3 ms·
> Some of the "better" arguments i've seen are obsoleting/maintaining anything that is quasi public record. Think all sorts of land/legal transactions where it'
by namdnay 4y ago
> Some of the "better" arguments i've seen are obsoleting/maintaining anything that is quasi public record. Think all sorts of land/legal transactions where it's basically "once x and y and z have said yes, process transaction from x to z"
The validity of any transaction can only be determined and guaranteed by the state, so honestly just having the state host a central database seems much easier
- josephg 4y agoI’d be quite happy seeing the state host a signed, public append only log for records like this. Basically blockchain without the mining. Anyone can subscribe, but only the state (or anyone paying a nominal fee per byte) can write. It could be used for notarising contracts, recording crop yields, declaring bankruptcies, listing property sales - you name it. Pay $1/kb and your data will be stored forever. Anyone can replicate the changes to their own computer to validate the hashes and prove the government isn’t changing anything. I think that would capture 90% of the value of a blockchain with almost none of blockchain’s downsides and it would be trivially easy to implement.
- namdnay 4y agoyup, basically Git + a PR submission system