4 ms·

> Land registration on blockchain is not exciting enough to keep making the news but it's being slowly implemented around the world since before the pandemic cr

by paulgb 5y ago

> Land registration on blockchain is not exciting enough to keep making the news but it's being slowly implemented around the world since before the pandemic cryptocurrency bubble. I've been able to find references to pilot programs in Sweden, Ukraine, and Georgia (the country), but is there anywhere that's actually adopted it such that a blockchain-based registry has the same force of law that a traditional registry has? I'm particularly curious how a registry would handle an “I lost my private key” scenario. As I see it, either the blockchain is absolute and losing keys would mean losing the land, or there's another authority who can override the blockchain's version of the truth. In the latter case, it kind of obliterates the advantages of a blockchain.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
If a blockchain has the highest legal authority, there’s no way I’d use it for anything worth more than $1K or so.
epa 5y ago
The non-fungibleness of land requires a central authority to agree to ownership. It may live on chain but if the state does not consider the chain to be the source of record, it's useless. This is why armies exist.
DennisP 5y ago
Years ago I read an article in The Economist about problems with land registries in some third-world countries. It was easy for rich people to bribe the registrar to alter records. Poor people who owned land suddenly wouldn't own it anymore, and couldn't prove otherwise. A blockchain-based registry would prevent such forgery. A master key holder could change ownership, but not without a visible record of the change.
- pornel 5y ago
  In such unstable countries militia can just take your land, and not care what some blockchain says. And if land ownership was actually enforced based on cryptographic proof, then this attack would work even better: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
  - acdha 5y ago
    Blockchains are also perfect for hacking: use someone like NGO’s spyware package or bribe their maid, and the blockchain community will line up to say it was the victim’s fault and there’s no way the community can do anything but recognize the thief as the legitimate owner.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    The idea is not that people have their own keys to transfer ownership. The idea is for the registrar have the keys, but not be able to change ownership without public documentation. And there's a big gap between corrupt officials and roving militias. Here are two more recent articles from The Economist, the first on the general problem (not all of which can be solved with a blockchain) and the second specifically on applying blockchains to the problem. https://archive.md/9afqO https://archive.md/9afqO https://archive.md/yetMv https://archive.md/yetMv And if you don't mind a link from Reason, here's one with a specific example of the issue I'm talking about: > Currently, Honduras stores its title records in a room at the bottom of "dusty stairs" in a "nasty old government building," Factom CEO Peter Kirby said in an interview last year with Reason. Until recently, the room had no door. > "Anybody could go in, pull down a book, open up the spine, and replace a title record with a new title record," Kirby said. Some government bureaucrats have altered the records to assign themselves beachfront property. https://reason.com/2016/04/30/bitfury-desoto-blockchain-land-registry/ https://reason.com/2016/04/30/bitfury-desoto-blockchain-land...
- rchaud 5y ago
  If the land registrar's venality can be exploited, what difference does blockchain make? Laws are enforced by people, not code.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    The difference is that it can't be done in secret. And it's possible that the highest level of government would like to fix the problem, but has trouble with corruption at lower levels. Making corrupt transfers obvious would make them much easier to clean up. In other words, you might as well ask "what difference do notarized documents make?" Anything we can do to establish reliable documentation helps the enforcers of property rights do their job. Blockchains provide reliable records even when you can't trust a critical mass of low-level human record keepers. (And I'm not making this stuff up, see the links I posted in a cousin comment.)
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > The difference is that it can't be done in secret. Who cares? The record is entered by a government official. That's it. The land bow belongs to whoever is written the record. Blockchain doesn't help here at all. There are also multiple other cases around land ownership that blockchain proponents don't consider because blockchain proponents en masse have no idea how reality works.
      - DennisP 5y ago
        > it's possible that the highest level of government would like to fix the problem, but has trouble with corruption at lower levels
        dmitriid 5y ago
        Ah yes. As always with blockchains, everything depends on some nebulous "possibly someone somewhere will perhaps do something, and the only reason they are not already doing it now is because they don't have blockchain"
bko 5y ago
> I'm particularly curious how a registry would handle an “I lost my private key” scenario You can probably solve this with multiple signature wallets. So you have some relationship with custodians where none of them independently can transfer ownership but a certain number of them would be required to do so. These custodians could be contractually obligated to act on your behalf. They can have their own policies for verifying ownership. It's more decentralized than our current system and courts could still play a role in disputes. You have the issue today where ownership is difficult to determine ownership. You can tell how broken the system is when you have to pay title insurance regardless of the strength of your claim today in all (?) states. And the fee is 0.5% to 1% which is considerable. Some states even impose a minimum fee for title insurance and only allow a handful of politically connected insurance providers to offer this product. Of course politicians wouldn't like this solution because the companies already in the system don't want efficiencies and lower costs and they contribute to campaigns. While homeowners don't feel that strongly since although considerable when buying or selling a home, it not top of mind or a frequent occurrence.
- stanleydrew 5y ago
  Just FYI you don't actually have to purchase title insurance. Your lender will require you to purchase it on their behalf, but if you are buying property without a lender there is no requirement to have a policy. Your title/escrow representative will definitely throw a bunch of FUD at you if you decline to purchase though, cause it's a very profitable product for them.

by paulgb 5y ago

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

If a blockchain has the highest legal authority, there’s no way I’d use it for anything worth more than $1K or so.

epa 5y ago

The non-fungibleness of land requires a central authority to agree to ownership. It may live on chain but if the state does not consider the chain to be the source of record, it's useless. This is why armies exist.

