6 ms·

A question I have is, is this a real implementation of blockchain? Or a marketing implementation. If it’s real, and someone somehow steals someone else’s title

by jc_811 2y ago

A question I have is, is this a real implementation of blockchain? Or a marketing implementation. If it’s real, and someone somehow steals someone else’s title (eg elderly scam or something of the sort) - does this mean there’s no recourse? Or is the state a centralized power that can re-assign titles at will? In that case, would a strongly managed traditional database have worked? Genuinely trying to understand what blockchain brings to to the table here when taking into account real world issues and mistakes.

dmazzoni 2y ago
I sincerely hope this is just marketing, because none of the actual properties of blockchain make any sense whatsoever for this type of application. Blockchain is decentralized. Why would you want that property for vehicle ownership that's specific to one department of a particular U.S. state? Having servers around the world sounds like a security risk, not an actual benefit to Californians. Blockchain transactions are permanent. How is that helpful if a title is stolen, or transferred fraudulently, or illegally? What if a transaction contains sensitive or private information, or inappropriate language?
- cschneid 2y ago
  also there are legal ways to force somebody to give up a title without their consent. Lawsuits, divorce and so on.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    That’s why blockchain is dumb. It doesn’t replace the law. It’s performance art business logic that still has to adhere to the law.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  Blockchains don’t have to be decentralized and you can undo a transaction by making a new transaction that reverses the changes.
  - 7thaccount 2y ago
    What's the point than?
    - admax88qqq 2y ago
      Auditable history.
      - Legend2440 2y ago
        You don't need blockchain for that, you can just use git.
        admax88qqq 2y ago
        Git is a blockchain
        Legend2440 2y ago
        No; it's a hash tree. Blockchain is also a hash tree, but not all hash trees are blockchain. They've been around since the 70s.
        admax88qqq 2y ago
        They’re functionally equivalent these days. Blockchain has become marketing speak mostly. But if you squint a little. The history of a git branch sure looks a lot like a blockchain (or vice versa). You have a ledger of records (commits), that are append only, and each commit contains a merkle or hash tree (git tree object) So yeah git is basically a blockchain.
        talldayo 2y ago
        I have to squint pretty hard to convince myself. Git itself really only covers the auditing part, which any static service will do by virtue of storing data. Git repos aren't decentralized, they rely entirely on external software like GPG and SSH to enforce identity and have no native consensus mechanism. They also don't protect from erasing transactional history which is kinda seen as the cardinal sin of ledger-based economics. If you wanted to be reductive you could try to argue that all linked lists or hashmaps are a blockchain once compiled. I think that's silly, bordering on revisionism. Git wasn't programmed as a Blockchain, and Blockchains weren't intended to resemble Git.
sdwr 2y ago
Obviously, the features that combat fraud are public attention and immutable history. The most important feature is the history of transactions, which won't be able to be modified by state employees, even once mistakes are amended. I'm disappointed that people who should be able to see through the hype, into the actual tech, are falling for the anti-hype in the same reflexive, unthinking manner as those falling for the actual hype.
- tracker1 2y ago
  Decision makers are more likely to fall for the marketing fluff of the consulting companies pushing this stuff over their own employees telling them they don't need it. Having worked for an election services company, it truly irked me every time "blockchain" was mentioned to solve X problems. Unless you're in an untrusted, adversarial context with multiple parties, blockchain gets you nothing over just regular data signing with public-private keys/certs, but the added problems of latency and compute costs. This is true of most regulatory situations. Blockchain could be something the banks and federal reserve could use for exchanges instead of the existing networks, but that's a very different use case.
  - sundbry 2y ago
    Electronic voting is an untrusted, adversarial context. It seems you are part of the problem there, not the solution.
    - solardev 2y ago
      Indeed, they are some of the least secure systems out there, black boxes where votes go to die. One was run by someone who was proudly fundraising for Bush and later accused of insider trading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions?wpr... The industry was trying very hard to monopolize before antitrust stopped them. The whole entire industry is a threat to democracy and should be made illegal and replaced with auditable paper trails. Or yes, even a blockchain would be safer, but that wouldn't be anonymous.
    - 2y ago
LorenPechtel 2y ago
Because "blockchain" is more than crypto. It's about an immutable, verifiable transaction history.
- goalonetwo 2y ago
  you only need that if you have multiple adversarial parties that all want to commit to a shared immutable history. This is a use case with a single source of truth (the DMV). So again, why do we need a blockchain?
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  To make sure the DMV does not alter their own records? They are the ultimate authority on the topic.
  - Scramblejams 2y ago
    Insider threat?

