4 ms·

If there's no functioning judiciary to adjudicate contractual disputes, then who is going to effectively and durably tell someone who won and enforce that with

If there's no functioning judiciary to adjudicate contractual disputes, then who is going to effectively and durably tell someone who won and enforce that with the threat of state-level punishment? If a state agency can be bribed, what's claiming to have an NFT going to do for the holder, besides radically increase their property ownership risk if they actually rely on that to be true? The problem with all of these cockamamie blockchain arguments is that they talk about a problem, and then they talk about a (bad, expensive, difficult to use) database that might form part of that problem, but in fact the problem is always far bigger and way more complicated than the choice of the database vendor.

Spooky23 4y ago
One of the interesting aspects of blockchain for many scenarios is that it makes the ledger of ownership or whatever universally available. Hopefully with some of the charlatans going bust this will transform back into a technology instead of some bizarre religion.
- XorNot 4y ago
  What are you even talking about? Who owns what has always been available to everyone, that's how land title deeds work.
  - legutierr 4y ago
    Do they work that way in rural Africa?
    - XorNot 4y ago
      If no one knows if you own something, then you don't own it. Literally the entire concept of "ownership" it based on socialized distribution of that information. Which means anyone within range of an item for ownership rights to matter, by definition, is either aware of your claim by some means and respecting it, or unaware and you now get to see how good your legal or kinetic protections of it are. EDIT: The parent poster is possibly referring to an entirely different problem - many underdeveloped nations have antiquated automation for their land title systems, which makes proving ownership difficult due to a lack of computerization. This is a problem for the owners occupying the land, because they can't prove to third parties this claim is legal and thus use it as collateral for seeking lines of credit. One of the interesting things the Bush Jr. admin of all things spearheaded was a project which looked at funding and helping update these systems in some nations as a means of economic development. But of course, blockchain here is still useless. The problem isn't that the ledger of ownership is "secret" (which doesn't make any sense) it's that it can't be verified because the record keeping is manual. Once again, "blockchain" fixes nothing that a central database wouldn't do faster, cheaper and better.
      - legutierr 4y ago
        > Once again, "blockchain" fixes nothing that a central database wouldn't do faster, cheaper and better. Some things that blockchains would do better than centralized databases in your example: * Blockchains are natively replicated on a massive basis, so you wouldn't have to worry about data loss due to disruption, inaccessibility or incompetent management of the centralized system. * Blockchains cannot be corrupted by bad actors managing the central system. As I've noted in another comment, a Postgres DBA can be bribed to modify a property record and wipe the backups. That can't happen to a blockchain record. * Blockchains can streamline the availability of credit, making it easier for a property owner to leverage their property to grow their business. * Blockchains can increase the liquidity of the property market by providing via smart contract services that might not otherwise be available. For instance: escrow, auction, and mortgage lending.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        TheDong 4y ago
        Many of these seem like downsides. > Blockchains cannot be corrupted by bad actors managing the central system. As I've noted in another comment, a Postgres DBA can be bribed to modify a property record and wipe the backups. That can't happen to a blockchain record. What is to happen if a land-owner drops their cell-phone with their private keys, and now needs to re-gain ownership of their land? Well, either the government/admins can update the blockchain to have a new private key as an owner (in which case they could be bribed to do the same), OR the blockchain will be inaccurate, it will have an old address owning some land even though no one can use that address. See also, a farmer dies and has no beneficiary. Also, how is new land added to the blockchain and old land removed? If the government needs to exercise eminent domain to build a railway, the farm's boundaries are changed. Perhaps the farmer does not want to make the update... so how does the land get updated to align with reality? Natural disasters can also make land change drastically. > Blockchains can streamline the availability of credit, making it easier for a property owner to leverage their property to grow their business This just seems bad. Easier access to credit has not been great. > Blockchains are natively replicated on a massive basis They are if you have a lot of nodes. Which you do if you use bitcoin/eth/whatever (but then the cost of doing anything is incredibly expensive for those in the global south, so it's unusable). If each town builds their own to manage their land, it would be just as replicated as a .json file in s3 people can mirror if they want, which is to say archive.org might save a copy, a few farmers and companies in the area might, but most people would not care. Heck, people mirroring a json dump of a database would be more likely to happen than people figuring out how to spin up weird blockchain software I bet.