DennisP 5y ago

Years ago I read an article in The Economist about problems with land registries in some third-world countries. It was easy for rich people to bribe the registrar to alter records. Poor people who owned land suddenly wouldn't own it anymore, and couldn't prove otherwise. A blockchain-based registry would prevent such forgery. A master key holder could change ownership, but not without a visible record of the change.

pornel 5y ago
In such unstable countries militia can just take your land, and not care what some blockchain says. And if land ownership was actually enforced based on cryptographic proof, then this attack would work even better: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- acdha 5y ago
  Blockchains are also perfect for hacking: use someone like NGO’s spyware package or bribe their maid, and the blockchain community will line up to say it was the victim’s fault and there’s no way the community can do anything but recognize the thief as the legitimate owner.
- DennisP 5y ago
  The idea is not that people have their own keys to transfer ownership. The idea is for the registrar have the keys, but not be able to change ownership without public documentation. And there's a big gap between corrupt officials and roving militias. Here are two more recent articles from The Economist, the first on the general problem (not all of which can be solved with a blockchain) and the second specifically on applying blockchains to the problem. https://archive.md/9afqO https://archive.md/9afqO https://archive.md/yetMv https://archive.md/yetMv And if you don't mind a link from Reason, here's one with a specific example of the issue I'm talking about: > Currently, Honduras stores its title records in a room at the bottom of "dusty stairs" in a "nasty old government building," Factom CEO Peter Kirby said in an interview last year with Reason. Until recently, the room had no door. > "Anybody could go in, pull down a book, open up the spine, and replace a title record with a new title record," Kirby said. Some government bureaucrats have altered the records to assign themselves beachfront property. https://reason.com/2016/04/30/bitfury-desoto-blockchain-land-registry/ https://reason.com/2016/04/30/bitfury-desoto-blockchain-land...
rchaud 5y ago
If the land registrar's venality can be exploited, what difference does blockchain make? Laws are enforced by people, not code.
- DennisP 5y ago
  The difference is that it can't be done in secret. And it's possible that the highest level of government would like to fix the problem, but has trouble with corruption at lower levels. Making corrupt transfers obvious would make them much easier to clean up. In other words, you might as well ask "what difference do notarized documents make?" Anything we can do to establish reliable documentation helps the enforcers of property rights do their job. Blockchains provide reliable records even when you can't trust a critical mass of low-level human record keepers. (And I'm not making this stuff up, see the links I posted in a cousin comment.)
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > The difference is that it can't be done in secret. Who cares? The record is entered by a government official. That's it. The land bow belongs to whoever is written the record. Blockchain doesn't help here at all. There are also multiple other cases around land ownership that blockchain proponents don't consider because blockchain proponents en masse have no idea how reality works.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      > it's possible that the highest level of government would like to fix the problem, but has trouble with corruption at lower levels
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        Ah yes. As always with blockchains, everything depends on some nebulous "possibly someone somewhere will perhaps do something, and the only reason they are not already doing it now is because they don't have blockchain"

bko 5y ago

> I'm particularly curious how a registry would handle an “I lost my private key” scenario You can probably solve this with multiple signature wallets. So you have some relationship with custodians where none of them independently can transfer ownership but a certain number of them would be required to do so. These custodians could be contractually obligated to act on your behalf. They can have their own policies for verifying ownership. It's more decentralized than our current system and courts could still play a role in disputes. You have the issue today where ownership is difficult to determine ownership. You can tell how broken the system is when you have to pay title insurance regardless of the strength of your claim today in all (?) states. And the fee is 0.5% to 1% which is considerable. Some states even impose a minimum fee for title insurance and only allow a handful of politically connected insurance providers to offer this product. Of course politicians wouldn't like this solution because the companies already in the system don't want efficiencies and lower costs and they contribute to campaigns. While homeowners don't feel that strongly since although considerable when buying or selling a home, it not top of mind or a frequent occurrence.

stanleydrew 5y ago
Just FYI you don't actually have to purchase title insurance. Your lender will require you to purchase it on their behalf, but if you are buying property without a lender there is no requirement to have a policy. Your title/escrow representative will definitely throw a bunch of FUD at you if you decline to purchase though, cause it's a very profitable product for them.