4 ms·
If the title of your house was on a blockchain, the title would still be recorded in your county's system. The blockchain is just a ledger, it's up to people to
by intotheabyss 5y ago
If the title of your house was on a blockchain, the title would still be recorded in your county's system. The blockchain is just a ledger, it's up to people to come to agreement on if they trust that ledger or not. The whole point of having your house title on-chain isn't to replace the traditional courts, it's to add additional features to your title and allow you to use that asset's value in decentralized finance more easily. If you lose your keys to your title, you would have to use the traditional court system to replace the title on-chain with severe legal repercussions if you're lying. You could also include a blacklist feature in the house title's onchain contract. It doesn't matter if it's a centralized system either (even if it's on-chain), because the only point of putting it on-chain is to make illiquid assets more liquid because now those assets can be be programmed, used and traded in global decentralized financial markets in web3 24/7, globally.
- nradov 5y agoWhat's the point? I can already get a mortgage refinance or Heloc super easy if I want to. Where are the additional features?
- wpietri 5y agoI often ask questions like this, and the most popular non-answers are, 1) think of the possibilities, 2) this technology is just getting started, so you can't judge it yet, and 3) unverifiable stories about some use case that is at best extremely narrow and may well be hogwash. And when stating the imagined gains, the costs are always assumed to be zero. We know not to trust our data to a version 0.3 app, but somehow that's a fine thing to do with one's house or life savings.
- dgb23 5y agoIt seems to be hype and speculation in its purest form. Pure as in having no actual utility. Reminds me of things like high frequency trading. Just expensive computation that extracts value and distracts people. With the difference that high frequency trading is less inherently dumb and feels more like an exploit rather than a scheme.
- binibus 5y agoIn fact, the profits of high frequency trading can be seen as rewards for filling the market with liquidity, so it's not strictly an exploit.
- wpietri 5y agoIs there much evidence that HFT yields in better results for those making economically meaningful trades? A theoretical increase in liquidity may not matter in already liquid markets, and if it does, it's not clear to me that the end-user gains are enough to justify the negative effects.
- dale_glass 5y agoI don't get it. If the on-chain house title isn't the real one, treated as the ultimate authority, why would anybody want to buy it? Nobody in the right mind would want to pay for something that doesn't actually confer ownership. At that point, there's no benefit over just selling your house the normal way because all crypto does is adding extra steps to an existing process. If the on-chain house title is the ultimate authority, then the logical conclusion that any way of obtaining it is valid -- if I manage to get it, then I should be able to kick you out of your house, since now I possess the title. The first option seems useless/fraudulent, and the second incredibly awful security-wise. Fall for a scam/virus/trojan once, and there goes all your stuff.