rightful owner. Zahra is Ahmed's daughter, and has the money to chalenge this at court. - Both Ahmed and Mohammad bribed the local council to become the owners. Zahra inherited this place from a relative and had to win a court battle to prove that she is the rightful owner. - All of them bribed local councils and courts. - All of them are rightful owners, they sold or gifted the property to the next person. However, at one point local authorities intervened and didn't allow Mohammed to transfer the property to Zahra, and she had to go to court.

valarauko 5y ago
I can't speak to the Afghanistan example, but I can see some advantages to a land registry on a blockchain, with the ensuing difficulties as well. For example, one of the places that had toyed with the idea of a blockchain land registry was the state of Andhra Pradesh in India: https://www.ledgerinsights.com/indian-blockchain-land-records-registry-andhra-pradesh/ https://www.ledgerinsights.com/indian-blockchain-land-record... As an illustrative example of the issues with the land registry in the region, a friend of mine wanted to settle some land he'd inherited in his village. He had the deed to several parcels of land owned by the family (registered in his deceased father's name, as the head of the family) in his possession, but it turned out an uncle who lived in the village had 'sold' possession of some parcels of land to somebody else. It took several trips (and bribes) to the district office to even be able to view the land records for the land - which had indeed been modified. Sure, with a legal battle he could have gotten it back, but it would take decades. How might the blockchain help here? Prevent modification of the land records without the express wishes of the deed holder. Court cases involving land are severely backlogged in India, on the scale of decades. I also agree that the blockchain would also create additional problems & burdens.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > I can't speak to the Afghanistan example The example equally applies to any country > He had the deed to several parcels > but it turned out an uncle who lived in the village had 'sold' possession of some parcels of land to somebody else How is this a) different from my examples and b) can be solved by blockchain? Blockchain automagically makes selling of something impossible? > How might the blockchain help here? Prevent modification of the land records without the express wishes of the deed holder. You don't need "modification". All you need is the next entry: "the rightful owner of X is now Y". How is blockchain going to prevent anyone from doing this?
  - valarauko 5y ago
    > Blockchain automagically makes selling of something impossible? This issue here wasn't about selling something - unfortunately in India when it comes to land, possession is nine tenths of the law. It doesn't matter if you're the true legal owner if somebody else claims physical possession and has a vaguely genuine looking piece of paper. Proving or disproving the veracity of that piece of paper takes many many years, and in this aspect India is different from many other places in the world. > How is this a) different from my examples It's not very different from your example, though my anecdote is meant to demonstrate some of the real life issues meant to be addressed. I'm not convinced that a blockchain is the correct solution, but I can understand the motivation. > You don't need "modification". All you need is the next entry: "the rightful owner of X is now Y". How is blockchain going to prevent anyone from doing this? Unless I'm misunderstanding how blockchains work, how can that next entry be created without being signed by my private key (and my consent)? I have no idea if any concrete suggestions have been made around the architecture of land record blockchains, but it could presumably be something like a multisignature wallet: each transaction has to necessarily be signed by the seller, buyer, & government authority. Of course, like I stated in my original comment, I'm not convinced that blockchain is the correct solution here, or how certain issues could be realistically resolved.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Unless I'm misunderstanding how blockchains work, how can that next entry be created without being signed by my private key (and my consent)? Because this concept breaks for any number of use cases, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217681 It even breaks for my example of "Ahmet illegaly obtained ownership in the very beginning".
