4 ms·

>So I do think blockchains do have some unique use cases where they would be beneficial (e.g. I think property (land, home, car) titles is a good one, car accid

>So I do think blockchains do have some unique use cases where they would be beneficial (e.g. I think property (land, home, car) titles is a good one, car accident/repair history) All of those use cases are subject to the Oracle Problem (you have to trust whoever initially put the information on the blockchain, and also that nothing happened later to the real world entity that wasn't captured on the blockchain). As such, they are horrible use cases for blockchain.

CharlieDigital 4y ago
There is a difference in that the trust is now distributed as opposed to centralized. > you have to trust whoever initially put the information on the blockchain In all of those cases, that trust is already inherent in the documents filed by the entities/institutions. But the thing is, they also become gatekeepers of those records (e.g. titles) which seems to be a great use case for a distributed system. > and also that nothing happened later to the real world entity that wasn't captured on the blockchain This is also the case with paper records; your car title isn't automatically tied to whether your car is totaled or sold. You update the record based on a change in the status of the material object it represents whether it is a paper or digital update or a blockchain update. > they are horrible use cases for blockchain I'd disagree; having an immutable record of ownership is valuable; especially so in countries where a centralized institution may not be trustworthy. Especially with transactions around something like a car where there are multiple entities that are reliant on the record (your state DMV (and multiple sub-agencies), an electronic toll vendor, your insurance provider, your loan provider, maybe your landlord for an assigned parking space), having a distributed ledger to access and immutably modify the data would be a boon. For titles on homes which are subject to liens, it would be a great consumer benefit to be able to access this information without paying several hundred dollars for a title search.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > I'd disagree; having an immutable record of ownership is valuable; especially so in countries where a centralized institution may not be trustworthy. The idea that the blockchain can save you in this situation seems like pure fantasy to me. A record of ownership is only useful if the government is willing to enforce it. Otherwise it's not worth the paper/bits it's written on. > For titles on homes which are subject to liens, it would be a great consumer benefit to be able to access this information without paying several hundred dollars for a title search. This is useful, but doesn't require blockchain at all. Just a public API/database and a set of legislation that would force use of said API. A blockchain would require the same legislation anyways to ensure completeness.

CharlieDigital 4y ago

There is a difference in that the trust is now distributed as opposed to centralized. > you have to trust whoever initially put the information on the blockchain In all of those cases, that trust is already inherent in the documents filed by the entities/institutions. But the thing is, they also become gatekeepers of those records (e.g. titles) which seems to be a great use case for a distributed system. > and also that nothing happened later to the real world entity that wasn't captured on the blockchain This is also the case with paper records; your car title isn't automatically tied to whether your car is totaled or sold. You update the record based on a change in the status of the material object it represents whether it is a paper or digital update or a blockchain update. > they are horrible use cases for blockchain I'd disagree; having an immutable record of ownership is valuable; especially so in countries where a centralized institution may not be trustworthy. Especially with transactions around something like a car where there are multiple entities that are reliant on the record (your state DMV (and multiple sub-agencies), an electronic toll vendor, your insurance provider, your loan provider, maybe your landlord for an assigned parking space), having a distributed ledger to access and immutably modify the data would be a boon. For titles on homes which are subject to liens, it would be a great consumer benefit to be able to access this information without paying several hundred dollars for a title search.

AlexandrB 4y ago
> I'd disagree; having an immutable record of ownership is valuable; especially so in countries where a centralized institution may not be trustworthy. The idea that the blockchain can save you in this situation seems like pure fantasy to me. A record of ownership is only useful if the government is willing to enforce it. Otherwise it's not worth the paper/bits it's written on. > For titles on homes which are subject to liens, it would be a great consumer benefit to be able to access this information without paying several hundred dollars for a title search. This is useful, but doesn't require blockchain at all. Just a public API/database and a set of legislation that would force use of said API. A blockchain would require the same legislation anyways to ensure completeness.