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    If you read upthread, the example given was that of Asian farmers who struggle with markers being damaged by floods. A cheap device that was able to locate reference points with GPS to some sort of online land registry would potentially avoid these disputes. Blockchain could be a tool to mitigate the limited connectivity available. It’s potentially a way to make information more available and maybe facilitate certain transactions. Again, it’s just a technology. It may make sense as a solution or not.
    - deanCommie 4y ago
      So what happens when a rich baron approaches a farmer who's exact GPS ownership record is registered on the blockchain and says "transfer digital ownership of your land to me, or i kill your sister"? Exactly the same thing as what happens without a blockchain. Weak institutions are absolutely a problem in human society, but they are not solved by decentralization technology.
      - arlcode 4y ago
        Even better for the land owner, they (or more likely a "subcontractor") can force the transfer once and even if courts get involved and decide in favor of the farmer, the records can't be corrected if they are based on blockchain technology. A less violent example would be a fraud based on social engineering.
      - Spooky23 4y ago
        It sounds like you’re throwing hands up and stating that no change is possible. Land records are by definition ledgers. A distributed ledger is also a ledger. Does it protect you from a physical harm? Of course not. Weak institutions are a problem, but technolgy can be used to strengthen them. If you can make facts more available and easier to access, perhaps you can push disputes to local magistrates and improve access to justice.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > It sounds like you’re throwing hands up and stating that no change is possible. No, they're saying there must be a point to the change. If adding blockchain doesn't help in any way, why add it to the mix?
Gigachad 4y ago
There is also a problem of what happens when the farmers computer gets hacked and their land NFT stolen. Are the police meant to roll in and kick out the farmer who clearly still owns the land? Or do they just ignore the blockchain record as it's obviously wrong but not fixable.
legutierr 4y ago
The effectiveness of institutions cannot be measured in black and white. There is a continuum of effectiveness. It is very rare in the developing world that the courts are completely ineffective—it's often just that they are slow, expensive, subject to corrupt influence, etc. They function, to an extent—but they function poorly. How poorly depends on where you are. In addition, bribery and corruption themselves also operate on a continuum. In the example cited in the article, the rich landowners don't just remove the property markers—they wait for flooding to wash them away before illegally expanding their claims. In other words, even in a society where official corruption is rampant, there are still societal limits within which corruption is possible. The impact that blockchains can have is to simplify the tasks that systems of adjudication must undertake in order to enforce property rights and contracts. They also remove individual judgement from most decisions, and make it impossible to alter or destroy records. I'm not saying that blockchains can entirely replace all human governance systems. Rather, blockchains can make it cheaper and easier to maintain functioning and accessible systems for adjudication. They reduce the surface area for the use of individual judgement, and thereby reduce costs and opportunities for the injection of corrupt influence. Yes, many of the things that blockchains can do can also be done by centralized database applications—maintaining property records, for example. Those centralized databases still need to be maintained by trusted parties, however—trusted parties who themselves may be subject to corrupt influence. By moving title records from paper to a centralized database all you are doing is changing who becomes the bribery target—the Postgres DBA instead of the clerk at the records office. With a public blockchain, there is no one you can bribe.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  Yeah, but these kind of ideas don't really work in the complexity of the real world. If somebody hacks a computer and steals my land title token, we need off-chain ways of adjudicating that and fixing the database. So we have exactly the same kind of problems, can't rely on the blockchain for actually saying somebody definitely owns something, and may as well just not have bothered with the blockchain... Unless you want to change it so 'code is law' and if you can hack someone and transfer ownership to yourself, then you legally own it. But I think few want to live in that kind of society...
- 4y ago