didibus 5y ago
Maybe I'm confused here, but the blockchain basically will say: Kolula Pushta Road 25 Kabul is owned by Ahmed with Public Key XYZ. For it to be transfered to someone else, you need the private key that can pass validation for public key XYZ. Local officials do not have this private key, only Ahmed does, stored in his personal wallet. Local officials could try to temper with their node of the blockchain ledger, but other nodes would catch it and penalize them. If you need to deal with an edge case, say someone claims Ahmed is dead and they are his heir. Local officials can initiate a transfer where the ledger says "conditional Amhed is dead and thus key XYZ is missing, transferring to his heir Mohammad with key HJL. This could be something that other nodes accept as a transaction. There could be many things here built into the system. You could have the nodes notify some associated email with the current owner Amhed and grant them like 60 days to cancel the transaction. Or you could let Ahmed show back at any time in the future and reclaim the possession, etc. These are the kind of things that a decentralized trusted network running a blockchain could in theory be designed to manage. If you narrow "blockchain" simply to mean a signed ledger of transaction that maintain history then no, it's not really that much better, since it's still centrally managed and operated. It's only once you distributed things and let the network define rules of operations that it can become beneficial in my opinion. Edit: Now that said, even if it was centralized, in theory, the ledger could only be tempered with by people with access to the code of ledger database or its servers. Sometimes you might be able to trust those more so than say any clerk or local official which can only use the software, because they might be better paid or there are less of them and hard to contact and thus bribe. So even in that case, it might be a little better, maybe the local official can enter the transfer in the ledger, but et least if Ahmed goes to court after there is proof that local official X did a transfer on day Y and that Ahmed was the prior owner. Or you could still enforce the need for Ahmed's private key, etc. So there would be more trail or recourse for Ahmed in theory. Then without a blockchain, there'd be no trail, or no need for a key, or it might be possible for users to modify the whole history, etc.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > This could be something... There could be many things... You could have the nodes... you could let... could in theory be designed See how many hypotheticals and "could be"s you're piling on top of blockchain just to make it barely handle the simplest of cases? Moreover, none of these require a blockchain, and can be implemented better, and more efficiently with literally anything else. Even more moreover, your entire premise of "nothing can be done without Ahmed's private key" immediately breaks for any of these: - death, or other incapacitation. Even loss of access to the wallet - power of attorney - co-ownership - time-limited ownership - court orders requiring change of ownership > It's only once you distributed things and let the network define rules of operations that it can become beneficial in my opinion. So far, the "benefit" is: let's have blockchain for the sake of the magical words, and build a tower of babel on top of it to barely manage even the simplest of cases.