by jc_811 2y ago

dmazzoni 2y ago

I sincerely hope this is just marketing, because none of the actual properties of blockchain make any sense whatsoever for this type of application. Blockchain is decentralized. Why would you want that property for vehicle ownership that's specific to one department of a particular U.S. state? Having servers around the world sounds like a security risk, not an actual benefit to Californians. Blockchain transactions are permanent. How is that helpful if a title is stolen, or transferred fraudulently, or illegally? What if a transaction contains sensitive or private information, or inappropriate language?

cschneid 2y ago
also there are legal ways to force somebody to give up a title without their consent. Lawsuits, divorce and so on.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  That’s why blockchain is dumb. It doesn’t replace the law. It’s performance art business logic that still has to adhere to the law.
throwthrowuknow 2y ago
Blockchains don’t have to be decentralized and you can undo a transaction by making a new transaction that reverses the changes.
- 7thaccount 2y ago
  What's the point than?
  - admax88qqq 2y ago
    Auditable history.
    - Legend2440 2y ago
      You don't need blockchain for that, you can just use git.
      - admax88qqq 2y ago
        Git is a blockchain
        Legend2440 2y ago
        No; it's a hash tree. Blockchain is also a hash tree, but not all hash trees are blockchain. They've been around since the 70s.
        admax88qqq 2y ago
        They’re functionally equivalent these days. Blockchain has become marketing speak mostly. But if you squint a little. The history of a git branch sure looks a lot like a blockchain (or vice versa). You have a ledger of records (commits), that are append only, and each commit contains a merkle or hash tree (git tree object) So yeah git is basically a blockchain.
        talldayo 2y ago
        I have to squint pretty hard to convince myself. Git itself really only covers the auditing part, which any static service will do by virtue of storing data. Git repos aren't decentralized, they rely entirely on external software like GPG and SSH to enforce identity and have no native consensus mechanism. They also don't protect from erasing transactional history which is kinda seen as the cardinal sin of ledger-based economics. If you wanted to be reductive you could try to argue that all linked lists or hashmaps are a blockchain once compiled. I think that's silly, bordering on revisionism. Git wasn't programmed as a Blockchain, and Blockchains weren't intended to resemble Git.

sdwr 2y ago

Obviously, the features that combat fraud are public attention and immutable history. The most important feature is the history of transactions, which won't be able to be modified by state employees, even once mistakes are amended. I'm disappointed that people who should be able to see through the hype, into the actual tech, are falling for the anti-hype in the same reflexive, unthinking manner as those falling for the actual hype.

tracker1 2y ago
Decision makers are more likely to fall for the marketing fluff of the consulting companies pushing this stuff over their own employees telling them they don't need it. Having worked for an election services company, it truly irked me every time "blockchain" was mentioned to solve X problems. Unless you're in an untrusted, adversarial context with multiple parties, blockchain gets you nothing over just regular data signing with public-private keys/certs, but the added problems of latency and compute costs. This is true of most regulatory situations. Blockchain could be something the banks and federal reserve could use for exchanges instead of the existing networks, but that's a very different use case.
- sundbry 2y ago
  Electronic voting is an untrusted, adversarial context. It seems you are part of the problem there, not the solution.
  - solardev 2y ago
    Indeed, they are some of the least secure systems out there, black boxes where votes go to die. One was run by someone who was proudly fundraising for Bush and later accused of insider trading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions?wpr... The industry was trying very hard to monopolize before antitrust stopped them. The whole entire industry is a threat to democracy and should be made illegal and replaced with auditable paper trails. Or yes, even a blockchain would be safer, but that wouldn't be anonymous.
  - 2y ago

LorenPechtel 2y ago

Because "blockchain" is more than crypto. It's about an immutable, verifiable transaction history.

goalonetwo 2y ago
you only need that if you have multiple adversarial parties that all want to commit to a shared immutable history. This is a use case with a single source of truth (the DMV). So again, why do we need a blockchain?
0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
To make sure the DMV does not alter their own records? They are the ultimate authority on the topic.
- Scramblejams 2y ago
  Insider threat?