4 ms·

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.
  - EFreethought 4y ago
    When you say "blockchain", are you referring to something like bitcoin? In other words, a proof of work blockchain? If we put all the world's data on a POW blockchain, we will cook the planet very quickly, and we won't have any energy for anything else.

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.
- EFreethought 4y ago
  When you say "blockchain", are you referring to something like bitcoin? In other words, a proof of work blockchain? If we put all the world's data on a POW blockchain, we will cook the planet very quickly, and we won't have any energy for anything else.