3 ms·

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 registr

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"

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"