3 ms·

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 th

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.

3 ms·

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 th

by throwthrowuknow 2y ago

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.