3 ms·

I see two possible situations in what you describe: * Ownership of a land/property is tied directly to ownership of a cryptocurrency. In that case getting hack

I see two possible situations in what you describe: * Ownership of a land/property is tied directly to ownership of a cryptocurrency. In that case getting hacked means people can steal your house. Forgetting your password means losing your house/not being able to sell your house again. This is unacceptable and will never happen in reality. * Ownership of a land/property is not tied to cryptocurrency, but vaguely relates to it. It still sits in a blockchain, but does not correspond exactly with property ownership as ownership might diverge from true ownership in case of theft. Real ownership is still managed centrally by the government, and all of the property law around this will still need to happen all the same. Nothing changes, except we now have a blockchain. Am I missing something, or is there more to this?

dcolkitt 5y ago
> In that case getting hacked means people can steal your house... This is unacceptable and will never happen in reality. We already have institutions which entrust billions in assets based on the ability to keep private keys safe. Coinbase, BlockFi, Celsius, Next, Grayscale, etc. all are trusted by millions to hold crypto assets in custody. In many cases insurers are even willing to write policies against the risk of hacks. Existing DeFi protocols have tens of billions locked inside their smart contracts. I'm not saying that everyone will be comfortable with the risk. But clearly some non-trivial fraction of insitutional investors are already comfortable enough with crypto security technology and custodial services to trust it with "real money"
- mytherin 5y ago
  I see. So this is specifically about speculation, not about replacing all property ownership. This then involves trusting a central authority (the DOA) to grant ownership of the property to who-ever owns the NFT (which can be seen as a derivative from the property). Then the idea is that transfer of ownership through the blockchain is cheaper faster than actual transfer of ownership of a property through the government. That is interesting, but it seems to me that the legal problems here are far from trivial. How do you, as someone that purchases a NFT that is supposed to grant you ownership of a property, supposed to be ensured that you are actually purchasing a property? What if the DOA simply refuses to give it to you? Are you trusting a central authority without any legal fallback? There are also laws on eviction. It's not as simple as "if you get a mortgage and don't pay for a month, the house belongs to the bank". The government will not be pleased if people try to wriggle their way around those laws using a setup like this. There is strong regulation in this domain for a reason.
- leifg 5y ago
  It's interesting how the conversation in so many of these threads go from. Art ownership -> Property ownership -> Digital assets Only because blockchains somehow work for digital assets, doesn't mean they work for real world assets. In fact the whole blog is specifically about blockchain use cases beyond digital assets (See the initial post: https://schlockchain.substack.com/p/the-statement https://schlockchain.substack.com/p/the-statement)

dcolkitt 5y ago

> In that case getting hacked means people can steal your house... This is unacceptable and will never happen in reality. We already have institutions which entrust billions in assets based on the ability to keep private keys safe. Coinbase, BlockFi, Celsius, Next, Grayscale, etc. all are trusted by millions to hold crypto assets in custody. In many cases insurers are even willing to write policies against the risk of hacks. Existing DeFi protocols have tens of billions locked inside their smart contracts. I'm not saying that everyone will be comfortable with the risk. But clearly some non-trivial fraction of insitutional investors are already comfortable enough with crypto security technology and custodial services to trust it with "real money"

mytherin 5y ago
I see. So this is specifically about speculation, not about replacing all property ownership. This then involves trusting a central authority (the DOA) to grant ownership of the property to who-ever owns the NFT (which can be seen as a derivative from the property). Then the idea is that transfer of ownership through the blockchain is cheaper faster than actual transfer of ownership of a property through the government. That is interesting, but it seems to me that the legal problems here are far from trivial. How do you, as someone that purchases a NFT that is supposed to grant you ownership of a property, supposed to be ensured that you are actually purchasing a property? What if the DOA simply refuses to give it to you? Are you trusting a central authority without any legal fallback? There are also laws on eviction. It's not as simple as "if you get a mortgage and don't pay for a month, the house belongs to the bank". The government will not be pleased if people try to wriggle their way around those laws using a setup like this. There is strong regulation in this domain for a reason.
leifg 5y ago
It's interesting how the conversation in so many of these threads go from. Art ownership -> Property ownership -> Digital assets Only because blockchains somehow work for digital assets, doesn't mean they work for real world assets. In fact the whole blog is specifically about blockchain use cases beyond digital assets (See the initial post: https://schlockchain.substack.com/p/the-statement https://schlockchain.substack.com/p/the-statement)