Spooky23 4y ago

One of the interesting aspects of blockchain for many scenarios is that it makes the ledger of ownership or whatever universally available. Hopefully with some of the charlatans going bust this will transform back into a technology instead of some bizarre religion.

XorNot 4y ago
What are you even talking about? Who owns what has always been available to everyone, that's how land title deeds work.
- legutierr 4y ago
  Do they work that way in rural Africa?
  - XorNot 4y ago
    If no one knows if you own something, then you don't own it. Literally the entire concept of "ownership" it based on socialized distribution of that information. Which means anyone within range of an item for ownership rights to matter, by definition, is either aware of your claim by some means and respecting it, or unaware and you now get to see how good your legal or kinetic protections of it are. EDIT: The parent poster is possibly referring to an entirely different problem - many underdeveloped nations have antiquated automation for their land title systems, which makes proving ownership difficult due to a lack of computerization. This is a problem for the owners occupying the land, because they can't prove to third parties this claim is legal and thus use it as collateral for seeking lines of credit. One of the interesting things the Bush Jr. admin of all things spearheaded was a project which looked at funding and helping update these systems in some nations as a means of economic development. But of course, blockchain here is still useless. The problem isn't that the ledger of ownership is "secret" (which doesn't make any sense) it's that it can't be verified because the record keeping is manual. Once again, "blockchain" fixes nothing that a central database wouldn't do faster, cheaper and better.
    - legutierr 4y ago
      > Once again, "blockchain" fixes nothing that a central database wouldn't do faster, cheaper and better. Some things that blockchains would do better than centralized databases in your example: * Blockchains are natively replicated on a massive basis, so you wouldn't have to worry about data loss due to disruption, inaccessibility or incompetent management of the centralized system. * Blockchains cannot be corrupted by bad actors managing the central system. As I've noted in another comment, a Postgres DBA can be bribed to modify a property record and wipe the backups. That can't happen to a blockchain record. * Blockchains can streamline the availability of credit, making it easier for a property owner to leverage their property to grow their business. * Blockchains can increase the liquidity of the property market by providing via smart contract services that might not otherwise be available. For instance: escrow, auction, and mortgage lending.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - TheDong 4y ago
        Many of these seem like downsides. > Blockchains cannot be corrupted by bad actors managing the central system. As I've noted in another comment, a Postgres DBA can be bribed to modify a property record and wipe the backups. That can't happen to a blockchain record. What is to happen if a land-owner drops their cell-phone with their private keys, and now needs to re-gain ownership of their land? Well, either the government/admins can update the blockchain to have a new private key as an owner (in which case they could be bribed to do the same), OR the blockchain will be inaccurate, it will have an old address owning some land even though no one can use that address. See also, a farmer dies and has no beneficiary. Also, how is new land added to the blockchain and old land removed? If the government needs to exercise eminent domain to build a railway, the farm's boundaries are changed. Perhaps the farmer does not want to make the update... so how does the land get updated to align with reality? Natural disasters can also make land change drastically. > Blockchains can streamline the availability of credit, making it easier for a property owner to leverage their property to grow their business This just seems bad. Easier access to credit has not been great. > Blockchains are natively replicated on a massive basis They are if you have a lot of nodes. Which you do if you use bitcoin/eth/whatever (but then the cost of doing anything is incredibly expensive for those in the global south, so it's unusable). If each town builds their own to manage their land, it would be just as replicated as a .json file in s3 people can mirror if they want, which is to say archive.org might save a copy, a few farmers and companies in the area might, but most people would not care. Heck, people mirroring a json dump of a database would be more likely to happen than people figuring out how to spin up weird blockchain software I bet.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  If you read upthread, the example given was that of Asian farmers who struggle with markers being damaged by floods. A cheap device that was able to locate reference points with GPS to some sort of online land registry would potentially avoid these disputes. Blockchain could be a tool to mitigate the limited connectivity available. It’s potentially a way to make information more available and maybe facilitate certain transactions. Again, it’s just a technology. It may make sense as a solution or not.
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    So what happens when a rich baron approaches a farmer who's exact GPS ownership record is registered on the blockchain and says "transfer digital ownership of your land to me, or i kill your sister"? Exactly the same thing as what happens without a blockchain. Weak institutions are absolutely a problem in human society, but they are not solved by decentralization technology.
    - arlcode 4y ago
      Even better for the land owner, they (or more likely a "subcontractor") can force the transfer once and even if courts get involved and decide in favor of the farmer, the records can't be corrected if they are based on blockchain technology. A less violent example would be a fraud based on social engineering.
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      It sounds like you’re throwing hands up and stating that no change is possible. Land records are by definition ledgers. A distributed ledger is also a ledger. Does it protect you from a physical harm? Of course not. Weak institutions are a problem, but technolgy can be used to strengthen them. If you can make facts more available and easier to access, perhaps you can push disputes to local magistrates and improve access to justice.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > It sounds like you’re throwing hands up and stating that no change is possible. No, they're saying there must be a point to the change. If adding blockchain doesn't help in any way, why add it to the mix?

Gigachad 4y ago

There is also a problem of what happens when the farmers computer gets hacked and their land NFT stolen. Are the police meant to roll in and kick out the farmer who clearly still owns the land? Or do they just ignore the blockchain record as it's obviously wrong but not fixable.

legutierr 4y ago

The effectiveness of institutions cannot be measured in black and white. There is a continuum of effectiveness. It is very rare in the developing world that the courts are completely ineffective—it's often just that they are slow, expensive, subject to corrupt influence, etc. They function, to an extent—but they function poorly. How poorly depends on where you are. In addition, bribery and corruption themselves also operate on a continuum. In the example cited in the article, the rich landowners don't just remove the property markers—they wait for flooding to wash them away before illegally expanding their claims. In other words, even in a society where official corruption is rampant, there are still societal limits within which corruption is possible. The impact that blockchains can have is to simplify the tasks that systems of adjudication must undertake in order to enforce property rights and contracts. They also remove individual judgement from most decisions, and make it impossible to alter or destroy records. I'm not saying that blockchains can entirely replace all human governance systems. Rather, blockchains can make it cheaper and easier to maintain functioning and accessible systems for adjudication. They reduce the surface area for the use of individual judgement, and thereby reduce costs and opportunities for the injection of corrupt influence. Yes, many of the things that blockchains can do can also be done by centralized database applications—maintaining property records, for example. Those centralized databases still need to be maintained by trusted parties, however—trusted parties who themselves may be subject to corrupt influence. By moving title records from paper to a centralized database all you are doing is changing who becomes the bribery target—the Postgres DBA instead of the clerk at the records office. With a public blockchain, there is no one you can bribe.

stephen_g 4y ago
Yeah, but these kind of ideas don't really work in the complexity of the real world. If somebody hacks a computer and steals my land title token, we need off-chain ways of adjudicating that and fixing the database. So we have exactly the same kind of problems, can't rely on the blockchain for actually saying somebody definitely owns something, and may as well just not have bothered with the blockchain... Unless you want to change it so 'code is law' and if you can hack someone and transfer ownership to yourself, then you legally own it. But I think few want to live in that kind of society...
4y ago