5 ms·

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

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.
        2y ago
- solardev 2y ago
  Without decentralization, doesn't that mean you don't even need a 51% attack... the central authority can just rewrite the ledger history at will, the same as any database or git history?
  - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    It’s a government agency, I don’t think they’re doing this with the intent of giving up that authority.
    - solardev 2y ago
      So what does the blockchain actually accomplish...?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Nothing. As is tradition.
      - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
        Just a different way of having an auditable and verifiable transaction history. Maybe it’s easier to share the blockchain than it would be to share copies of the database? They could be leveraging the existing tools for copying and verifying it, perhaps one of the requirements is that end users or dealers need to have access to a local copy that they can use to check the ownership history of a vehicle before a purchase? Everyone loves to hate on anything blockchain but it’s a useful data structure.
        solardev 2y ago
        I don't think this really makes sense...? A blockchain is awesome for decentralized verification of a shared ledger, but without that, it's no different than a line by line history of writes in a text file. If a dealer has a local copy of the ledger but isn't really part of the blockchain consensus, it's no different than having a read only history in any other structure. It doesn't matter what format you store it in, it's more a question of who can rewrite history. If the central authority can do so at will and nobody can disagree with them, it nullifies the benefits of using a blockchain. The dealer can say "it doesn't match our records", sure, but they can say that no matter if a blockchain or a bunch of CSVs are used. If the DMV then says sorry, our records are the only authoritative ones, please overwrite yours... then we're right back where we started. I don't think people hate blockchains as a data structure, but as misapplied snake oil that doesn't solve the underlying problems. This doesn't create a real audit trail as much as the illusion of one. A proper audit trail would require the authoritative history to reside elsewhere, in some independent third party that the DMV cannot unilaterally overwrite.

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.
        2y ago
solardev 2y ago
Without decentralization, doesn't that mean you don't even need a 51% attack... the central authority can just rewrite the ledger history at will, the same as any database or git history?
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  It’s a government agency, I don’t think they’re doing this with the intent of giving up that authority.
  - solardev 2y ago
    So what does the blockchain actually accomplish...?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Nothing. As is tradition.
    - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
      Just a different way of having an auditable and verifiable transaction history. Maybe it’s easier to share the blockchain than it would be to share copies of the database? They could be leveraging the existing tools for copying and verifying it, perhaps one of the requirements is that end users or dealers need to have access to a local copy that they can use to check the ownership history of a vehicle before a purchase? Everyone loves to hate on anything blockchain but it’s a useful data structure.
      - solardev 2y ago
        I don't think this really makes sense...? A blockchain is awesome for decentralized verification of a shared ledger, but without that, it's no different than a line by line history of writes in a text file. If a dealer has a local copy of the ledger but isn't really part of the blockchain consensus, it's no different than having a read only history in any other structure. It doesn't matter what format you store it in, it's more a question of who can rewrite history. If the central authority can do so at will and nobody can disagree with them, it nullifies the benefits of using a blockchain. The dealer can say "it doesn't match our records", sure, but they can say that no matter if a blockchain or a bunch of CSVs are used. If the DMV then says sorry, our records are the only authoritative ones, please overwrite yours... then we're right back where we started. I don't think people hate blockchains as a data structure, but as misapplied snake oil that doesn't solve the underlying problems. This doesn't create a real audit trail as much as the illusion of one. A proper audit trail would require the authoritative history to reside elsewhere, in some independent third party that the DMV cannot unilaterally overwrite.