valarauko 5y ago

I can't speak to the Afghanistan example, but I can see some advantages to a land registry on a blockchain, with the ensuing difficulties as well. For example, one of the places that had toyed with the idea of a blockchain land registry was the state of Andhra Pradesh in India: https://www.ledgerinsights.com/indian-blockchain-land-records-registry-andhra-pradesh/ https://www.ledgerinsights.com/indian-blockchain-land-record... As an illustrative example of the issues with the land registry in the region, a friend of mine wanted to settle some land he'd inherited in his village. He had the deed to several parcels of land owned by the family (registered in his deceased father's name, as the head of the family) in his possession, but it turned out an uncle who lived in the village had 'sold' possession of some parcels of land to somebody else. It took several trips (and bribes) to the district office to even be able to view the land records for the land - which had indeed been modified. Sure, with a legal battle he could have gotten it back, but it would take decades. How might the blockchain help here? Prevent modification of the land records without the express wishes of the deed holder. Court cases involving land are severely backlogged in India, on the scale of decades. I also agree that the blockchain would also create additional problems & burdens.

dmitriid 5y ago
> I can't speak to the Afghanistan example The example equally applies to any country > He had the deed to several parcels > but it turned out an uncle who lived in the village had 'sold' possession of some parcels of land to somebody else How is this a) different from my examples and b) can be solved by blockchain? Blockchain automagically makes selling of something impossible? > How might the blockchain help here? Prevent modification of the land records without the express wishes of the deed holder. You don't need "modification". All you need is the next entry: "the rightful owner of X is now Y". How is blockchain going to prevent anyone from doing this?
- valarauko 5y ago
  > Blockchain automagically makes selling of something impossible? This issue here wasn't about selling something - unfortunately in India when it comes to land, possession is nine tenths of the law. It doesn't matter if you're the true legal owner if somebody else claims physical possession and has a vaguely genuine looking piece of paper. Proving or disproving the veracity of that piece of paper takes many many years, and in this aspect India is different from many other places in the world. > How is this a) different from my examples It's not very different from your example, though my anecdote is meant to demonstrate some of the real life issues meant to be addressed. I'm not convinced that a blockchain is the correct solution, but I can understand the motivation. > You don't need "modification". All you need is the next entry: "the rightful owner of X is now Y". How is blockchain going to prevent anyone from doing this? Unless I'm misunderstanding how blockchains work, how can that next entry be created without being signed by my private key (and my consent)? I have no idea if any concrete suggestions have been made around the architecture of land record blockchains, but it could presumably be something like a multisignature wallet: each transaction has to necessarily be signed by the seller, buyer, & government authority. Of course, like I stated in my original comment, I'm not convinced that blockchain is the correct solution here, or how certain issues could be realistically resolved.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Unless I'm misunderstanding how blockchains work, how can that next entry be created without being signed by my private key (and my consent)? Because this concept breaks for any number of use cases, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217681 It even breaks for my example of "Ahmet illegaly obtained ownership in the very beginning".

didibus 5y ago

Maybe I'm confused here, but the blockchain basically will say: Kolula Pushta Road 25 Kabul is owned by Ahmed with Public Key XYZ. For it to be transfered to someone else, you need the private key that can pass validation for public key XYZ. Local officials do not have this private key, only Ahmed does, stored in his personal wallet. Local officials could try to temper with their node of the blockchain ledger, but other nodes would catch it and penalize them. If you need to deal with an edge case, say someone claims Ahmed is dead and they are his heir. Local officials can initiate a transfer where the ledger says "conditional Amhed is dead and thus key XYZ is missing, transferring to his heir Mohammad with key HJL. This could be something that other nodes accept as a transaction. There could be many things here built into the system. You could have the nodes notify some associated email with the current owner Amhed and grant them like 60 days to cancel the transaction. Or you could let Ahmed show back at any time in the future and reclaim the possession, etc. These are the kind of things that a decentralized trusted network running a blockchain could in theory be designed to manage. If you narrow "blockchain" simply to mean a signed ledger of transaction that maintain history then no, it's not really that much better, since it's still centrally managed and operated. It's only once you distributed things and let the network define rules of operations that it can become beneficial in my opinion. Edit: Now that said, even if it was centralized, in theory, the ledger could only be tempered with by people with access to the code of ledger database or its servers. Sometimes you might be able to trust those more so than say any clerk or local official which can only use the software, because they might be better paid or there are less of them and hard to contact and thus bribe. So even in that case, it might be a little better, maybe the local official can enter the transfer in the ledger, but et least if Ahmed goes to court after there is proof that local official X did a transfer on day Y and that Ahmed was the prior owner. Or you could still enforce the need for Ahmed's private key, etc. So there would be more trail or recourse for Ahmed in theory. Then without a blockchain, there'd be no trail, or no need for a key, or it might be possible for users to modify the whole history, etc.

dmitriid 5y ago
> This could be something... There could be many things... You could have the nodes... you could let... could in theory be designed See how many hypotheticals and "could be"s you're piling on top of blockchain just to make it barely handle the simplest of cases? Moreover, none of these require a blockchain, and can be implemented better, and more efficiently with literally anything else. Even more moreover, your entire premise of "nothing can be done without Ahmed's private key" immediately breaks for any of these: - death, or other incapacitation. Even loss of access to the wallet - power of attorney - co-ownership - time-limited ownership - court orders requiring change of ownership > It's only once you distributed things and let the network define rules of operations that it can become beneficial in my opinion. So far, the "benefit" is: let's have blockchain for the sake of the magical words, and build a tower of babel on top of it to barely manage even the simplest of cases.