5 ms·

A good place to look for middleman that can be cut with blockchain is the exchange between two random people that a third party needs to trust. The example wit

A good place to look for middleman that can be cut with blockchain is the exchange between two random people that a third party needs to trust. The example with the email in the court is a bad example because it is not the court's job to prove whether or not an email is fraudulent. It is the opposing counsel. Non digital evidence works the same way. This is why you have expert witnesses to verify or invalidate some evidence. A better example would be real estate transactions. It would be best for everyone involved to move real estate transactions to the blockchain. I want to know that John Doe is the real owner of a house when I pay him $500k for the house. The government handles this with paper and their databases now but it would be far more efficient to do this on the blockchain.

vlovich123 4y ago
I'm still not convinced blockchain is a good solution here. Why is a cryptographic signature by each party that they acknowledge the transfer insufficient? About the only arguable place is maybe escrow but the marginal increase in cost of traditional escrow vs blockchain seems insignificant vs the magnitudes of monies being discussed. Additionally, if I make a mistake and send things to the wrong account, with escrow & traditional banking I probably can unwind that transaction. With blockchain, not so much.
- aliswe 4y ago
  to me a blockchain is very similar to a cryptographic signature used in a recursive manner, meaning that a new document which is based on the previous document history includes the signatures for all those documents and signs it all in order to prove that the chain has not been tampered with. im not at all a blockchain proponent but i really see a usecase here. but then again i see even git as a blockchain so its not that it would be expensive or exciting to get it working. (Dubai reportedly uses blockchain for their property register) this is actually a common attack vector in countries like Pakistan were someone falsifies a stamped court document that actually the current owner of a certain property is not valid because he bought it from someone who did not actually own the property. the rightful owner is therefor me. (called qabza in urdu)
prepend 4y ago
> The example with the email in the court is a bad example because it is not the court's job to prove whether or not an email is fraudulent. But it’s good because it is acceptable, predictable, durable, and low cost. Blockchain is solving for a problem that doesn’t exist as there aren’t a ton of fraud cases in this area (accused nor proven). So perhaps there’s an argument for the new uses that would be possible without the risk of fraud but they aren’t brought up. Blockchain is more expensive than PKI and digital signatures so why propose it over a simple government PKI issuer? If the goal is to be useful in courts then certainly a government issuer is better as it’s trusted. In this case blockchain is inferior to just including PKI with every drivers license, passport, and government id. > A better example would be real estate transactions. It would be best for everyone involved to move real estate transactions to the blockchain. Not better for the consumer who has to pay more for this new feature. This is already done by closing attorneys and title search companies. Forcing local counties in the US to provide APIs is much more effective than a blockchain because the county deed office is the legal authority. The issue isn’t trust, the issue is assess. In a world where counties aren’t the source of truth for deeds a blockchain would be nice, although having a single, National registrar would be better. But since you have to ask the county if John Doe is the real owner, blockchains don’t help with this. A simple free, http, unencrypted, rest api is needed. As an engineer this bugs me because these problems are better solved with technologies other than blockchain.
- Nursie 4y ago
  You've run into a person here who has confused "a blockchain would fix this" with "better systems, standards and openness would fix this, the exact implementation doesn't matter so much". I ran into one last week talking about concert tickets. Apparently we could fix the problems of ticketmaster dominance by using a blockchain. When I proposed that an API+DB system would do the job just as well, and we have an authority in the picture already (the venue operator) so distributed trust was overkill, I was told "good luck getting ticketmaster to use your API system". Because apparently the data-structure and trust model now dictate how the market works, and if we just chant "blockchain" loud enough, that'll magically fix monopoly issues. It's very weird thinking. I mean, sure, if we force ticket issuing, or the land registry or whatever onto a public blockchain solution, that would address some of the issues. But the improvement comes from the forcing, not the specific tech...

vlovich123 4y ago

I'm still not convinced blockchain is a good solution here. Why is a cryptographic signature by each party that they acknowledge the transfer insufficient? About the only arguable place is maybe escrow but the marginal increase in cost of traditional escrow vs blockchain seems insignificant vs the magnitudes of monies being discussed. Additionally, if I make a mistake and send things to the wrong account, with escrow & traditional banking I probably can unwind that transaction. With blockchain, not so much.

aliswe 4y ago
to me a blockchain is very similar to a cryptographic signature used in a recursive manner, meaning that a new document which is based on the previous document history includes the signatures for all those documents and signs it all in order to prove that the chain has not been tampered with. im not at all a blockchain proponent but i really see a usecase here. but then again i see even git as a blockchain so its not that it would be expensive or exciting to get it working. (Dubai reportedly uses blockchain for their property register) this is actually a common attack vector in countries like Pakistan were someone falsifies a stamped court document that actually the current owner of a certain property is not valid because he bought it from someone who did not actually own the property. the rightful owner is therefor me. (called qabza in urdu)

prepend 4y ago

> The example with the email in the court is a bad example because it is not the court's job to prove whether or not an email is fraudulent. But it’s good because it is acceptable, predictable, durable, and low cost. Blockchain is solving for a problem that doesn’t exist as there aren’t a ton of fraud cases in this area (accused nor proven). So perhaps there’s an argument for the new uses that would be possible without the risk of fraud but they aren’t brought up. Blockchain is more expensive than PKI and digital signatures so why propose it over a simple government PKI issuer? If the goal is to be useful in courts then certainly a government issuer is better as it’s trusted. In this case blockchain is inferior to just including PKI with every drivers license, passport, and government id. > A better example would be real estate transactions. It would be best for everyone involved to move real estate transactions to the blockchain. Not better for the consumer who has to pay more for this new feature. This is already done by closing attorneys and title search companies. Forcing local counties in the US to provide APIs is much more effective than a blockchain because the county deed office is the legal authority. The issue isn’t trust, the issue is assess. In a world where counties aren’t the source of truth for deeds a blockchain would be nice, although having a single, National registrar would be better. But since you have to ask the county if John Doe is the real owner, blockchains don’t help with this. A simple free, http, unencrypted, rest api is needed. As an engineer this bugs me because these problems are better solved with technologies other than blockchain.

Nursie 4y ago
You've run into a person here who has confused "a blockchain would fix this" with "better systems, standards and openness would fix this, the exact implementation doesn't matter so much". I ran into one last week talking about concert tickets. Apparently we could fix the problems of ticketmaster dominance by using a blockchain. When I proposed that an API+DB system would do the job just as well, and we have an authority in the picture already (the venue operator) so distributed trust was overkill, I was told "good luck getting ticketmaster to use your API system". Because apparently the data-structure and trust model now dictate how the market works, and if we just chant "blockchain" loud enough, that'll magically fix monopoly issues. It's very weird thinking. I mean, sure, if we force ticket issuing, or the land registry or whatever onto a public blockchain solution, that would address some of the issues. But the improvement comes from the forcing, not the specific tech...