4 ms·

It suits the state to run the land registry: (1) a state is a barrier around land, which can be subdivided; (2) the state has incentive to do this; (3) the stat

It suits the state to run the land registry: (1) a state is a barrier around land, which can be subdivided; (2) the state has incentive to do this; (3) the state can use law and courts to enforce it. There are other problems that need registries where there is no party with inventive and means to act as the state does above. I think the physical-art and wine examples fit that. The key quality of blockchain is that it allows groups to form consensus. Even though they compete on some matters, all stakeholders want the platform to succeed. If it doesn't, their investment is worthless. Hence, Blockchain can act as a synthetic state for enforcing standards and governance of registries. This may go as far as having elections, rulings. The registry data itself could live off-chain. [Sure, there are details to be sorted out here. Maybe the blockchain entity would control all APIs, to allow it to enforce standards against the registries. Those APIs may not necessarily be on the blockchain.] Due to incentives, I don't think the trust model is the same as a standalone registry. One of the many challenges of dealing with data providers at the moment is they can routinely have low data quality and still get paid. Whereas a state would intervene if a land registry fell below standard. "In your other answers, you seem to take it for granted that using a blockchain means everything is interoperable" This is a real problem. I think the foundation problem to solve is how to get somebody to fill a role equivalent to the state in the land registry example. Once you have that, you have a path to solving issues such as this. Thanks for poking at this.

hiq 5y ago
You now seem to describe law (as the often quoted "code as law" hints at), and that a blockchain could replace law where it's insufficient. Do you agree that in these cases, just having adequate laws would make a blockchain useless? > The key quality of blockchain is that it allows groups to form consensus. Even though they compete on some matters, all stakeholders want the platform to succeed. If it doesn't, their investment is worthless. Isn't that a company (or other kind of association) with shareholders? That's not specific to a blockchain, is it? > There are other problems that need registries where there is no party with incentive and means to act as the state does above. Either there are common financial incentives for stakeholders to agree on a registry (you can sell for a higher price if consumers know what they're buying quality products), and it will happen eventually. Or there are none, and it won't. In both cases, having a blockchain does not bring anything. Wine is I think a bad example given that there is already labels such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation_d%27origine_contr%C3%B4l%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation_d%27origine_contr%.... This specific label seems to have its own law, but as soon as you have something resembling trademark law you can have such a label, even if it's designed by a private association of producers. It has its own problems, but I can't think of any that are solved by the use of a blockchain. To summarize, I do agree with you that we should trace production, quality, and better registries can bring a lot. But there is no blockchain in this discussion, so I don't see how you connect the two. Just think about the few comments you wrote in this thread, and what you wish would exist in terms of registries, "synthetic state", and so on. How does removing "blockchain" from this equation make any of what you wrote impossible or even slightly harder?
- cturner 5y ago
  "Do you agree that in these cases, just having adequate laws would make a blockchain useless?" Yes. There are jurisdictions where there is no prospect of this, but the answer to your question is yes. "Isn't that a company" Yes. "as soon as you have something resembling trademark law you can have such a label, even if it's designed by a private association of producers" Appellation d'origine contrôlée does not show chain of custody, so it's easily copied. But it may be possible to project a registry into low-rule-of-law regions without rule of law. "Just think about the few comments you wrote in this thread, and what you wish would exist in terms of registries, "synthetic state", and so on. How does removing "blockchain" from this equation What I am proposing is significantly different. make any of what you wrote impossible or even slightly harder?" Will do. An attraction of a non-blockchain solution - it is so much easier to write robust code: put an API around a central server, write good acceptance tests.

hiq 5y ago

You now seem to describe law (as the often quoted "code as law" hints at), and that a blockchain could replace law where it's insufficient. Do you agree that in these cases, just having adequate laws would make a blockchain useless? > The key quality of blockchain is that it allows groups to form consensus. Even though they compete on some matters, all stakeholders want the platform to succeed. If it doesn't, their investment is worthless. Isn't that a company (or other kind of association) with shareholders? That's not specific to a blockchain, is it? > There are other problems that need registries where there is no party with incentive and means to act as the state does above. Either there are common financial incentives for stakeholders to agree on a registry (you can sell for a higher price if consumers know what they're buying quality products), and it will happen eventually. Or there are none, and it won't. In both cases, having a blockchain does not bring anything. Wine is I think a bad example given that there is already labels such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation_d%27origine_contr%C3%B4l%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation_d%27origine_contr%.... This specific label seems to have its own law, but as soon as you have something resembling trademark law you can have such a label, even if it's designed by a private association of producers. It has its own problems, but I can't think of any that are solved by the use of a blockchain. To summarize, I do agree with you that we should trace production, quality, and better registries can bring a lot. But there is no blockchain in this discussion, so I don't see how you connect the two. Just think about the few comments you wrote in this thread, and what you wish would exist in terms of registries, "synthetic state", and so on. How does removing "blockchain" from this equation make any of what you wrote impossible or even slightly harder?

cturner 5y ago
"Do you agree that in these cases, just having adequate laws would make a blockchain useless?" Yes. There are jurisdictions where there is no prospect of this, but the answer to your question is yes. "Isn't that a company" Yes. "as soon as you have something resembling trademark law you can have such a label, even if it's designed by a private association of producers" Appellation d'origine contrôlée does not show chain of custody, so it's easily copied. But it may be possible to project a registry into low-rule-of-law regions without rule of law. "Just think about the few comments you wrote in this thread, and what you wish would exist in terms of registries, "synthetic state", and so on. How does removing "blockchain" from this equation What I am proposing is significantly different. make any of what you wrote impossible or even slightly harder?" Will do. An attraction of a non-blockchain solution - it is so much easier to write robust code: put an API around a central server, write good acceptance tests.